The Effect of Environmental Concern and Importance on Organic Product Choice.

The Effect of Environmental Concern and Importance

on Organic Product Choice.

EU organic product logo

Michael Parasidis

2

The Effect of Environmental Concern and Importance on

Organic Product Choice.

Completion Date:

02 July 2014

Master Thesis

University:

University of Groningen

Faculty:

Business and Economics

Department:

Marketing

Program

: MSc in Marketing, profile

Marketing Management

Author:

Michael Parasidis

Address:

Damsterkade 1, 9711 SE, Groningen,

The Netherlands

Phone Number:

+30 (0) 648 48 91 64

E-mail Address:

michaelparasidis@hotmail.com

Student Number:

S2332337

First Supervisor:

M. (Martijn) Keizer

3

Management Summary

In this study environmental concern and importance are examined as predictors of consumer choice between an organic and a conventional product. In addition to those relationships a moderating effect of importance to the relationship between environmental concern and product choice was tested.

The theoretical framework applied to this study is a combination of S-O-R model and theory of planned behavior. In the S-O-R model organic label was used as a stimulus that affects the respondent-organism, filtered y the intervening factors. In order to define more specifically the role of the intervening factors theory of planned behavior was selected to provide the theoretical background for their role in affecting the response. The analysis conducted in a sample of 122 persons who were requested to fill in a questionnaire provided support for the significance of EC and importance as predictors of product choice. However the moderating effect of importance on the relationship between EC and product choice found to be insignificant and importance lost its predictive value when EC was taken into account under the same model. Implications both theoretical and practical are discussed at the end of the study as well as limitations and future research steps. One conclusion is that importance should be further examined in relation to other important factors of organic consumption. Moreover a useful implication for retailers and producers would be to communicate to consumers eco friendly messages and the importance of consumption choices for the development and progress of a sustainable world.

4

Preface

The thesis that you are reading is the final assignment that can help me graduate from the MSc Marketing program of University of Groningen. I was fortunate to be selected for participating in my first choice thesis group, concerning consumer behavior. I always thought consumer behavior as the most fascinating and interesting “field” in marketing. Writing the thesis was a big challenge for me as, and foremost, it was the first time in my academic years that I was expected to complete such an extensive assignment. However after a troublesome beginning in which a proper conceptual model had to be constructed and supported every other part was completed and putted in order on time. At that point I feel obliged to express my gratitude firstly to my first supervisor mr. Martijn Keizer for his constant interest on my work expressed by the amount of help, guidance and feedback given to me. Secondly all four colleagues of mine in the thesis group, namely, Leontien Gerretsen, Alex Pavlick, Johan Walda and Antonia Kauter which also provided me with rich ideas and constructive feedback. Finally, yet importantly, I am deeply indebted to my family for always staying beside me especially my fiancée which unintentionally might shared some of my stress and anxiety.

5

Table of Contents

Management Summary ... 3

Preface ... 4

1. Introduction ... 6

1.1 Practical and Academic Interest ... 6

1.2 Theoretical Framework ... 7

1.2.1 Stimulus-Organism-Response Model ... 7

1.2.2 Theory of Planned Behavior ... 9

1.3 Problem Statement and Research Questions ... 10

1.4 Theoretical Contribution ... 10 1.5 Thesis Outline ... 11 2. Literature Review ... 11 2.2.1. Environmental concern ... 12 2.2.2 Perceived Importance ... 13 3. Method ... 15 3.1 Design ... 15 3.2 Participants ... 15 3.3 Questionnaire ... 16 3.4 Variables ... 18 3.4.1 Perceived Importance ... 18 3.4.2 Environmental Concern ... 19 3.5 Analysis Plan ... 19 4. Results ... 20 4.2 Control Variables ... 21 4.3 Hypotheses Results ... 21 5. Discussion ... 23

5.1 Theoretical and Practical Implications ... 23

5.2 Limitations and Future Research ... 25

5.3 Conclusion ... 26

References: ... 27

Appendix A-Questionnaire ... 30

Appendix B... 33

6

1. Introduction

1.1 Practical and Academic Interest

The European market for organic food has undergone continuous growth during the past decades. More specifically in 2012 the European organic market grew by approximately six percent to a value of almost EUR 23 billion and consumers in the European Union spent close to EUR 21 billion on organic foods (Organic World, 2012). However the organic product can be characterized as a credence good, that means consumers will be unable to observe and ascertain its qualities in comparison to those of the conventional version of the product. For that reason EU, following the example of the USDA’s National Organic Program’s Final Rule1, introduced a mandatory EU label as a third party verification. The organic label serves as a signal about the way the product was produced and designates certain qualities such as healthier food, environmentally friendly product and producer. Since July 2010, pre-packed organic food produced in the EU must be labeled with the new EU logo. The logo indicates that a product has been produced and processed according to organic principles under the inspection of an accredited control body. The new logo replaced the former EU logo whose use was optional. The goal of the organic label is to provide information, decreasing transaction costs and facilitating trade.

The interest for this survey lies on the timing, as the changes in regulation have occurred recent enough to be excluded from most studies on the field but by the present day these changes exist in the market for four years at least. Their presence might have changed the way consumers respond to these offerings by making them more eco-sensitive and introducing the eco-label as an important attribute of a product.

In this study I will examine the relationship between environmental concern (abbreviated in the rest of the survey as EC) and consumer’s choice of organic labeled food products. Increasing eco-sensitivity to consumers may lead to increased perceived consequences for their decisions, making the decisions more effortful and thus more important. For that reason an additional variable is included in my study,

7

that of the perceived importance of the choice between regular and organically labeled products. The theoretical framework selected for this study is the S-O-R model and the theory of planned behavior (TPB). I use the S-O-R model in order to depict the way organic label functions as a stimulus to the organism and affects his response, which in my study is represented by the product choice. Furthermore TPB is used in order to explain how EC and perceived importance function as intervening factors of the organism. Both theoretical concepts are presented in more detail in the following part.

To conclude with, understanding the different dimensions of organic production and organic consumption is essential in our effort to build a sustainable world. The main goal of the study is to update existing knowledge on consumers’ choice of organically labeled products by examining the effects from one’s EC and decision importance attributed to the choice between regular and organically labeled product.

1.2 Theoretical Framework

1.2.1 Stimulus-Organism-Response Model

As mentioned in the introduction I choose a structural model to conceptualize the way consumers’ choice is taking place. Structural models of consumer behavior conceptualize consumer behavior as a response to a variety of factors. In contrast to the behavioristic tradition, the focus lies on internal psychological processes within the consumer’s organism and not merely on observable stimuli such as product attributes (Kroeber-Riel et al. 2009.). Due to the explicit inclusion of organical processes, these models are often referred to as Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) models. S-O-R models can be applied to all forms of observable consumer behavior, e.g. product purchases in terms of quality and quantity or shop visits (Foscht and Swoboda 2007).

8

Kroeber-Riel and Weinberg 2003.). Psychological processes, in turn, are assumed to be influenced by the consumer’s social and physical environment (Kroeber-Riel et al. 2009).

It can be concluded that the paradigm of S-O-R models has proven to be a useful framework for empirical research on consumer behavior, since it allows a systematic analysis of different components of consumer behavior in the form of partial models (Kroeber-Riel et al. 2009, Foscht and Swoboda 2007.). I choose to apply my model of research in this framework as it is outlined in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Applied S-O-R framework

As shown in Figure 1, this study uses as stimulus the organic label, an external factor which can be controlled by retailers and marketing managers. In my model respondents will be confronted with a choice between two products from which the organic bares a relevant label on the outside side of the package. We use the organic label as a stimulus that will initiate the decision making process.

In my study, organism is selected to be a dynamic factor of the model which will not just receive the stimulus but will have some internal processes based on beliefs and attitudes and with which the stimulus interacts. Those intervening factors namely EC and perceived importance and their effect on the response are the core elements of the present research. In my effort to conceptually define the role of those intervening factors on the outcome-response, I have selected to apply the theory of planned behavior, discussed in more detail in the following part.

Finally response represents the product choice made by the respondents. That procedure resembles an everyday experience of consumers in which they are confronted with marketing stimuli like labels. Following their exposure to such a stimulus, certain beliefs and attitudes are formed and lead to certain behavior preferences that are transformed into actions.

9

1.2.2 Theory of Planned Behavior

Theory of planned behavior as it is briefly presented below serves in better defining the role of the intervening factors of EC and perceived importance.

True to its goal of explaining human behavior, not merely predicting it, the theory of planned behavior describes three antecedents of intentions and behaviors: attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. These antecedents are posited to determine intentions and actions, which in my study are represented by product choice. At the most basic level of explanation, the theory postulates that behavior is a function of salient information or beliefs, relevant to the behavior. People can hold many beliefs about any given behavior, but they can attend to only a relatively small number at any given time (Miller, 1956). It is these beliefs that are considered to be the prevailing determinants of a person’s intentions and actions. Three kinds of salient beliefs are distinguished: behavioral beliefs which are assumed to influence attitudes toward the behavior, normative beliefs which constitute the underlying determinants of subjective norms, and control beliefs which provide the basis for perceptions of behavioral control. Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) state that we form beliefs about an object by associating it with certain attributes, i.e. with other characteristics, or events. In the case of attributes toward a behavior, each belief links the behavior to a certain outcome, or to some other attribute such as the incurred by performing the behavior. Since the attributes that come to be linked to the behavior are already valued positively or negatively, we automatically and simultaneously acquire an attitude toward the behavior. In this fashion, we learn to favor behavior we believe have largely desirable consequences, such environmentally friendly behaviors, and we form unfavorable attitudes toward behaviors we associate with mostly undesirable consequences. Applying my research design to the theory of planned behavior I include environmental concern as a combination of behavioral beliefs and normative beliefs and perceived importance as a control belief, expecting to influence the respondents’ behavior when choosing between the organic and the conventional product.

10

the S-O-R model stimulus and its existence affects the arousal of those beliefs and as such of the intention to act.

This study will focus on the relationship of EC and perceived importance to product choice and their interaction effect. The suggested model is depicted in Figure 2.

H1(+)

H3(+)

H2(+)

Figure 2: Conceptual Model

1.3 Problem Statement and Research Questions

From the above perspective, the problem statement can be stated as follows:

“Is product choice of organically labeled products dependent on the extent to which

individuals are concerned about the environment and/or feel their decision important?”

To be in line with the above problem, two main research questions are defined as: 1) How does EC affect consumers’ preference of products with organic labels?

2) How does perceived importance affect consumers’ preference of products with organic label?

3) Is there an underlying interaction effect between EC and perceived importance and how it affects product choice?

1.4 Theoretical Contribution

The overall objective of this thesis is to investigate the importance of environmental friendly behavior on the preference shown to products with organic label. More specifically, the aims are to investigate (1) the importance of environmental friendly attitude and behavior, on the choice of food products baring organic label, (2) the

Product Choice

(Organic /Conventional)

Environmental

Concern (EC)

11

possibility to predict consumer’s choice based on his perceived importance for his decision and (3) the significance and the meaning of an interaction effect of the EC and perceived importance on consumer’s choice.

1.5 Thesis Outline

In the second chapter I present the literature review relevant to EC and perceived importance in order to provide a more in depth view of those two factors and form my hypotheses. Moreover in the third chapter, firstly I present the questionnaire and then the analysis plan. In the fourth chapter the results of the analysis are presented and discussed. Finally, the last chapter will provide conclusions, recommendations, and managerial implications as well as state some limitations of this study and suggest further ideas for future research.

2. Literature Review

12

Maloney and Ward, 1973), attempting to assess the relevant dimensions of social consciousness and ecological concern.

2.2.1. Environmental concern

At this point it is important to provide a more specific description of what will be considered EC in this study and why its inclusion is considered important. There is a number of studies supporting a weak correlation between attitudes and behavior (Grankvist and Biel, 2001; Tracy and Oskamp,1983). An example of such study , conducted in Western Europe, is presented below. Magnusson et al. (2003) found that Swedish consumers reported positive attitudes towards organic, or with a synonymous term eco labeled, alternatives of four examined food products: bread, potatoes, milk and meat. However , those positive attitudes were not expressed in equally strong intentions to buy these products and consequently, neither related to a high purchase frequency. However prior research have found both environmental attitudes (Arvola et al., 2008; Grunet and Juhl, 1995) and environmental behavior (Magnusson et al., 2003) to be significant explanatory factors of consumers preferences towards organic products. As such I decided to include both environmental attitudes and environmental behaviors and test if it is possible to be combined under a single factor, EC.

13

Now that I defined how EC is operationalized in my study, it is essential to justify my choice for selecting that variable in my study. There is big number of studies that operetionilize environmental concern in different ways but all have a common finding. That finding is the significance of environmental concern as a factor explaining attitudes and consuming patterns of eco labeled products in general. More specific Magnusson et al. 2003 had tested whether environmentally friendly behaviors

(EFB) have any relationship with attitudes/behaviors toward organic products. The results showed EFB to be an important predictor of purchase frequency of organic products (Magnusson et al, 2003). In the study of Grunet and Juhl (1995) in which the relationship between environmental attitudes and buying organic foods, EC is treated as separate aspect of a general social and environmental consciousness. Furthermore Arvola et al (2008) examined how measures of affective attitudes and positive moral attitudes such as environmental attitudes could be integrated into a model of consumer decision-making in relation to organic food. In that study EC found to be significant variable in a number of studies concerning the evaluation of organic food quality (Wandel and Bugge,1996), and the determinants of organic consumption (Welsch and Kuhling, 2009). In summary, these studies all suggest a direct, positive relationship between EC and consumer preferences. Based on these results, my first hypothesis is that individual who scores highly on EC are more likely to choose an organic product than individuals who score lower.

H1: Individuals who score highly on EC are more likely to choose an organic product than individuals who score lower.

Despite that a lot of studies had focused on consumption patterns of environmental friendly products, most of these studies are either outdated since they have been conducted ten to twenty years ago or had focus into a geographically narrow sample for their results. Moreover there is no study up to my knowledge that took into account the effect of ‘decision importance’ that consumer attribute to the specific product, and how this is related to his preference. In the following paragraph , I will explain in more detail why it is important to fill this gap in the literature.

14

An underlying factor that affects outcomes in any given choice situation is the degree of perceived importance of the choice. That is the reason why I selected perceived importance as a factor under examination and included it in my study. In order to clarify the role of perceived importance, I will firstly have to describe the two main approaches to decision-making, the economic and the constructive approach. Specifically the first is built on the assumption that consumer’s choices indicate their underlying needs and wants, because it is these underlying concepts that are tapped when consumers make choices. Furthermore, in marketing one of the implied assumptions is that respondents know what they like and are able to make choices among options based on these underlying preferences. On the other hand the constructive-preference perspective argues that often times people construct their preferences in a given situation based on information available at the time of preference elicitation. That given, one might support that consumers have no preferences at all up to the point of making their choice. Yet it would be maladaptive to fully support the notion that consumers go into every situation with a tabula rasa, or blank slate. Initially, when encountering a new domain, consumers are more likely to be constructing their preferences while at a later stage when they gain experience in a domain, stable preferences can be developed (Hammond, McClelland & Mumpower, 1980: Hammond, Stewart, Bremher & Steinmann, 1975; West, 1996). Thus the constructive approach provides a good approximation of what consumers are doing as they enter a new category and the economic perspective provides a good approximation of experienced consumers (Fischhoff, 1991).

15

H2: Individuals who deem organic shopping decisions important are more likely to choose an organic product than individuals who deem these decisions less important.

A final hypothesis of that I will examine is whether perceived importance affects the main relationship between EC and product choice. The rationale behind this hypothesis is that the more important will be perceived the choice between the organic and the conventional product the more consistent will be their choice with their past behavior and attitudes. As such, I hypothesize that consumers who show a high degree of EC and perceive as important the choice they have to make, are most likely to choose the organic product.

H3: The extent to which individuals perceive organic shopping decisions important moderate the influence of EC on product choice.

In the next chapter, I will present the methodology used to collect and analyzed the data in order to test my hypotheses.

3. Method

3.1 Design

The study had two within-subjects conditions, EC and perceived importance and responses were gathered by using a questionnaire (Appendix A, Questionnaire). Since the organic food product group contains a large variety of products, I decided to focus some questions on one product and some others in organic products in general. The product selected was ketchup of an international well known A brand (Heinz), the product was presented in two versions, the organic and the conventional. That choice was made in order to control in maximum for other underlying factors of consumer’s decision making like familiarity with the brand, trust to the producer, knowledge about the product and the producer, prior exposition to the brand. The questions referring to the organic products in general (i.e. familiarity with organic products) were placed in order to uncover potential underlying patterns of consumer decision making process.

16

Initially one hundred eighty three persons were addressed by e-mail or through the social media and were asked to fill out a questionnaire (Appendix A, Questionnaire) concerning consumer behavior. The responses were gathered between the 21st of April and the 3nd of May 2014. At that point is important to mention that due to the nature of this survey and the limited time attributed to data collection, the sample consists mainly of university students and thus cannot be considered representative of the population in terms of age, income and education. The total number of respondents successfully answered all the questions given, were 134. Forty six percent of those were men (Pop.49%) and 54% women (Pop.51%). There were five education-level response options: no education (0%), high school (9.8%), undergraduate degree (10.7%), bachelor degree (41%) and postgraduate degree (38.5%) (Appendix B, Table 1).

3.3 Questionnaire

Since the organic food product group contains a large variety of products, I decided to focus some questions on one product and some others on organic products in general. The product selected was a ketchup of an international well known A brand (Heinz), the product comes in two versions, one organic and one conventional. That choice was made in order to control in maximum for other underlying factors of consumer decision making like familiarity with the brand, trust to the producer, knowledge about the product and the producer, prior exposition to the brand. The questions referring the organic products in general (i.e. familiarity with organic products) were placed in order to uncover potential underlying patterns of consumer decision making process.

17

four income levels, 0-12000eu (60.7%) termed as low income, 12001-24000 (27.9%) termed as medium income, 24001-40000 (11.5%) termed as high income and >40000 (0%) which was not selected and as such was dropped during the data management (Appendix B, Table 1).

The second section comprised of three questions. In the first one, where the dependent variable was represented, respondents were asked to choose between conventional and organic ketchup. Both products where identical in terms of brand, size, package and the only difference was that the organic product was presented in a way that the organic label would be visible to the respondents (Appendix A, Questionnaire). In the next two questions respondents were asked to rate the purchase of the ketchup and the choice between an organic and a conventional product in general. For the rating it was used a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 representing “not important all” and 5 representing “very important”.

The third section asked about the frequency and importance of environmental concern and environmentally friendly actions in general. These questions did not deal with specific foods since they were intended to assess environmentally friendly behaviors and attitudes. Initially respondents had to rate their attitude by answering the following questions: (a) what is your opinion on recycling, (b) what is your opinion on environmental organizations and (c) what is your opinion on organic products. The scale used was a 5 point with 1 representing “not important at all” and 5 representing “very important” (Magnusson et al., 2003). Those attitude related questions were followed by behavior related questions. Respondents were asked how often do they perform they following actions: (a) save electricity, (b) recycle, (c) purchase environmentally friendly labeled products, (d) donate money to environmental organizations and (e) avoid to purchase products in environmentally non-friendly packages. A five point scale was used in which 1 represented “never” and 5 represented “very often” (Magnusson et al., 2003) (Appendix A, Questionnaire).

18

reducing the size of the final sample from 134 to 122 respondents. Additionally respondents were asked to rate the likelihood of them preferring an organic product in general and an organic ketchup specifically. A five point scale was used for answering to these questions, with 1 representing “never” and 5 representing “very often”. Moreover respondents were asked to rate their familiarity with the concept of organic products in a 3 point scale with 1 being “not much” and 3 being “a lot”. Finally respondents were asked to describe their opinion towards organic products. They were given three options 1-“Positive”, 2-”Neutral” and 3-“Negative”. Options in that question were given opposite order of positive/negative answers. By structuring the responses in that order and placing the question almost at the end of the questionnaire, I was aiming to check if respondent answered with a certain pattern e.g. all right options) instead of paying attention to the question and answering accordingly (Appendix A, Questionnaire). I have to report that no patterns were found in the way respondents answered the questionnaire except of two that answered all questions in the most positive option but had also missed to notice the organic label and had been already excluded from the data set.

3.4 Variables

There are three groups of independent variables in this study. The first group is consisted from the control variables age, income, educational level, gender and living status. The second group concerns perceived importance and is measured by two variables perceived importance general and perceived importance product specific. The third and final group is related to EC and includes attitude related variables and behavior related variables. More specifically attitude related variables are attitude towards recycling, environmental organizations and organic products. Additionally behavior related variables are behavior electricity, behavior recycling, behavior environmental friendly products and behavior environmental non -friendly products. Before proceeding with the analysis, I considered useful to minimize the number of variables related to perceived importance and EC by checking whether or not some of them correlate with each other. If that is done in a meaningful way, we can make new average variables that depict the whole construct up in one score. The product choice that respondents made was used as the dependent variable.

19

A correlation analysis showed that perceived importance product specific and perceived importance general, correlate significantly (r=.402, p<.001). The more important is perceived the choice between an organic and a conventional product in general the more important is perceived the choice between the organic and the conventional ketchup and vice versa. Reliability analysis on the two questions measuring importance showed that the two variables together had an a=.673. Therefore an average new variable named Importance was computed using perceived importance product specific and perceived importance general.

3.4.2 Environmental Concern

Furthermore a correlation analysis showed that all attitude related variables and all but one, frequency of donating money to environmental organizations, behavior related variables correlate significantly. Based on the correlations one can assume that the more environmentally friendly attitudes are held then the more environmentally friendly actions will be performed and vice versa. While this is not usually the case between attitudes and behavior as mentioned also in the literature review part, can be attributed to the special composition of the sample. Homogeneity of the sample in respect to age, income and educational level might be the source of the correlation between attitudes and behaviors. Reliability analysis on the seven questions measuring attitudes and behaviors resulted that all seven variables together had a Cronbach's a=.827. Therefore an average variable (EC) was computed using all seven attitude and behavior related variables. The type of new variable was chosen to be average instead of sum in order to maintain the 5-point scale, which was used initially, thus making the results easier to interpret.

3.5 Analysis Plan

20

choice. Binary logistic regression is selected as the most suitable type of analysis for testing the relationship between the continuous independent variables and the categorical dichotomous dependent variable. The results of these analyses are presented in the following part.

4. Results

This chapter consists of three parts, the descriptive statistics of the variables discussed previously, the second part concerns the results of the independent chi-square tests between the control variables and product choice and the third part presents the results of the hypotheses testing.

4.1 Descriptive Statistics

21

In summary 78 out of 122 respondents, 64%, choose the organic product. Despite that the results of the conditions show a difference on the associations between EC, perceived importance and product choice it is necessary to test these relationships in depth. That goal is served by the following parts.

4.2 Control Variables

Before checking for the support or not of my hypotheses I would like to test for any influence exerted from the control variables (gender, age, income, living status and educational level) to the main dependent variable, product choice.

Having a categorical, dichotomous dependent variable (“0”-conventional, “1”-organic) and categorical control variables, chi square test was chosen in order to examine if there is a relationship between the product choice and each of the control variables. Independent chi square tests were performed and as their results, presented in table 2 show, all control variables found to be not important for the choice made by the respondents. It is important to mention that as far as age, income and educational level are concerned, the results might be an outcome of the limitations of my sample and not the factors themselves. Based on the results, I conclude that there are no unexpected patterns regarding the control variables included in the analysis.

Chi-square results/control variables

Value Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Gender 2.819 .093

Living Status .008 .929

Age 1.356 .508

Income .857 .651

Educational Level 2.554 .466

Table 2, Chi Square results for control Variables

4.3 Hypotheses Results

Hypothesis 1. To test whether individuals who score highly on EC are more likely to

22

and Nagelkerke R square (.412) measures indicate a reasonable fit of the model to the data. This is further verified by the classification that reveals 81.1% of the cases being correctly classified. Furthermore the effect of EC to product choice proved to be significant (B=2.409, sig=.000) with a Wald statistic equal to 27.534 (Appendix Tables, Table 2). Based on the results of the logistic regression I conclude that hypothesis 1 is supported, because analysis shows that there is a positive effect of EC exhibited by the respondents on the choice of the organic product.

Hypothesis 2. To examine whether individuals who deem organic shopping decisions

important, are more likely to chose an organic product than individuals who deem these decisions less important I conducted a binary logistic regression between product choice and importance. The Cox&Snell R square (.120) and Nagelkerke R square (.165) measures indicate a moderate fit of the model to the data. The percentage of correctly classified cases reached 69.7. Moreover the effect of importance to product choice found to be significant (B=.926, sig=.000) having a Wald score of 13.137 (Appendix Tables, Table 3). Based on the results of the logistic regression I conclude that hypothesis 2 is supported, because analysis shows that there is a positive effect of attributed importance on the product choice of the organic product.

Hypothesis 3. To test whether the extent to which individuals find organic shopping

23

Models:

Binary Logistic Regression

B Exp(B) Wald Sig. Correctly

Classified EC /Product Choice 2,409 11,125 27,634 .000 81.1% Importance /Product Choice ,926 2,524 13,137 .000 69.7% EC Importance*EC Importance /Product Choice 4,247 -,624 2,202 69,867 ,536 9,044 7,100 1,610 1,491 ,008 ,204 ,222 80.3%

Table 2, Results of hypotheses related analysis.

As shown in the table importance on its own predicts choice, the same applies for EC. However when both factors are included in the analysis, EC is a stronger predictor and takes away the variance that is explained by importance.

In sum based on the analysis done, EC and importance when examined separately were found to lead to an increase in choice of the organic ketchup relative to the regular ketchup. As such hypotheses 1 and 2 are supported. On the other hand the analysis provided no support for hypothesis 3 and the moderating role of importance. These results are not without implications but also limitations; this is the subject of the next chapter.

5. Discussion

5.1 Theoretical and Practical Implications

24

times more likely to choose the organic product, ceteris paribus. Concerning importance based on the results one point increase in the degree of importance attributed to the choice will lead to 2,5 times more likely to choose the organic product, ceteris paribus. Thirdly based on the results I found no moderating effect of importance to the relationship between EC and product choice. Instead what was shown from the analysis is that when EC is included in the model, it reduces the role of importance role as a predictor of product choice. In addition the interaction effect of EC and importance found to be insignificant too. Reasons for those results are discussed in the limitation section and are considered as a source for future research. Three major theoretical implications follow from these results. Firstly the empirical proof that EC has an effect on consumer preferences. As mentioned in literature review, all past studies have examined organic products without differentiate and specifically include the the organic label. Only the study of Janssen & Hamm (2012) had slightly touched the organic label as a stimulus, but it was examined in a different context, in comparison with other environmental logos. Secondly, the results show a direct relationship between EC and preferences. This is interesting, because as it is in accordance with some prior research (Wandel and Bugge, 1996;Welsch and Kuhling, 2009) it contradicts with the results of other studies as the one from Bamberg (2003). That study provides empirical support that environmental concern has no direct effect on intention or behavior. Thirdly the introduction of a psychological factor, importance, and the positive effect it has on product choice introduces this factor into the field of research concerning organic consumption.

25

detrimental and noxious the product is for the consumer and the environment. In that way inducing and introducing the consumer in comparisons of products, again increasing the mental effort devoted for the decision while at the same time increasing the environmental concern of the consumers. A very good example of such practice is the introduction of the CO2 index in the car industry; a similar index can be developed and communicated to the consumers. This initiative can be enhanced by a relevant non-governmental or public institution in order to add credibility in the index.

5.2 Limitations and Future Research

26

product, instead I would propose that future research will focus in laboratory or ideally open field experiments.

Despite the insignificance of perceived importance showed by the results, my opinion is it should be further examined as a factor of organic consumption patterns, as it is a crucial factor of contextual origin. A concept that should be applied in the research of consumption. It is important for future research to focus in more representative samples and include more questions concerning importance in that way biases can be controlled and variance will increase providing more accurate results for the significance or not of perceived importance as a factor.

An underlying factor that can be considered in relation to perceived importance is consumer’s perception of product’s healthiness. Healthiness as EC, should be expected to influence the main effect of label to product choice. However literature is almost unanimous in to the fact that healthiness is the most significant factor in predicting the purchase of organic products (Magnusson et al., 2001; Wandel & Bugge, 1997; Tregear, Dent, McGregor, 1994) as such future research can be held on the relation of importance and healthiness to product choice.

Undoubtedly there is much to be researched in the field of organic products and heir consumption. In summary my recommendations for future research is firstly the selection of a more representative sample in order to increase generalizability. Secondly the enrichment of a future questionnaire with more questions or a wider scale, related to importance in order to capture more variance. Thirdly the examination of more product categories and finally the conceptualization and research of importance in relation with other important factors of organic consumption such as healthiness.

5.3 Conclusion

27

the research conducted with a young, highly educated sample of persons were that the degree of EC has a positive effect on the first association. Importance when taken alone was also significant predictor but at that point of research must be treated with caution and there was no moderating effect of importance to the relationship between EC and product choice. Possible reasons for that result are mentioned in the limitation part. I see my research as a small addition in theoretical knowledge as well as a positive attribution on the effort of promoting a sustainable world.

References:

 Ajzen, I., 1991. “The theory of planned behavior.” Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179–211.

 Alba J. W., & Hutchinson, W., 1987. “Dimensions of consumer expertise.”

Journal of Consumer Research, 13: 411-442.

 Antil JH, Bennett D., 1979.”Construction and validation of a scale to measure socially responsible consumption behavior.” In The Conserver Society, Henion

KE II, Kinnear TC (eds). American Marketing Association: Chicago, IL; 51–

68.

 Arvola A., Vassallo M., Dean M., Lampila P., Saba A., Lahteenmaki L., Shepherd S., 2008. “Predicting intentions to purchase organic food. The role of affective and moral attitudes in the Theory of Planned Behavior”. Apetite, 50(2-3):443-454.

 Bamberg S., 2003. “How does Environmental Concern Influence Specific Environmentally related Behaviors? A new answer to an old question.” Journal

of Environmental Psychology, 23: 21-32.

 Cowles, D. and L. A. Crosby, 1986.”Measure validation in consumer research: A confirmatory factor analysis of the voluntary simplicity lifestyle scale”,

Advances in Consumer Research 13: 392–397.

 Ebreo, A. & Vining, J. 1994. “Conservation-wise consumers: Recycling and household shopping as ecological behavior.” Journal of Environmental

Systems, 23: 109-131.

 Fischhoff, B. 1991. “Value elicitation: Is there anything there?” American

28

 Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I., 1975. “Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.” Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

 Foscht, T. and B. Swoboda 2007, “Käuferverhalten”, edn., Gabler Verlag,

Wiesbaden.

 Fotopoulos, C. and Krystallis, A., 2003. “Quality labels as a marketing advantage. The case of the Zagora apples in the Greek market.” European

Journal of Marketing, 37(10):1350-1374.

 Grankvist, G., Biel, A. 2001.” The importance of belief and purchase criteria in the choice of eco-labelled food products.” Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 21: 405-410.

 Grunert, S. C., Juhl, H. J., 1995. “Values, environmental attitudes and buying organic foods.” Journal of Economic Psychology, 16:36-62.

 Hammond, K. R., G. H. McClelland, and J.Mumpower., 1980. “Human judgment and decision making: Theories, Methods, and Procedures.” New

York: Praeger Hogarth, R.M.

 Hammond, Stewart, T. R.; Brehmer, B.; and Steinmann. 1975. “Social judgment theory. In Human judgment and decision processes: formal and mathematical approaches,” edited by M. F. Kaplan and S. Schwartz. New York:

Academic Press.

 Janssen M. and Hamm U., 2012. “Product labeling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos”. Food Quality and Preference, 25 (1): 9-22.

 Janssen, M. and Jager, W., 2002. “Stimulating diffusion of green products: co-evolution between firms and consumers.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 12: 283–306.

 Kroeber-Riel, W., Weinberg, P. and Grappel-Klein, A., 2009.

Konsumentenverhalten. 9th ed. Munchen, Vahlen.

 Kroeber-Riel, W., Weinberg, P., 2003. Konsumentenverhalten. 8. Auflage. Verlag Franz Vahlen GH, München.

29

 Maloney MP, Ward MP, 1973.” Ecology: let’s hear from the people. An objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge.”

American Psychologist 28: 583–586.

 Miller, G. A. 1956.” The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.” Psychological Review, 63:81-97.

 Nieschlag, R., Dichtl, E. and Harschgen, H., 2002. Marketing. Berlin, Duncker und Humblot.

 Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Oude Ophuis P. A. M. 1998. “ Health-related determinants of organic food consumption in the Netherlands.” Food Quality

and Preference, 9 (3),:119-133.

 Tracy, A.P. & Oskamp, S., 1983-1984. “Relationships among ecologically responsible behaviors.” Journal of Environmental Systems, 13:115-126.

 Tregear, A., Dent, J.B. and McGregor, M.J., 1994. “ The demand for organically-grown produce”. British Food Journal, 96 (4): 21-25..

 Wandel, M., & Bugge, A. 1997. “Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of food quality.” Food Quality and Preference, 8 (1): 19-26.

 Welsch and Kuhling 2009. “Determinants of pro environmental consumption: The role of reference groups and routine behavior.” Ecological Economics, 69 (1):166-176.

 West, P.M., 1996. “Predicting preferences: An examination of agent learning”.

Journal of Consumer Research, 23:68-80.

 http://www.organic-world.net/news-organic

30

Appendix A-Questionnaire

My name is Michael Parasidis, a master student in marketing management at the University of Groningen. With your help, I hope to complete the program and graduate. To this end, I only ask 10 minutes of your time. This survey aims to collect information regarding consumer behavior. For validation purposes you are kindly requested to answer all questions. Please note that there is no right or wrong answer and a genuine response is highly appreciated.

In accordance, confidentiality and anonymity of the information shared is hereby guaranteed and I offer you my gratitude in advance for your participation.

Q1 What is your gender?

 Male (1)  Female (2)

Q2 In which age group do you fit?

 18-25 (1)  26-35 (2)  36-45 (3)  46-55 (4)  56-65 (5)  >66 (6)

Q3 Are you currently living with or without a partner?

 with (1)  without (2)

Q4 What is your educational level?

 no education (1)  high school (2)

 undergraduate degree (3)  bachelor (4)

 postgraduate degree (i.e. master, PhD, post PhD degree) (5)

Q5 In which income category would you fit (in euro)?

31

Q6 Imagine yourself in a normal shopping trip in the nearby supermarket . The next item in your shopping list is ketchup, given that you have only the following two options which would you choose?

Que0stionnaire version 1 : (1) (2)

Q7 On scale from 1 to 5 with one representing not important at all and 5 being very important, how would you rate your purchase of Ketchup?

 1-not important at all (1)  2-of little importance (2)  3-neutral (3)

 4- fairly important (4)  5-very important (5)

Q8 On scale from 1 to 5 with one representing not important at all and 5 being very important, how would you rate your choice between an organic product and a conventional one?

 1-not important at all (1)  2-of little importance (2)  3-neutral (3)

 4-fairly important (4)  5-very important (5)

Q9 On scale from 1 to 5 with one representing not important at all and 5 being very important, what is your opinion on recycling?

 1-not important at all (1)  2-of little importance (2)  3-neutral (3)

 4-fairly important (4)  5-very important (5)

Q10 On scale from 1 to 5 with one representing not important at all and 5 being very important, what is your opinion on environmental organizations?

 1-not important at all (1)  2-of little importance (2)  3-neutral (3)

32

Q11 On scale from 1 to 5 with one representing not important at all and 5 being very important, what is your opinion on organic products?

 1-not important at all (1)  2-of little importance (2)  3-neutral (3)

 4-fairly important (4)  5-very important (5)

Q12 How often do you perform the following actions?

Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Quite Often (4) Very Often (5) Save electricity (1)      Recycle (2)      Purchase of environmental friendly labeled products (3)      Donate money to environmental organizations (4)      Avoid to purchase products in environmentally non-friendly packages. (5)     

Q13 When making the purchase of the ketchup did you notice the organic label?

 Yes (1)  No (2)

Q14 On scale from 1 to 5 with one representing never and 5 being very often, how often would you prefer an organic product?

33

Q15 How familiar are you with the concept of organic products?

 Not much (1)

 Average Familiarity (2)  A lot (3)

Q16 How would you describe your opinion towards organic products?

 Positive (1)  Neutral (2)  Negative (3)

Q17 On a scale from 1 to 5 with one representing never and five representing always, how likely are you to choose the organic ketchup?

 1-never (1)  2-rarely (2)  3-sometimes (3)  4-often (4)  5-always (5)

This research investigated consumer preferences towards organic labeled products. Your contribution to this study was highly appreciated. Should you have any questions/remarks, please contact me at:

michaelparasidis@hotmail.com. My gratitude for your participation. Please click below to submit your

respond.

Appendix B

Table 1-Control Variables categories and Distributions

Categories Frequency Percent Valid Percent

34

Post Graduate Degree 47 38.5 38.5

Total 122 100.0 100.0

Table-2 Descriptive Statistics

Appendix C

Results of Logit Regression between EC and Product Choice Cox & Snell R

Square Nagelkerke R Square Percentage Correct ,300 ,412 81.1

Model 1 Results B S.E. Wald df Sig Exp(B)

EC 2,409 ,458 27,634 1 ,000 11,125

Product Choice

(Constant) -8,070 1,637 24,299 1 ,000 ,000

Results of Logit Regression between Importance and Product Choice Cox & Snell R

Square Nagelkerke R Square Percentage Correct ,120 ,165 69,7

Model 2 Results B S.E. Wald df Sig Exp(B)

Importance ,926 ,255 13,137 1 ,000 2,524

Product Choice

(Constant) -2,052 ,731 7,885 1 ,005 ,128

Descriptive Staistics N Minimum Maximum Mean

35

Results of Logit Regression between EC, EC*Importance, Importance and Product Choice.

Cox & Snell R Square Nagelkerke R Square Percentage Correct ,309 ,424 80,3

Model 3 Results B S.E. Wald df Sig Exp(B)

EC 4,247 1,594 7,100 1 ,008 69,867

Importance 2,202 1,803 1,491 1 ,222 9,044

EC*Importance -,624 ,491 1,610 1 ,204 ,536

Product Choice