Consumers’ perceptions and behavior towards Fair-‐Trade and Organic products

(1)

Consumers’ perceptions and

behavior towards Fair-‐Trade

and Organic products

Does the social setting change the results?

6/24/2014

University of Groningen L.M. Gerretsen

(2)

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Master Thesis Marketing Management

MSc Marketing

June 24, 2014

Leontien Gerretsen

HW Mesdagstraat 14

9718 HG Groningen

l.m.gerretsen@student.rug.nl

Telnr.: +31645199793

Studentnumber: s1908383

Supervisor: Dr. M. Keizer

Co-assessor: Dr. K. van Ittersum

University of Groningen

(3)

Management summary

Organic and Fair Trade products are becoming increasingly important in the consumer market as consumers are paying more attention to the environment and their personal health. Several studies have examined how consumers perceive products with an Organic label or a Fair Trade label. In this study, we have tested and compared the perceptions towards both of the labels. Besides that, we have investigated what changes respondents made in their perceptions when other people surrounded them. Next to consumer perceptions towards both labels, we have evaluated the effect of both labels on consumer behavior such as purchase intentions and

willingness-to-pay. The listed topics are summarized in the following research question: To what extent do consumers rate Fair Trade products differently than Organic products, based on taste-, health-, and quality perceptions, purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay, in a public setting compared to a private setting?

An offline taste experiment is conducted to find an answer to this research question. The

respondents were divided into four different conditions; the setting and labels were manipulated. The setting was manipulated by placing one half of the respondents in a public setting and the other half in a private setting. The label was manipulated by telling one half of the students that the drink was Fair Trade and the other half that the same drink was Organic.

The results of the study showed no significant differences on taste-, health-, and quality perceptions between the two labels. Also, there were no differences in purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay. However, respondents rated the taste- and health perceptions of the fruit juices significantly higher when the respondents were located in a public setting than when they were located in a private setting. Finally, we have tested if the social setting moderated the effect of the labels on the respondents’ perceptions and behavior. The outcomes showed that the public setting highlights the differences between both labels and influences the product perceptions positively. Especially, the Fair Trade products seemed to be sensitive for the mere presence of other people.

(4)

(5)

Preface

Approximately five months ago I started writing my master thesis. Before I started I was uncertain about some of my capabilities and especially about writing this thesis in English. However, while I was writing I have discovered how much I have learned during this master year. During the last couple of months I became more confident and therefore I enjoyed working on my thesis more and more. I would like to emphasize I had not succeeded without the help of some people. First of all I would like to thank my supervisor, Martijn Keizer, for his helpful and educational feedback. I have really enjoyed working with him and appreciated the clear and organized way he has guided me through the process. Also, I would like to thank my co-assessor, Koert van Ittersum, for reading my thesis and help me to succeed in this final stage of my study. Finally, I would like to thank my sisters, Maaike Gerretsen and Annelies Gerretsen and my friend Martijn Weening, for reading my thesis carefully and giving some additional feedback.

(6)

1. Introduction

‘Despite the factory clash in Bangladesh, ethics are soon forgotten with a £5,- dress’, this was one of the headlines of the Independent of April 2013. Companies still cooperate with

manufactories in parts of Asia where the working conditions for employees are inhumane. Huge companies such as Primark collaborated for years with factories in Asia to offer their products as cheaply as possible. Consumers are not always aware of these facts but enjoy taking advantage of the low prices. Also in the food industry, the working conditions are sometimes not as they should be. Coffee and cocoa are well-known examples of unfair trading processes between developing countries and the Western industry.

Although people enjoy the lower prices of the products, caused by, for example, the bad working conditions, people are also becoming more and more environmental conscious. Consumers do not only care more about the environment, they also care more about their personal health, looking for a healthy lifestyle with healthy food consumption. The increasing awareness of the environment and people’s personal health has an effect on consumers’ purchase intentions (Didier et al. 2008, Lee et al. 2013). Different ethical labels such as the Fair Trade label and the Organic food label become more important to compete in this upcoming market. A 2004 survey conducted by the Organic Trade Association showed that Organic food sales are growing at a faster rate than sales of conventional food products (Lee et al. 2013).

However, the majority of the society does not buy labeled products on regular basis. According to Wright and Heaton (2006) the limited consumption of Fair Trade products could be due to the piecemeal availability and past reputation of including lower quality products in its portfolio that did not match customer expectation. Limited consumption could also be due to the lack of knowledge of consumers about ethical labels. Consumers’ little knowledge could lead to remarkable misperceptions.

(9)

marketing literature (Bayus, 1985). Decision-making is also based on how an individual wants to be perceived by others. People like to be seen with a certain status that fits their self-image. Status motives increased desire for green products when shopping in public (Griskevicius et al. 2010). Buying a non-green product might suggest to others that the buyer is a selfish and uncaring individual who is concerned primarily about his or her own comfort rather than the welfare of society (Griskevicius et al. 2010). Not only the opinion of others and the way you want to be seen by them matters, people also have the tendency to stick to social norms. Social norms are defined as what is appropriate in a certain situation (Schwartz, 1977). Behaving ethically and buying ethically labeled products could be seen as appropriate and will be accepted by your surroundings.

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of social influence on the perceptions towards ethically labeled products and on purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay for these products. People often behave differently in a public setting then when they are alone and this could affect peoples’ decision-making process and perceptions of a specific product.

In this research the focus will be on two well-known and common ethical labels; The Fair Trade label and the Organic label. The two labels vary greatly in their background and meanings, but can have similar effects on consumer perceptions. To understand the differences between the labels, the background and meaning of both labels will be clarified first. Then their investigated effects on consumer’s perceptions and purchase decisions will be discussed. To discuss the listed topics the following research question is formulized:

To what extent do consumers rate Fair Trade products differently than Organic products, based on taste-, health-, and quality perceptions, purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay, in a public setting compared to a private setting?

(10)

2. Literature review

2.1 and fair trade labels Organic label

The United States Department of Agriculture defines organic foods as those ‘produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation’ (Lee et al. 2013). Before companies can label their

products as organic they have to meet several requirements. When companies meet the requirements and are allowed to use the label on their products, they have several benefits compared to companies without a label. Some benefits of products with an Organic label are: the products are often fresher, farming is better for the environment, and organically raised animals are not given antibiotics, growth hormones or fed animal byproducts (www.helpguide.org). Consumers confuse organic labels often with natural products, however ‘natural’ is an unregulated term and companies can use this word on their packages without any further requirements.

Fair Trade label

In a narrow sense, Fair Trade is defined based on its best-known component: fair prices for the products of farmers in developing countries (Pelsmacker, Driesen, Rayp, 2005).

The Fair Trade label has two different standards. One standard applies to employees and covers obligations such as decent wages, health and safety standards, and providing adequate housing. The other standard applies to smallholders that are working together in co-operatives or other organizations with a democratic structure. Besides, the Fairtrade organization ensures a minimum price that must be paid to producers (www.fairtrade.net).

2.1.1 Perceptions towards Organic products

(11)

because the Fair Trade label explains more about a fair trading process than about a high qualitative producing process with qualitative ingredients.

According to research of Lee et al. (2013), the presence of an Organic label can positively influence one’s caloric estimation, willingness-to-pay and nutritional evaluations. The results of the study suggest that the health halo effect may play a role. The health halo effect means that the presence of a claim (in this case the Organic label) could carry for higher ratings on other health attributes not mentioned on the claim (Roe, Levy and Derby, 1999). Despite a higher rating in some health elements, the research of Lee et al. (2013) indicates that Organic labels do not cause a better taste perception. These findings could be due to consumers’ common view that most healthy foods taste bad and most unhealthy food taste good (Wansink, 1994). Because the main motivator of buying organic foods is health (Harper and Makatouni, 2002), the assumption can be made that people perceive organic foods as less tasteful. Schuldt et al. (2013) agree with this point of view and state that organics are perceived as healthier than conventional foods. Also these products are perceived as less tasty. The results of this study indicate that especially people who are not environmentally concerned are rating the products as less tasty, this could be caused by the idea that organic products are perceived as social responsible and people with low

environmental concern may want to justify their decision by recall that organic products are less tasty than conventional products.

Finally, the quality perceptions of consumers towards Organic labels are generally high. A study among Croatian consumers confirmed the high quality perceptions by presenting participants several organic products. The overall quality scored on average 4.38 on a 5-point Likert scale, which could be perceived as very positive (Radman, 2005). When summing up previous statements, we could conclude that except from the taste perceptions, Organic labels have a positive influence on consumers’ expectations towards organic products.

2.1.2 Perceptions towards fair trade products

(12)

taste evaluations contradicted their belief. Next to the better taste perceptions, consumers rate Fair Trade products as healthier. In a study of Pelsmacker et al. (2007) participants reflected an attitude that Fair Trade products are healthier, tastier and have better quality than normal

products. These findings contradict the previous findings of Wansink (1994) who states that most healthy foods taste bad and most unhealthy food taste good. Also the research of Ferran and Grunert (2007) states that next to higher health and taste perceptions, products with a Fair Trade label have a higher quality perception. Their research explains that one of the main motives of consumers to buy Fair Trade labeled products is a desire of hedonism by the consumption of good products.

Next to the several higher perceptions towards the Fair Trade products, respondents’ are willing-to-pay a premium for these products (Loreiro and Lotade, 2005). In a face-to-face survey the researchers compared the willingness-to-pay for Organic and Fair Trade coffee. Although organic coffee is generally higher in price, consumers are willing to pay more for the Fair Trade coffee. This result is also supported in the study of Didier and Lucy (2008), where they tested the pay for Fair Trade chocolate. Their experiment showed that the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for Organic and for Fair Trade chocolate is higher than for conventional chocolate, however the WTP for Fair Trade chocolate is the highest.

In summary, we can conclude that products with an ethical label will be perceived ‘better’ on several aspects. Both labels carry for better health and quality perceptions. Nevertheless, the taste perceptions differ between the labels. The difference in taste could be caused by the idea that most healthy food tastes bad and most unhealthy food tastes good (Wansink, 1994). The main motives to buy Organic are not only environmental motives (main motive for Fair Trade products), but also personal motives, such as health and taste (Herpen, Nierop & Sloot, 2007). Therefore we could indicate that products with an organic label are perceived as healthier and thus as less tasty.

(13)

2.2 Factors that could influence sustainable consumer behavior

Ethical labeling seems to cause all kind of positive perceptions towards the products, which could be due to the fact that consumers tend to base their evaluations of products on extrinsic product cues (e.g. labels), rather than intrinsic cues (e.g. quality or nutritional value) (Pohl, 2004). The higher health, taste and quality perceptions people have towards ethically labeled products as compared to conventional products (as we have discussed in previous paragraph) be rather due to the label rather than that the product really is more tasteful, healthier and higher in quality. Positive perceptions will not always lead to positive consumer behavior, such as

purchasing or word-of-mouth communication. The road from seeing a product for the first time and finally buying the product is a long road with many bumps. Consumers could be affected in many ways when making purchase decisions. In case of the ethical labels, not only the ethical label itself will affect people’s behavior but a lot of other factors as well. For example the motivations of people behind sustainable behavior and buying ethically labeled products, can influence their purchase behavior.

People can have different motivations to buy ethical products. In a study of Zanoli and Naspetti (2002), they found egocentric values such as health and pleasure as the most important values to buy organic. (Zanoli, Naspetti; 2002). Consumers could also have status motives to buy organic. A key component of harnessing the power of status motives to benefit social welfare necessitates that the pro-social acts are visible to others, whereby such acts can clearly influence the well-doer’s reputation (Griskevicius et al. 2010). These status motives are linked to social influence, because consumers care about how others perceive them and how they want to be perceived by others. The opinion of your surrounding and just the presence of other people could influence your attitude and behavior towards ethically labeled products.

(14)

2.2.1 Social influence

A way in which consumers are influenced when making purchase decisions could be the opinion of friends, family and other people around them. Social influence can happen in several settings, through all kind of persons and in different circumstances.In most cases, consumers purchase food products on the basis of habit. Kaas (1982) describes the formation of a habit as: what consumers have been done before is done again and defines habits as long-established patterns of behavior being repeated more automatically. The repetition of a particular purchase is thus easier and with less thinking than the first purchase. The research of Salazar et al. (2013) confirmed this by saying that non-routine buying behavior could be causing higher levels of uncertainty. An option to reduce this uncertainty is to consider the information possessed by relevant others. Therefore, the shopping context is crucial to consumers’ behavior (Sirieix et al. 2013), including the opinions and behavior of people around them. To clarify the study of Sirieix, we come up with an example: imagine that you always buy the same yoghurt, based on a habit. If then a friend tells you another yoghurt is a lot healthier and more tasteful, the possibility exists that you break with the habit and that you change to the other yoghurt.

(15)

learning. When summarizing previous studies we could conclude that the social impact- and social facilitation theory both indicate that just the mere presence of others could influence consumers’ perceptions and behavior.

The social impact theory is depending on the three factors we have discussed before. One of these factors is the strength of the social source. The kind of source that gives the information is an important factor that can enhance the effect of social influence. Information provided by social groups like family and friends tends to be more stable and stronger then information provided by other individuals (Salazar et al 2013). The researchers have investigated that individuals have specific reference groups and that they do not randomly follow other groups or individuals. The social information provided by these reference groups resulted in a three times higher chance that the consumer would purchase the recommended products (Salazar et al. 2013). In our study, the respondents are influenced by the mere presence of their college friends. In general, people have a closer relationship with their friends and family than with their college friends; the social strength will thus probably be weaker.

Besides the source of information, the effectiveness of social influence is also depending on the type of person who got affected. Females seem to pay more attention or be more sensitive to social information than males, who respond more to the size of available economic resources (Salazar et al. 2013). In the present study we will also evaluate of the effect of the mere presence of others differs between men and women.

2.2.2 Social influence and ethical behavior

(16)

life (e.g. friends, family and significant others) think about performing that particular behavior (Chen, 2007). Ajzen (1991) explained the subjective norm as the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior. Pro-environmental behavior and build up a healthy lifestyle with healthy food choices are examples of appropriate behavior. In other words, these studies show that individuals’ intention to purchase organic food increases if they believe that others want them to purchase such organic food. Additional to the previous studies, people could also be guided by a sense of obligation to others in a sense of ethical considerations, when considering ethical products, (Shaw, Shiu and Clarke, 2000). Consumers would not like to be perceived by others as an egoistic individual and therefore feel the obligation to help the society shaping a healthy environment. These findings are supported by the study of Griskevicius et al. (2010), who stated that choosing a non-green product might suggest to others that the buyer is a selfish and uncaring individual who is concerned primarily about his or her own comfort rather than the society.

(17)

Figure 1: Conceptual model

2.3 Hypotheses

2.3.1 Organic label versus fair trade label

As we have discussed in chapters 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 both labels have higher perception ratings than conventional products. In this research the differences between these two labels will be

highlighted.

Previous research stated that the primary motivation to buy Fair Trade products is to benefit the world’s poor, while the motivations for organic products consists not only environmental

motives but personal motives, such as health and taste as well (Herpen, Nierop and Sloot, 2007). These findings could indicate that products with an on Organic label are perceived as healthier than the Fair Trade products. Adversative to the research of Herpen et al. (2007), several studies indicate that the judgments in taste are generally more positive towards Fair Trade products than towards Organic products (Lotz et al. 2013 & Schuldt et al. 2013). Organic and Fair Trade

(18)

the ingredients and about the treatment of these ingredients, therefore the assumption could be made that people judge organic products as higher in quality than Fair Trade products. When we sum up these results, the findings of previous studies will lead to the following hypothesis:

H1A: A product with an organic label has a weaker effect on a) taste perceptions; a stronger effect on b) health perceptions; and a stronger effect on c) quality perceptions than a product with a fair trade label.

The research of Loureiro and Lotade (2005) found that consumers are willing to pay more for a Fair Trade coffee than for an Organic coffee. Additionally, the research of Roe et al. (1999) stated that when a product contains any claim respondents perceive the product as healthier and state that they are more likely to purchase the product. Because we stated above that organic products are healthier, we made the assumption that the purchase intentions for organic products are higher. When we combine these findings we come up with the following hypothesis:

H1B: A product with an organic label has higher a) purchase intentions, but respondents are b)

willing-to-pay less than for a product with a fair trade label.

2.3.2 Public setting

(19)

appropriately, buying ethically labeled products is a good start. Therefore we could assume that consumers have higher taste-, health-, and quality perceptions when located in a public setting. In this study we have tested the main effect of the social setting on the different dependent variables. We have formulized the following hypothesis:

H2A: When people are located in a public setting the effects on a) taste perceptions, b) health perceptions and c) quality perceptions are stronger than when people are located in a private setting

Out of previous studies we have concluded that people evaluate products differently when others surround them. Liu et al. (2012) found that people make healthier food choices when others surround them. Besides, Organic and Fair Trade products are both seen as healthier than

conventional products (Roe et al. 1999 & Pelsmacker et al. 2007). The summary of both studies is that people perceive products with an ethical label as healthy and people choose in a social setting rather for a healthy product. Therefore we made the assumption that the purchase intentions and WTP of products with an ethical label will increase when people are in the mere presence of other people. The previous studies are combined to the following hypothesis:

H2B: When people are located in a public setting the effects on purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay are more positive than when people are located in a private setting.

2.3.3 Social setting as moderator

(20)

H3A: The social setting moderates the effect of an ethical label on the a) taste perception, b) health perceptions and c) quality perceptions of a person.

The article of Griskevicius (2010) stated that status motives could play a part in consumer behavior. Status increases the desire for green products (when shopping in public) and when green products cost more than none green products. Consumers want to show to others that they behave environmental friendly and that they can afford the ethical behavior. Besides, the study of Zajonc (1965) stated that the presence of others may provide cues as to appropriate and

inappropriate behavior, as in the case of imitation or vicarious learning. In other words, just the presence of other people could influence consumers’ behavior. Out of both studies and the studies discussed in hypothesis H2B, we could assume that the purchase intentions and WTP for ethically labeled products will increase when people are located in a public setting compared to a private setting. Besides, we have predicted in hypothesis H1B we have that the purchase

intentions and WTP differs between the two labels. Therefore we made the assumption that the differences in purchase intentions and WTP between both labels are more visible in a public setting than in a private setting. Out of the previous studies, we have formulized the following hypothesis:

H3B: The social setting moderates the effect of an ethical label on a) the purchase intentions and b) the willingness-to-pay for a product.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research method

(21)

were manipulated in the experiment: the setting and the label of the drinks. In the first condition respondents tasted a fruit juice in a public surrounding. Students were working together as a team in the same room on a school assignment when they were exposed to the fruit juice. The other setting consists of respondents who were studying on their own when they were exposed to the fruit juice. The label was manipulated by telling one half of the students that the drink was Fair Trade and the other half that the same drink was Organic. The name of the ethical label and the label itself were stated on the questionnaire. Additionally, the researcher told the respondents before they took a nip of their drink how the drink was labeled to make sure that the respondents were aware of the ethical label. The two different settings and the two ethical labels resulted in four conditions (see table 1).

Table 1: Different conditions of the field experiment

The study consisted of Dutch students in the age group 16 to 25 years old. All respondents were highly educated and student of the University of Groningen. A total amount of 147 respondents participated in the taste experiment. The respondents were divided in an almost equal amount into the 4 different conditions (see table 2). The total amount of respondents was divided in 70 males and 77 females. The gender ratios per condition are shown in table 3. In order to test if the respondents’ source of income, food spending per week and their perceived importance of food influences their perceptions, purchase intentions and WTP, we asked some additional questions as stated in chapter 3.2. Results show some differences between respondents’ biggest source of income; 19,7% received most of their money from their parents, 32 ,0% from their job, 35,4% their governmental study allowance, 12,2% their loan and only 0,7% had none of these options. Respondents’ rated the importance of food on average as 5,82 on a 7-point Likert scale (1: very unimportant and 7: very important), which indicates that food is pretty important in people’s lives. Food importance differed slightly in mean between males and females, 5,9 and 5,75 respectively. Finally, most of the respondents spent 50 to 100 euros a week on food and

Organic Label Fair trade label

Public setting Condition 1 Condition 2

(22)

beverages (49%), followed by an amount of below 50 euros (25,9%). The results show no difference in food spending between gender and source of income.

Condition N (Number of respondents)

Condition 1 (Organic-public) 46 Condition 2 (Fair Trade-public) 41 Condition 3 (Organic-private) 30 Condition 4 (Fair Trade- private) 30 Table 2: Number of respondents per condition

Table 3: Participants’ gender in %. 3.2 The questionnaire

General questions: The questionnaire included 21 questions and was prepared the same in each

condition. The first part consisted of some general questions. The respondents are asked for their gender, age, importance of food, food spending a week and their biggest source of income. The importance of food to somebody is measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1: very unimportant, 7: very important). After this, respondents had to fill in how much they spend on average each week on food and beverages. The range varied between below 50 euros as the lowest and above 200 euros as the highest amount. As biggest source of income people could tick the answer: parents/ carers, job, study funding, loan or none of above. By asking respondents’ food spending budget and their biggest source of income we could investigate if there was a different outcome between people who spend their own money and people who spend others’ money and between different food spending patterns. The general questions were followed by questions about the fruit juice the respondents just tasted.

The questions about the fruit juice consisted of five parts, questions about: the taste perceptions, the health perceptions, the quality perceptions, purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay. We conducted the reliability analysis to combine several questions to one dependent variable.

Gender N (number of

(23)

Finally, all the questions about the products perceptions are combined into 3 different perceptions; health, taste and quality (see table 2 for an overview).

Taste perceptions: To test if the respondents liked the taste of the Organic or Fair Trade fruit

juice we asked three different questions based on existing literature (Wansink & Park, 2007). The three statements are measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1: totally disagree, 7: totally agree) and are drafted as follows: ‘I think this fruit juice has a good taste’, I like the composition of ingredients of this product’ and ‘the flavor of this fruit juice is delicious’. The taste perception of the respondents consisted of questions 6, 7 and 8. The Chronbach’s alpha of this combination was α =0,929, which is above 0,6. The internal consistency of the three questions is high and therefore we could combine them.

Health perceptions: To test if the respondents think the Organic or Fair Trade fruit juice is

healthy, three statements are set up as well. The three statements were composited as followed: ‘I think this fruit juice is healthy’, ‘I think this fruit juice is full of vitamins’ and ‘I feel good when I drink this fruit juice’. The answers were also measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1: totally

disagree, 7: totally agree). The health perception of the respondents consisted of the questions 9,10 and 11. The Chronbach’s alpha of these questions together is α= 0,864, which is higher than 0,6 as well. The internal consistency of the three questions is high and therefore we could

combine them.

Quality perceptions: The quality perceptions were measured with two different statements: ‘All

things considered I would say this fruit juice has a good quality’ and ‘I think this fruit juice is made with good ingredients’. Again the answers were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1: totally disagree, 7: totally agree). The quality perception consists of questions 12 and 13. The results of the Chronbach’s alpha are α = 0,833, which indicates a high internal consistency between the questions.

Purchase intentions: The purchase intention of the respondent was measured by the statement: ‘I

(24)

Willingness-to-pay: The respondents were asked what they would pay for a bottle of 500 ml of

this fruit juice. They could choose between five different price categories, starting from below €1,- and ending by above €3,-

Table 4: Results reliability analysis (questions are stated in appendix A). 3.3 Plan of analysis

The statistical software program SPSS was used to test the effect of the ethical labels on the five dependent variables. For the descriptive analysis we used frequency tests and split up the file for results per condition. To investigate the effects of the control variables on the dependent

variables, we used the independent t-test and the one-way ANOVA test. Furthermore, to establish if there was a significant difference between the different kind of labels and different settings, we used the MANOVA test. Another possibility was the one-way ANOVA test and treat each dependent variable separately, however when using the MANOVA test the results will be protected against type I errors. Through comparing the different means and using the post hoc function of MANOVA we were able to compare the differences between each of the four

conditions. Finally, the moderator and control variables were included in the two- way ANOVA function of SPSS to discuss the interaction effect of the independent variables and to include control variables such as gender and source of income.

4. Results

4.1 Control variables

In the questionnaire we asked the respondents about their gender, source of income, the importance of food in their lives and how much they spend each week on food and beverages. Before we test our formulized hypotheses, we tested the effect of these control variables on the

Variable Questions Chronbach’s alpha (α)

Taste perception 6,7,8 0,929

Health perception 9,10, 11 0,864

(25)

dependent variables. The independent sample t-test was used to measure the differences between men and women, for the other control variables we used the MANOVA test. Out of the results we can conclude that there is no significant difference in all cases except for two. Only the amount of food spending gives a highly significant result on the taste perceptions, F (1, 145) = 3,612, p <0,01, which indicates that the taste perceptions towards the labels will be influenced through the amount of money the respondents spent in a week. In other words, these outcomes show that the coming results of the taste perceptions depend on the amount of money the respondents spend in a week on food and beverages. Next to this, we found a marginally

significant result of food spending a week on the purchase intentions, F (1,145) = 2,129, p <0,1. Again, this result indicates that the coming results of the purchase intentions depend on the amount of money the respondents spend in a week on food and beverages. The rest of the control variables made no clear differences in perceptions, purchase intentions and WTP.

4.2 Organic vs. Fair Trade label

In this paragraph, firstly, the effects of the different ethical labels on the respondents’ taste-, health- and quality –perceptions will be presented. Hereafter, the effects of both labels on the respondents’ purchase intentions and WTP are included. To measure the differences between the two labels, we will first look at the effect of both labels on the three perceptions individually. In table 5 the means of the organic fruit juice on the three different perceptions are shown. The taste, health and quality perceptions are all above the midpoint of the scale (3,5 on a 7-point likert scale), which indicates that respondents’ have relatively positive perceptions towards the organic fruit juice. However, the purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay of the Organic label have lower means, 3,67 and 2,20 respectively. Especially the WTP is rated negative. The mean of 2,20 for the WTP indicates that respondents on average have filled in the second option, €1,- to €1,50 (See Appendix A, question 15 for all the options). The means of the Fair Trade label are almost the same as in the organic situation. The taste, health and quality perceptions score above the midpoint of the scale. Therefore we could conclude that the respondents’ perceptions towards fair trade labeled products are positive. However, the intentions to purchase a product and the WTP are rated low, 3,38 and 2,24 respectively.

(26)

investigate the different effects on the respondents’ perceptions, we composed the following hypothesis: H1A: A product with an organic label has a weaker effect on a) taste perceptions; a

stronger effect on b) health perceptions; and a stronger effect on c) quality perceptions than a product with a fair trade label. A MANOVA test is used to compare the differences between the

two labels and their effect on the respondents’ product perceptions. The MANOVA test was in none of the cases significant. At first, we compared the differences of the means and we see that the mean of the taste perceptions of the organic fruit juice is slightly higher than the mean of the Fair Trade fruit juice (+0,26). However, the difference was not significant, F (1,145)= 1,992, p = 0,160. Therefore, a product with an organic label has not a weaker effect on taste perceptions than a product with a Fair Trade label. The difference in mean between the effect of organic and Fair Trade products on health perceptions is slightly more positive for a product with a fair trade label (-0,14). Nevertheless, also in this situation there was no significant difference between the means, F (1,145)= 0,660, p = 0,418. The hypothesis that a product with an organic label has a stronger effect on health perceptions is not supported. At last we tested the effect of both labels on quality perceptions. The quality perceptions are more positive for a fair trade fruit juice than for an organic one (-0,26). In this situation we also did not find a significant difference, F (1,145) = 2,220, p =0,138. Hypothesis 1A is therefore not supported.

Table 5: Results organic vs. Fair Trade label.

Next to the product perceptions of the respondents we checked if there might be a difference between the effect of both labels on the purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay. To test if there existed a significant difference between the two labels and their effect on WTP and purchase intentions, we composed the following hypothesis: H1B: A product with an organic

(27)

product with a Fair Trade label. The means of both labels towards the purchase intentions are

quite low, 3,67 and 3,38 respectively. The mean of purchase intentions of the organic label is slightly higher than the mean of the fair trade label (+0,29). The results of the MANOVA test did not show anything significant, F (1,145)= 1,695, p = 0,195. Therefore, we could conclude that an organic label does not have a stronger effect on purchase intentions than a product with a Fair Trade label. Finally, the difference in effect of the labels on the WTP was tested. The means of both labels are low, a mean of 2,20 for the organic fruit juice and a mean of 2,24 for the fair trade fruit juices. The fair trade fruit juice is therefore rated more positive than the organic fruit juice (-0,04). However, the difference was not significant, F (1,145)= 0,104, p = 0,748. A product with an organic label does not have a stronger effect on willingness-to-pay than a product with a Fair Trade label. Therefore hypothesis H1B is not supported.

4.3 Direct effect public vs. private setting

Now that the effect of the labels on the dependent variables is tested, we will take a closer look at the direct effect of the two different settings on the taste, health and quality perceptions. After this, we looked as well for their effects on purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay. The means of the taste-, health-, and quality perceptions are above the midpoint of the scale in both settings (all above 3,5 on a 7-point likert scale), which indicates a positive perception towards the fruit juice. We formulated the following hypothesis: H2A: When people are located in a

public setting the effects on a) taste perceptions, b) health perceptions and c) quality perceptions are stronger than when people are located in a private setting

A MANOVA test is used to compare the effect of the different settings on the respondents’ perceptions. First of all, we tested the effect on taste perceptions. If we look at the differences in the means of both settings, we could see that the mean of the public situation is higher than the private situation (+0,95). The MANOVA test was highly significant, F (1,145)= 30,117, p <0,001. Therefore hypothesis H2A.a is supported. The difference in mean between a public setting and a private setting of the effect on health perceptions is more positive in a public setting (+0,38). The MANOVA test indicated a significant difference, F (1,145)= 4,825, p<0,05.

(28)

public situation rated the fruit juices slightly higher than people in a private situation (+0,20). However, the difference between the two settings was not significant, F (1,145)= 1,132, p= 0,252. Hypothesis H2A.c was not supported.

The means of the purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay are in both settings low; only the purchase intentions in a public situation are slightly higher than in a private situation. The following hypothesis was formulized: H2B: When people are located in a public setting the

effects on purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay are more positive than when people are located in a private setting. Just as in the previous cases we used a MANOVA test to check if

there was a significant difference. The mean of the purchase intentions in a public setting is more positive than the mean of the purchase intentions in a private setting (+0,31). However, the difference was not significant, F (1,145)= 1,807, p= 0,181. Hereafter, we tested the effect of both situations on the willingness-to-pay. Remarkable is that the mean of the private setting is slightly higher in this situation than the mean of the public setting. Although this effect was not

significant either, F (1,145)= 1,599, p = 0,208. Therefore, hypotheses H2B is not supported.

Mean public (µ1)

Mean private

(µ2) Difference _(µ1-µ2) F-value Sig. Taste perceptions 5,03 (0,89) 4,08 (1,20) +0,95 30,117 0,000*** Health perceptions 4,69 (1,17) 4,31 (0,80) +0,38 4,825 0,030** Quality perceptions 4,91 (1,16) 4,71 (0,82) +0,20 1,132 0,252 (NS) Purchase intentions 3,66 (1,37) 3,35 (1,33) +0,31 1,807 0,181 (NS) WTP 2,15 (0,80) 2,32 (0,77) -0,17 1,599 0,208 (NS)

(29)

4,88 5,18 _4,59 3,58 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Organic -‐

public trade-‐ Fair public

Organic-‐ private trade Fair

private Taste percep*ons Organic -‐ public Fair trade-‐ public Organic-‐ private Fair trade private 4.4 Effect of ethical labels with the setting as moderator

Now the main effects of the labels and settings are determined, we will investigate if the kind of setting moderates the effect of the two labels on the taste-, health-, and quality perceptions of the respondents. The following hypothesis is formulized: H3A: The social setting moderates the

effect of an ethical label on the a) taste perception, b) health perceptions and c) quality

perceptions of a person. The 2-way ANOVA function of SPSS is used to analyze the data, with

the perceptions as dependent variable, the label as first independent variable and setting as second independent variable. The results of the main effects may differ with the results of chapter 4.2 and 4.3. The differences are due to the sharing of explained variance between the independent variables. For interpreting the results of the main effects we used the outcomes of the previous two paragraphs.

First, we investigated the interaction effect on the taste perceptions of the respondents. The results of the 2-way ANOVA test

showed that there was a main effect of the labels, F (1,143) = 4,714, p <0,05. The main effect of the setting was supported as well, F (1,143) = 34,092, p <0,01. As we have discussed before, the differences in the results of the

main effects are due to the sharing of explained variance between the independent variables. Figure 2 shows some clear differences between the settings. Respondents rated products higher in taste when located in a public setting. Especially the effect of the Fair Trade label between the two settings is visible (a mean of 5,18 in the public setting and 3,58 in the private setting). This difference is more outstanding than the differences in the organic situation (a mean of 4,88 in the public setting and 4,59 in the private). Remarkable is that respondents rated the organic product lower than Fair Trade products in the public situation and higher than Fair Trade products in the private situation. The results of the interaction effect show that there was a significant difference, F (1,143) = 16,232, p=<0,01. Therefore we conclude that hypothesis H3A.a is supported, the social setting moderates a person’s taste perceptions when rating ethically labeled products.

(30)

The main effect of the labels on the health perception was not significant, F(1,143) = 0,385, p= 0,536; however there was a significant difference between the two settings on the health perceptions F(1,143) = 5,100,

p<0,05 . Figure 3 shows indeed that the respondents rated the fruit juices healthier in the public setting for both ethical labels. Especially the Fair Trade products were rated higher in the public situation (a mean of 4,88 in the public situation and

4,24 in the private situation). The difference for the organic products was a lot smaller (a mean of 4,53 in the public situation and 4,38 in the private situation). Again, respondents rated the organic fruit juices in the public situation lower than Fair Trade fruit juices and in the private situation higher than Fair Trade fruit juices. The interaction effect on the health perceptions of the respondents was not significant, F (1,143)=1,927, p=0,167. Hypothesis H3A.b is therefore not supported.

Finally, we tested if there was a moderating effect of the social setting on the quality perceptions of the labels. The results of the two-way ANOVA showed no main effect of the ethical labels on the quality perceptions, F (1,143) = 1,255, p = 0,265. Besides, the main effect of the setting on the quality perceptions was not supported F (1,143) = 1,599, p = 0,208. Figure 4 shows again a clear difference between the Fair Trade-public and the Fair Trade private setting (a mean of 5,2 in the public setting and 4,62 in the private setting). In this case it is remarkable that people rated Organic products higher in a private setting than in a public setting (a mean of 4,64 in the public setting and 4,8 in the private setting). These results give the presumption that a public setting moderates the difference between the two labels on quality perceptions. These suspicions are confirmed by means of the 2-way ANOVA function of SPSS.

4,53 4,88 4,38 4,24 3,8 4 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5 Organic -‐public trade-‐ Fair

public

private Health percep*ons

Organic -‐public Fair trade-‐ public Organic-‐ private Fair trade private

(31)

Although the main effects of the labels and settings were not significant, the interaction effect was significant, F (1,143)= 4,811, p<0,05 and hypothesis H3A.c is supported.

Hereafter, we investigated the moderating effect of the social setting on purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay. The following hypothesis is formulized: H3B: The social setting moderates

the effect of an ethical label on a) the purchase intentions and b) the willingness-to-pay for a product. The same test is used as in the previous analysis.

Firstly, the interaction effect on the purchase intentions of the ethically labeled fruit juices is tested. The results of the two-way ANOVA test indicated a marginally main effect of the labels, F (1,143) = 3,046, p <0,1. However, we found no significant main effect of the setting, F (1,143) = 1,954, p = 0,164. Figure 5shows the results between the different labels and settings. The figure indicates a clear difference between

the Fair-Trade public and Fair-Trade private situation (a mean of 3,76 in the public situation and 2,87 in the private situation). The organic labels showed no clear difference between the two settings; the organic private situation shows an even higher purchase intention than the organic public situation. Although the main

3,57 3,76 3,83 2,87 0 1 2 3 4 5 Organic -‐public trade-‐ Fair

public

private Purchase inten*ons

Organic -‐public Fair trade-‐ public Organic-‐ private Fair trade private Figure 4: Bar chart of the quality perceptions

(32)

effects are not (highly) significant, the results show that the interaction effect was significant, F (1,143) = 6,718, p <0,05 in. Therefore hypothesis H3B.a is supported, a public setting moderates the differences between the two labels.

Finally, the interaction effect on the willingness-to-pay was tested. The results of the 2-way ANOVA test showed no significant main effect of the labels, F(1,143)= 0,012, p = 0,912. Additionally, the results showed neither a significant main effect of the setting, F (1,143) = 1,480, p = 0,912. Figure 6 gives a clear view of the differences between the four conditions. The mean of the Fair Trade fruit juices is slightly higher in the public setting than in the private setting (a mean of 2,29 in the public setting and 2,17 in the private setting). Remarkable of this result is that the willingness-to-pay is the highest in the organic private setting (2,47). Although the main effects were not significant, the interaction effect on the willingness-to-pay for the ethically labeled fruit juice was significant, F (1,143) = 4,745, p = <0,05. Hypothesis H3B.b is supported, the setting in which people are located moderates the effect of the labels on the willingness-to-pay.

4.5 Differences per condition

The individual effects of the labels and the settings and their interaction effect have already been discussed. In this paragraph the differences per condition will be treated. To say more about the perceptions, purchase intentions and WTP per condition the means of each condition will be compared. The means of every condition are again clearly stated in table 7.

(33)

Figure 7 provides a clearer picture of the differences in perceptions between the 4 conditions and their effect on the dependent variables. One of the remarkable outcomes is that the respondents’ perceptions are in all the cases the most positive for the Fair Trade fruit juices in a public setting. Besides, the perceptions are clearly higher rated in the public settings than in the private, except for the quality perceptions. The purchase intentions and WTP show no differences between the settings and the labels give some antithetical results.

Figure 7: Bar chart of the means per condition

The means of each condition are summarized and illustrated in table 7 and figure 7; however it becomes interesting when we test if there is a significant difference between the means per condition. To compute the differences, we used the Post hoc test of MANOVA. To clarify how

0 1 2 3 4 5

6 _{Taste
percep*ons
Health
percep*ons
Quality
percep*ons}

(34)

the differences per condition are tested, we will discuss the differences in taste perceptions of the four conditions. The difference between condition 1 and 4 is +1,30 in advantage of the ‘Organic-public’ setting. This difference is significant because p <0,001. In this way we computed that the difference in taste perceptions between the ‘Fair trade- public’ and ‘Fair trade-private’ settings is significant and the difference between the ‘Fair trade- public’ and ‘Organic-Private’ situation is significant either. The results of the differences between the four conditions are shown in table 8 and will be further discussed in chapter 5.

Taste Organic – public Fair trade-public Organic-private Fair trade- private

Organic – public - -0,30 0,29 1,30***

Fair trade-public 0,30 - 0,49** 1,60***

Organic-private -0,29 -,049** - 1,01***

Fair trade- private -1,30*** -1,60*** -1,01*** -

Health Organic – public Fair trade-public Organic-private Fair trade- private

Organic – public - -0,35 0,15 0,28

Fair trade-public 0,35 - 0,50** 0,63**

Organic-private -0,15 -0,50** - 0,13

Fair trade- private -0,28 -0,63** -0,13 -

Quality Organic – public Fair trade-public Organic-private Fair trade- private

Organic – public - -0,57** -0,16 0,02

Fair trade-public 0,57** - 0,41* 0,59**

Organic-private 0,16 -0,41* - 0,18

Fair trade- private 0,02 -0,59** -0,18 -

Purchase intentions Organic – public Fair trade-public Organic-private Fair trade- private

Organic – public - -0,19 -0,27 0,70**

Fair trade-public 0,19 - -0,08 0,89***

Organic-private 0,27 0,08 - 0,97***

Fair trade- private -0,70** -0,89*** -0,97*** -

WTP Organic – public Fair trade-public Organic-private Fair trade- private

Organic – public - -0,27 -0,44** -0,14

Fair trade-public 0,27 - -0,17 0,13

Organic-private 0,44** 0,17 - 0,30

Fair trade- private 0,14 0,13 0,30 -

Table 8: Significant differences between the four conditions *** Significant at a 0,01 level

(35)

5. Discussion

The increasing awareness of consumers towards the environment and towards someone’s personal health leads to more attention for Organic and Fair Trade products. Previous studies elaborated on the effect of the Fair Trade or Organic products on consumers’ perceptions and behavior and compared them with conventional products; however there is little research in the effect of both labels compared to each other. Another point that makes this experiment

interesting is the variation in settings in which the respondents were located. The fact that people’s opinion will be influenced when others surround them is well documented in the psychological- and marketing literature, but the changes people made in their perceptions towards the labeled products through the mere presence of others is interesting to discuss more deeply. The purpose of this study was to investigate what kind of perceptions people have towards both labels and how the setting a person is located in could influence these different perceptions. We have focused on the taste-, health- and quality perceptions of respondents towards the ethical labels and asked for their purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay. In this chapter we will elaborate more on the results of chapter 4 and we will discuss these outcomes. The formulized hypotheses are summarized again in table 9.

Table 9: Hypotheses in a row

5.1 Organic versus Fair trade labeled products

The first part of the study investigated if there is a difference in respondent’s perceptions between Organic and Fair Trade products. Research of Lotz et al. (2013) stated that people evaluated Fair Trade products as better in taste than Organic products. In our research we found the opposite effect where people rated the Organic products slightly higher in taste than the Fair

Hypotheses (summarized) Supported/ Rejected

H1A: Effect of both labels on taste, health and

quality perceptions Rejected

H1B: Effect of both labels on PI and WTP Rejected H2A: Effect of settings on taste, health and quality

perceptions

Partly supported

H2B: Effect of settings on PI and WTP Rejected H3A: Moderating effect of setting on taste, health

and quality perceptions

Partly supported

(36)

Trade fruit juices; however this difference was not significant. Out of the study of Herpen et al. (2007), we assumed that Organic products are perceived as healthier than Fair Trade products. Again, our experiment approves the opposite effect; when comparing the means of both labels the Fair Trade fruit juices scored slightly higher. However, this difference between the two labels was not significant either. The effect on quality perceptions between the two labels was more positive for Fair Trade labeled fruit juices, again the outcomes were aberrant of what we

expected. When formulizing the hypothesis we made the assumption that Organic products will be rated higher in quality because this label explains more about the ingredients of the product than a Fair Trade product. Although, the difference was not significant this assumption needs to be rejected.

Despite the labels have no different effect on the consumers’ perceptions towards the products, we have also tested if their effects on consumers’ purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay differed. Loreiro and Lotade (2005) investigated that people are willing to pay a higher amount of money for Fair Trade products than for Organic products. In contrast of this study and based on the study of Roe et al. (1999), we assumed that the purchase intentions of consumers are higher for products with an Organic label. The results of our study correspond to the

expectations. When comparing the means, respondents had higher purchase intentions for the Organic fruit juice than for the Fair Trade fruit juices. The effect on the willingness-to-pay was slightly stronger for the Fair Trade fruit juices. However, these differences were not significant. None of our expectations regarding the differences between the labels were supported by the data. An explanation for this could be that our respondents had too little knowledge about the labels. Marketers should highlight the differences in meanings and backgrounds between the two labels. When the meanings of both labels are well-known, their effect on the perceptions,

(37)

to finish a school assignment. It could be supposed that if we would have performed the experiment in a more neutral environment without any time pressure the results could have differed.

5.2 Private versus public setting

We have also searched for differences in choices respondents make between a public and a private setting. The fact that people are affected by the opinion and behavior of others is well documented in the literature. In the present study, we have focused explicitly on the mere presence of others. The social impact theory proposes that people are impacted by the real, implied, or imagined presence or action of a social presence (i.e. another person or group of people) (Argo et al. 2005). Next to this, we have discussed the social facilitation theory. This theory states that that the presence of others may provide cues as to appropriate and

inappropriate behavior. Just the presence of others could thus influence someone’s behavior (Zajonc, 1965). An example that people change their behavior when surrounded by others was given in the study of Liu and Campbell (2012). This study investigated that when individuals are dining with friends (versus alone), they make healthier choices at venues positioned as healthy and unhealthier choices at venues positioned as unhealthy. These studies predict that respondents in the two public settings have higher product perceptions, purchase intentions and are willing-to-pay more than respondents in the private settings. The outcomes of our experiment indeed confirmed a higher taste- and health perception if the respondents were located in a public setting. Although the reviews in the public situation were higher for all the dependent variables, only the taste and health perceptions show a significant difference. When we zoom in on the quality perception per condition (figure 4), we will see that the respondents did rate the Fair Trade fruit juices significantly higher in quality in the public situation. The differences between the Organic-public and Organic-private situation were a lot smaller and clearly not significant. These results were the same for the purchase intentions (figure 5).

(38)

Burnkrant and Cousineau, 1975) stated that people often use the product evaluation of others as a source of information about the product. After observing others evaluating a product favorably, people perceive the product more favorably themselves than that they would have perceived in absence of this observation. Therefore we could assume that if the respondents talk about their evaluations they could encourage each other to rate the products more positive than when they would have done without talking.

Although, not each of our dependent variables showed a significant difference, we could

conclude that the influence of others does have an impact, even if people say nothing. Marketers could respond on these results by influencing their customers through placing active sales staff in the stores and by stimulating word-of-mouth behavior. The results of this study found that the mere presence of others could influence people’s perceptions; the mere presence of active sales staff is thus a good way to create these perceptions towards the labels. Besides, we think that this effect will be stronger when people also talk about their opinions and perceptions, positive word-of-mouth behavior is a manner to enlarge positive perceptions and behavior.

5.3 Effect of both labels with the setting as moderator

In the literature review we have discussed that social influence could be stronger when people are encouraging each other to accomplish a sustainable and healthy lifestyle. When considering ethical products, people could be guided by a sense of obligation to others in a sense of ethical considerations (Shaw, Shiu and Clarke, 2000). In this paragraph we will discuss the interaction effect of the setting. An interaction effect is applicable when the effect of one independent variable (the ethical labels) on the dependent variables will be reinforced or impaired in combination with another independent variable (the two different settings). In other words, in this case we have tested if the differences in perceptions, purchase intentions and WTP between the two labels were stronger if the setting was manipulated.

If we evaluate the effect of both labels on the product perceptions, we will see that especially the perceptions of the Fair Trade products differ strongly from each other between the two settings. Particularly the taste perceptions were rated much higher in the Fair Trade public situation than in the Fair Trade private situation. Although the setting enhanced the effect of the label

(39)

moderation effect on the taste- and quality perceptions was significant. The health perceptions of the Fair Trade label were also higher in the public situation, but the setting made the differences between the labels less clear than on the taste and quality perception.

The moderation effect of the setting on the purchase intentions and WTP was also significant. Respondents rated the fruit juices even higher on purchase intentions and were willing to pay more in the Organic private situation than the in Organic public situation. In case of the Fair Trade products, the public setting enhances the effect in a positive way, as in the previous cases. In summary, the mere presence of others indeed influences the effect on people’s evaluations and behavior. Besides, the public setting highlights the differences between both labels. We could conclude that especially the Fair Trade label is sensitive for the influence of other people in the store.

Noteworthy is the surprising effect of the Organic label on the quality perceptions, purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay. The respondent’s rated the Organic fruit juices on these aspects higher in the private setting than in the public setting, which is the opposite of what we had predicted. One explanation of this could be that in the Organic public setting the respondents believed that a behavior is desired but the respondents did not perceive that others were

answering the same. Through that, the majority of the group did not fill in positive answers. Social influence could also prevent people from buying ethical products and forming positive associations with the label (Schultz, 2002). Another explanation could be that the differences between the settings are small and almost negligible; therefore the results might be stronger when we used a larger sample size. To discover what the real cause of these contradicting outcomes is, some further research is required. In chapter 6 we will bring up some ideas for further research.

5.4 Differences per condition

(40)

moderating effect of the Organic label is a lot less, as we have concluded in paragraph 5.3. The second most positive perceptions were for the Organic-public situation.

Interesting to investigate further is if the higher ratings in public situations are due to the effect that people want to build up their image and would love to show to others how sustainable they are or that people rate products in general higher when others surround them. The study of Griskevicius et al. (2010) confirms the idea that status could play a role in product evaluation and stated that one of the motives to buy sustainable products is status, especially when the act is visible to others the intention to behave sustainable is high. The effect of status could be tested by showing the respondents two different products; one normal product and one green product. Respondents of both settings need to answer several questions about both products. When status motives are high, respondents probably rate the green products in the public setting higher and the normal products in the private setting. Some other examples and ideas for further research are mentioned in chapter 6.

When analyzing previous results, we could conclude that consumers of Fair Trade fruit juices are more sensitive to opinions and thoughts of their surroundings than consumers of Organic fruit juices. However, these more positive perceptions do not always lead to more positive consumer behavior, such as purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay. The purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay were rated the highest in the Organic-private situation. Further research and maybe a larger sample size is required to investigate the cause of this effect. A larger sample size could enhance the differences between the labels and strengthen the effect between the two labels; a sample of 147 respondents is relatively small to generalize the results to the entire society. Besides, some further research could exclude possible other variables that affects respondents’ perceptions and behavior. In the next chapter some limitations of this study and some ideas for new studies will be mentioned.

Consumers’ perceptions and behavior towards Fair-‐Trade and Organic products