Predicting craft beer drinkers’ intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer

(1)

Predicting craft beer drinkers’

intention to purchase sustainably

produced craft beer

(2)

(3)

Predicting craft beer drinkers’ intention to

purchase sustainably produced craft beer

Melle van Bijsterveldt University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

Msc Marketing Management Master thesis June 20, 2016 Petrus Driessenstraat 8 9714CB Groningen Phone number: +31613079619 E-mail: mellevanbijsterveldt@gmail.com Student number: 2247011 Supervisors

(4)

(5)

Management summary

Brewing beer is an inherently environmentally unfriendly process but it is changing. As more companies want and try to take corporate social responsibility, so do craft beer breweries. Some breweries do it by reducing their output of waste and greenhouse gasses, while others focus more on becoming a positive social force in society. However, the purchasing behavior of craft beer drinkers has received very little attention in scientific research. More specifically there has been no research on the purchasing behavior of sustainably produced craft beer. This study takes an initial step towards creating a body of research that can help transform the market for craft beer into a market for sustainably produced craft beer. This is done by researching if the theory of planned behavior, consumers’ engagement with sustainability in general and their level of innovativeness are good measures to predict consumers’ intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

The results in this study show that overall, the model gives a good prediction of consumers’ intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. Consumers who find sustainability and local identity of craft beers more important have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. Additionally, consumers who are more engaged with sustainability in general have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. It might therefore be very effective for sustainable craft beer breweries to sell beer in specialty stores. Organic beers could be sold in organic stores and beers with a strong local identity could be sold in stores that sell locally sourced products. Furthermore, consumers who have more knowledge of how sustainably the craft beers they drink are produced have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. Sustainable breweries should therefore spread more information among craft beer drinkers about the brewing process and what they do to become more sustainable.

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

1. Introduction

The market for craft beer is absolutely booming. The United States are leading the way with a growth of craft beer from 5% of the total volume of beer 2010 to 11% of the total volume of beer in 2014 according to the Brewers Association (“CRAFT BREWER VOLUME SHARE”, 2015). There are now over 4,000 official breweries in the United States of which only around 50 are non-craft breweries (Watson, 2015). The Netherlands has seen a huge growth in the consumption and the amount of craft beer breweries as well. Halfway through 2015 there were 312 official breweries in the Netherlands (“Nederland streeft België voorbij”, 2015). An increase of 160% compared to the 120 breweries that were there in 2010 (“Speciaalbier stuwt aantal”, 2015). With this growth, the amount of scientific literature on craft beer has expended as well. However, much of it is dedicated to the production side of craft beer (e.g. Giovenzana, Beghi & Guidetti, 2014; Canonico, Comitini & Ciani, 2014). At the time of writing only 1 piece of research was found that focuses specifically on the sustainability dimension of producing craft beer. This is a chapter written by Hoalst-Pullen, Patterson, Mattord & Vest in the book ‘The Geography of Beer’ (2014). No articles were found on the importance of different characteristics in the decision process of craft beer drinkers in their choice for craft beers. Nor has there been research on what factors influence the purchasing of sustainably produced craft beer.

(12)

2 sustainability, it is important to know how their effort to increase sustainability can lead to increased sales and profit. A recent study shows that over the past years, Dutch consumers have become more engaged with sustainable consumption and are more prepared to purchase sustainably produced products instead of conventional products (Monster & Pijll, 2015). If this goes for craft beer as well, it could mean that there are great opportunities for sustainable breweries to take advantage of.

There are many factors imaginable that might impact the demand for a specific craft beer. Examples of individual preferences that influence the decisions are the price and taste of the beer or advice from a friend or bartender. But there are also other drivers that can influence a consumer’s choice for a beer, such as social influence based on norms and beliefs as proposed by the theory of planned behavior. According to that theory, consumers’ attitude towards engaging in certain behavior and the influence of social norms and perceived behavioral control can be used to predict their intention to perform certain behavior (Ajzen, 1985). This will be explained in more detail in the theory section.

(13)

3

To what extent can the theory of planned behavior, consumers’ engagement with sustainability and their level of innovativeness be used to predict consumers’ intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer?

Furthermore, some analyses will be done to gain more insight into the consumption behavior of craft beer drinkers. The data for this study are collected among Dutch craft beer drinkers via an online survey that was posted on Facebook. To answer the research question, a model will be tested using linear regression. This study is the first to identify predicting factors for the intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. The findings in this paper should be seen as an initial step towards increasing the knowledge about the consumption behavior of craft beer drinkers. With particular focus on the consumption of sustainably produced craft beer.

(14)

(15)

5

2. Theory

In this theory section the different concepts that are studied are first defined to construct the framework in which this study is done. Next, a research model is provided based on network theory and innovation diffusion.

2.1. Sustainability

In this study, two dimensions of sustainability are used to assess how sustainably minded consumers are. These dimensions are social sustainability and environmental sustainability, based on the Triple Bottom Line (from this point on referred to as TBL) by Elkington (1999). According to the TBL, business is sustainable when economic, environmental and social sustainability are leveraged. Economic sustainability is the ability to maintain a level of income that enables the continuation of business in the future. The three bottom lines are dependent on, related with and sometimes in conflict with each other (Elkington, 1999). Because the economic sustainability of breweries is not expected to concern consumers directly when purchasing craft beer, only social and environmental sustainability are taken into account. The topic of the current study is to find aspects that influence how important it is for consumers of craft beer that those beers are produced sustainably. Among others, the effect is measured of the consumers’ attitudes toward environmental and social sustainability on having a positive attitude towards buying sustainably produced craft beer.

2.1.1. Environmental sustainability

(16)

6 In this study, environmental sustainability refers to environmentally-friendly brewing practices such as reducing the use of electricity or water in the brewing process, but it also refers to sustainability practices such as brewing using organic products. What is most important in analyzing the level of environmental sustainability of respondents in this paper is to what degree they have concerns about the deterioration of the environment and how important it is for them to purchase environmentally sustainable craft beers. Sustainability in this sense clearly differentiates from sustainable development as defined in the report that was issued in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development, better known as the Brundtland report. According to that report, sustainable development is meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (Brundtland, Khalid, Agnelli, Al-Athel, Chidzero et al., 1987, p.47). When adhering to that definition, brewing beer would be very difficult to justify in terms of sustainability unless its environmental impact is basically non-existent. Environmental sustainability in this study therefore does not refer only to business activities that have no negative impact on the environment. Instead, a broader view is taken where all breweries that go beyond governmental and social requirements to become more sustainable are included.

2.1.2. Social sustainability

In this paper social sustainability is measured by focusing on employing people that are difficult to employ such as handicapped people. The reason to only focus on this aspect of social sustainability is because it is the only aspect of social sustainability that craft beer breweries in the Netherlands are focusing on. Other issues such as exploitation of personnel do not really apply as close to all craft beers that are drunk in the Netherlands either come from countries in Western Europe or from North America and labor conditions in both regions are relatively high.

2.1.3. Economic sustainability

(17)

7

2.2. Theory of planned behavior

The theory of planned behavior is one of the most popular concepts used to study and explain human behavior. It is very often used to predict sustainable consumption (e.g. Liobikienė, Mandravickaitė & Bernatonienė, 2016; Martinho, Pires, Portela & Fonseca, 2015; Paul, Modi & Patel, 2016; Rex, Lobo & Leckie, 2015). According to the theory of planned behavior, there are three types of beliefs that influence human behavior. These are behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs and control beliefs (Ajzen, 1985).

The first type of beliefs is behavioral beliefs. This entails what the individual thinks the result will be of performing certain behavior. This is the basis for holding a favorable or unfavorable attitude towards performing that behavior. Based on the own beliefs regarding the outcome of performing certain behavior, the individual will hold a positive or negative intention towards performing that behavior (Ajzen, 1985).

The second type of beliefs is normative beliefs. This type entails the perception of the individual on what the norms or normative expectations of other people are regarding certain behavior. It resembles the social pressure that the individual perceives to perform or not perform certain behavior. A negative perception of norms regarding certain behavior will have a negative effect on the likelihood that the individual will perform the behavior, while a positive perception of the norms regarding that behavior will have a positive effect on the likelihood for that behavior by the individual (Ajzen, 1985).

The third type of beliefs is control beliefs. This type entails the perception on whether there are factors in play that restrict or improve the ability of the individual to perform certain behavior. The perception of positive factors being present will elicit a more positive attitude towards performing that behavior. While the perception of negative factors being present will elicit a more negative attitude towards performing that behavior (Ajzen, 1985).

(18)

8 behave or not behave in a certain way. This is based on the assumption that the individual can make a realistic observation of how difficult it will be to perform a certain behavior. Thus, based on measuring the three types of believes and perceived behavioral control, the behavior in question of the individual can be predicted (see figure 1 below). The higher the intention to purchase, the higher the likelihood that the behavior in question is performed (Ajzen, 1985; Terry, Hogg & White, 1999).

Figure 1. Theory of planned behavior.

2.3. Innovativeness

Consumers approach products differently. For some, it is thrilling to try out a new product. For others it means taking unnecessary risks. The most innovative consumers are most willing to try new products and take the largest risks in doing it. In the case of craft beer, it is likely that innovative craft beer drinkers try new beers first. Among new beers coming out are also sustainably produced craft beers. It is interesting to see if innovative consumers, who are most likely to come into contact with these sustainable beers, have a higher intention to purchase them.

According to the diffusion of innovations theory by Rogers (1995), there are five distinct groups of people that can be identified based on how innovative they are. The theory explains how innovations spread through the five groups and after a certain amount of time reach the people that are least innovative. The first of these five groups are innovators, which are the most innovative members of the population and make up

Behavioral beliefs Behavioral beliefs

Normative beliefs

Control beliefs

(Perceived behavioral control)

Intention to

(19)

(20)

(21)

11

3. Hypotheses

3.1. Impact of beliefs on intention to purchase sustainably

According to the theory of planned behavior there are three types of beliefs that influence consumers’ purchase intentions. These are behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs and control beliefs. The more positive the consumers’ beliefs are regarding a product, the higher his or her purchase intention is, resulting in a higher likelihood to purchase that product (Ajzen, 1985; Terry et al., 1999). To test if the theory of planned behavior holds true for the consumption of sustainable craft beer, nine hypotheses (H1A till H1F, H2, H3 and H4) will be tested.

3.1.1. Behavioral beliefs

The first six hypotheses regard the influence of behavioral beliefs on the intention to purchase sustainable craft beer. According to multiple studies (e.g. Gleim, Smith, Andrews & Cronin Jr., 2013; Kihlberg & Risvik, 2007), two of the main influencing factors on the intention to purchase sustainably are price and quality. Results on the perception of quality of sustainable products can be different, depending on the type of fast moving consumer good. Based on the craft beer reviews on a Facebook page for fans of craft beer and on Untappd, the best known beer app, taste is by far the most important indicator of quality of craft beer. Taste is therefore taken as the indicator for the quality of craft beer in this study.

(22)

12

H1A: Consumers who find taste more important when purchasing craft beer have a lower intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

A high price is sometimes seen as a signal of higher quality. However, the higher price that sustainable products usually have compared to conventional products is often given as a reason for not purchasing sustainable products (e.g. Gleim et al., 2013; Kihlberg & Risvik, 2007). It is thus to be expected that consumers for whom it is more important that craft beers have a low price, are less likely to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. The second hypothesis is therefore:

H1B: Consumers who find a low price more important when purchasing craft beer have a lower intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

The third hypothesis regards the way the beer bottle looks. Olsmats, Nilsson & Pousette (2015) have found that packaging can have a significant impact on how likely a consumer is to purchase a sustainable product. Glass bottles are often associated with recycling, cans less so. Additionally, the sustainable breweries often indicate that their craft beers are produced sustainably. For example, one of the most common ways of sustainable production is organic production. Craft beers that are brewed organically, usually have that mentioned clearly on their labels. Other types of sustainability are also often mentioned on the labels or represented by a logo. Consumers who pay more attention to the bottle are expected to be more likely to be influenced by the sustainability signaling of the material or labels. The hypothesis is therefore:

H1C: consumers who find the exterior of the bottle to be more important when purchasing craft beer, are more likely to have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

(23)

13 produced craft beer. To confirm that this is the case, the following hypothesis will be tested:

H1D: Consumers who find the sustainability of craft beer more important have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

The fifth hypothesis regards the importance of local identity. Based on the information on the websites of some popular craft beer breweries in the Netherlands, there is a clear trend among Dutch craft beer breweries of trying to use resources that are produced locally. Examples of such breweries are Gulpener and Ramses. It is expected that consumers view locally produced craft beer to be more sustainable as it needs less fuel to transport them to the brewery that is nearby. Consumers who attach more value to the local identity of craft beer are therefore expected to have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H1E: Consumers who find the local identity to be more important when purchasing craft beer, have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

(24)

14

H1F: Consumers for whom the alcohol percentage is more important when purchasing craft beer have a lower intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

3.1.2. Normative beliefs

The second hypothesis that stems from the theory of planned behavior is about normative behavior. According to the theory, the individual is influenced in his or her behavior by perceived norms or expectations, together shaping the social pressure on the individual to perform certain behavior.

Everybody engaging in social interaction is part of a social network. According to Kadushin (2012), these networks are made up for an important part by social circles. These are network clusters which are usually informal of nature, relatively loose and overlap with each other. A person can be part of many different social circles and can be part of multiple social circles that a friend or family member is also part of. But people that have a similar trait, characteristic or interest are also part of at least one same social circle (Kadushin, 2012).

Opinion leaders and influentials such as friends and family members can greatly influence others in their social circle (Eck, Jager & Leeflang, 2011). In the case of craft beer, the opinion leaders or ‘influentials’ might also be bartenders, online bloggers or people with a strong presence on social media. Additionally, apps such as Untappd might also influence the decision of the individual.

(25)

15 taste of the craft beer than on other aspects such as how sustainably it is produced. He or she might thus neglect the importance of sustainability more when being influenced than when making the decision individually. On the other hand, people who make the decision on their own might look more for cues such as the information on the label of the beer or if there is something special about the beer, for example if it is an organic beer. Thus, the hypothesis is:

H2: Consumers who get guided more by influentials in the choice for a craft beer have a lower intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

3.1.3. Control beliefs and perceived behavioral control

The last aspect of the TBL, consisting of control beliefs and perceived behavioral control, is measured using two separate hypotheses. For control beliefs, it is expected that consumers who find it more difficult to acquire knowledge on how craft beer is produced might not know what sustainable production of craft beer entails. This is a problem that is also known to affect organic food consumption: many consumers do not know if purchasing organic food is really a more sustainable alternative to purchasing conventional food. When consumers feel that it is difficult for them, maybe even impossible, to learn how to identify whether a craft beer is produced sustainably or not, sustainability might not hold meaning or at least hold less meaning for them in the context of craft beer. The hypothesis is therefore:

H3: Consumers who find it more difficult to acquire knowledge on how craft beer is produced, have a lower intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

(26)

16

H4: Consumers who know more about how sustainably their craft beer is produced have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

3.2. Sustainability

Low involvement can be a barrier against choosing a sustainable product over a non-sustainable product (Vuylsteke, Vackier, Verbeke & Huylenbroeck, 2004). Positive attitudes towards aspects of sustainability such as environmental protection, fair trade and local products result in sustainable purchasing behavior (Minton & Rose, 1997; Tanner & Kast, 2003). It is expected that consumers who are more concerned with sustainability in general and who pay more attention to sustainability issues of the products they consume, in this case craft beer, are more likely to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H5: consumers who are more concerned with sustainability and pay attention to how sustainably the craft beers they consume are produced, are more likely to intend on purchasing sustainably produced craft beer.

3.3. Innovativeness

(27)

17

H6: More innovative consumers have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

3.4. Age

Studies on the connection between age and sustainable purchasing give mixed results. Some suggest that younger people have a more positive attitude towards sustainably produced food, especially organic food, than older people (e.g. Magnusson, Arvola, Hursti, Åberg & Sjödén, 2003). However there are also reports stating that young people are less prone to purchasing sustainably produced products. For example that consumers of organic products are generally over 30 years old (Cicia, Del Giudice & Scarpa, 2002). It is expected that young people are more influenced by trends. Because sustainable production of craft beer is a relatively new and trendy practice, younger people are expected to have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

3.5. Gender

Many studies have found that women are more likely to purchase sustainably produced products, especially organic products, than men (e.g. “Organic Consumers”, 2001; Magnusson et al., 2003; Leeuw, Valois, Ajzen & Schmidt, 2015). However, the market for craft beer is dominated by male consumers. When looking at media such as Facebook pages for craft beer fans and Untappd, the vast majority of true craft beer fans (also called “Beer geeks”) appears to be male. And it is this group of true fans that seems to be most interested in craft beer trends. It therefore seems more likely that in contrast to other product categories, men have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer than women.

3.6. Income

(28)

18 be the most important aspect of sustainability that consumers think about regarding craft beer. It is therefore likely that consumers with higher income have a greater intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer, similar to the results found in studies on organic products.

3.7. Education

(29)

19

4. Methodology

In this section the data and design of the study and the operationalization of the different concepts are described.

4.1. Data collection and design

To test the hypotheses in this study, data was collected via a survey (see appendix B) created in Qualtrics, aimed at Dutch craft beer drinkers on Facebook. The survey is therefore written in Dutch. The respondents (N=434) became aware of the survey via a Facebook post of the author of this study or via a post in a Facebook group for craft beer fans. The response rate based on the amount of people who saw one of the Facebook posts is unknown. All respondents received the same survey, containing 87 questions and statements. Data was collected between the 17th_{and 30}th_{of May 2016. The}

(30)

20 Figure 2. Conceptual model

(31)

21

4.2. Operationalization

4.2.1. Purchase intention of sustainably produced craft beer

The dependent variable “Purchase Intention of Sustainably Produced Craft Beer” is measured using six statements, each answered using a 7-point likert scale ranging from 1=completely disagree to 7=completely agree. An example of a question that is used is: “When I know that a craft beer is produced sustainably, I would buy it instead of a regular craft beer”. For each of the items, a higher score means a higher purchase intention of sustainably produced craft beer. The new variable will be renamed into “Sustainable Purchase Intention”.

Behavioral beliefs are measured using six items, each representing a characteristic of craft beer that is deemed important to consumers when purchasing craft beer, both in a pub and in a store. These items are price, sustainability, alcohol percentage, taste, bottle and local identity of the beer. The questions that were asked are: “Please indicate for each of the characteristics below to what extent they are important to you when purchasing a craft beer in a store” and “Please indicate for each of the characteristics below to what extent they are important to you when purchasing a craft beer in a pub”. The importance of each characteristic is measured using a 7-point likert scale ranging from 1=unimportant to 7=very important. For each item, the scores on the item when regarding the store and regarding the pub will be taken together to get an average score for its importance when purchasing craft beer. Each item will be renamed into “Importance of” and then the item. For example: price was measured by asking for the importance of a low price. The item “low price” will be renamed into “Importance of Price”, where a high score indicates that the respondent finds a low price to be important when purchasing craft beer.

4.2.3. Normative behavior

(32)

22 “Normative Behavior” is the average score of all ten items. A high score indicates a high influence by influentials on the purchasing behavior of craft beer.

4.2.4. Perceived behavioral control

Perceived behavioral control is measured using two variables. The first variable is “Difficulty Acquiring Knowledge”. This question is measured by using the question: “It is difficult for me to get to know a lot about craft beer”. The second variable is “Knowledge of Production”. This variable gives an indication of how much knowledge the respondent has about how sustainably craft beer is produced. An example of a question that will be used is: “I do not know how sustainably the craft beers I drink are produced”. This variable will be measured using four items, each answered using a 7-point likert scale ranging from 1=completely disagree to 7=completely agree. One of the items will be recoded so that for all items, a high score indicates that the respondent has much knowledge on how sustainably craft beer is produced.

4.2.5. Sustainability

Sustainability is measured using 17 items each answered using a 7-point likert scale ranging from 1=completely disagree to 7=completely agree. An example of a question that is used is: “I consciously choose to purchase sustainably produced products”. Seven items will be recoded so that for all items, a high score indicates a positive attitude towards sustainability. The score on the newly created variable “Sustainability” is the average score of all 17 items.

4.2.6. Innovativeness

(33)

23

4.2.7. Age and gender

The age of respondents is measured by asking them to type in their year of birth. The new variable “Age” will be acquired by subtracting the year of birth from 2016 as that is the year in which this study is done. The gender of respondents was acquired by asking the respondent to indicate their gender to either be “male”, “female” or “other”.

4.2.8. Income

The income of respondents is measured by the following question: “What is (by approximation) the monthly net income of your household?”. Respondents were given 13 options, starting with “no income”, then “under €500”, then taking steps of €500 up until €5000, after which the remaining two options are “€5000 or more” and “do not know/don’t want to tell”. The options “no income” and “under €500” are merged into “under €500” and the responses to the option “do not know/don’t want to tell” are recoded into missing values.

4.2.9. Education

(34)

(35)

25

5. Results

The conceptual model for this study is tested using linear regression. First, some adjustments to the data are done. Second, the demographics of the respondents are discussed. Third, the construct validity of the main variables and their outcomes from the survey are discussed. Finally, the hypotheses are tested using linear regression and further findings are analyzed.

5.1. Data

In total, 434 respondents took part in this study. Although 182 of the respondents did not complete the survey, their responses were still recorded and included in the dataset. Some respondents are left out of the final dataset that is used for the analyses below. Despite clearly stating that the survey was only to be filled in by consumers of craft beer, some of the respondents have never drunk craft beer in their lives. As this study focuses on consumers who drink craft beer, all respondents who have reportedly drunk fewer than five craft beers in their life (n=5) are excluded from the final dataset. The final model to test the hypotheses includes the responses of 193 respondents.

Although this study focuses on drinkers of craft beer in the Netherlands, there are also 14 non-Dutch respondents (based on the answers to the question whether the respondent is Dutch or not). These respondents are probably Belgians as the survey was held in Dutch. Further analysis showed no significant difference in findings between using the dataset with the Belgians and using the dataset without them. Therefore these respondents are not excluded from the dataset.

5.2. Demographics

(36)

26 demographic of this study is different compared to that of the Dutch beer study. In that study, approximately 54% was under 50 years old, while in this study over 87% is under 50 years old (Teeffelen & Jongh, 2015).

Table 1. Age and Gender

Variables Valid N Mean SD Min Max

Age 249 33.96 10.95 19 73 Gender 248 .270 .44 0 1

The distributions of the ordinal variables income and education are shown in Tables 2 and 3 below. There is a relatively even distribution of income levels. Table 3 shows that most respondents that answered the question about education level have finished higher education. In the Netherlands less than 30% of the population have finished higher education (“Hoogopgeleiden, 2014”, 2015). This indicates that in this study, consumers with a high level of education are overrepresented.

(37)

27

5.3. Outcomes main variables and construct validity

The outcomes and construct validity of the main variables are shown in Table 4 below. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the variable “Knowledge of Production” as it was defined in the method section was .59. In order to raise it to a point above the threshold of .6, the item “I do not know how sustainably the craft beers I drink are produced” should be excluded. However, of the four items that were supposed to be used to measure the variable, this item is the one that resembles the variable the best. It could be that the other items such as “I know where the craft beers I drink come from” were asked in a way that is too ambiguous. Therefore, instead of using the four items as initially suggested, the variable “Knowledge of Production” will be measured solely by the responses to the statement “I do not know how sustainably the craft beers I drink are produced”. This item will be recoded so that a high score indicates that the respondent knows well how sustainably the craft beers he or she drinks are produced. Additionally, the gender variable will only include respondents that either filled in that they are male or female. Males are given a value of 0, females are given a value of 1, the indication “other” is excluded from the analyses. This is because there was only one response recorded as “other” which makes it unusable to represent that entire demographic in the regression analysis.

(38)

28

Table 4. Outcomes and validity of main variables

Variables Mean SD Min Max Cronbach’s Alpha

Valid N

Sustainable Purchase Intention 3.63 1.36 1.00 7.00 .91 266 Importance of Taste 6.63 .66 4.00 7.00 .82 258 Importance of Price 3.84 1.57 1.00 7.00 .75 259 Importance of Bottle 3.92 1.48 1.00 7.00 .73 259 Importance of Sustainability 3.20 1.56 1.00 7.00 .88 258 Importance of Local Identity 4.47 1.57 1.00 7.00 .89 258 Importance of Alcohol Percentage 4.00 1.67 1.00 7.00 .86 259 Normative Behavior 4.40 1.15 1.10 6.40 .76 249 Difficulty Acquiring Knowledge 6.00 1.51 1.00 7.00 n.a. 247 Knowledge of Production 2.79 1.54 1.00 7.00 n.a. 267 Sustainability 4.74 .75 2.71 6.76 .81 263 Innovativeness 5.48 1.12 2.17 7.00 .76 340

5.4. Testing assumptions of linear regression

In order for the model in this study to be valid, the assumptions for linear regressions have to be met. There are four assumptions for linear regression. These are that residuals are distributed normally, linearly and are homoscedastic and that the respondents were not influenced by each other when filling in the survey.

5.4.1. Normality of residuals

(39)

29

5.4.2. Homoscedasticity and linearity of residuals

The assumption of homoscedasticity is that there is constant variance of the residuals in the model. The assumption of linearity is that the residuals are distributed in a linear way. To test these two assumptions, a residual plot (figure 4 in appendix A) is made of the standardized residuals of the model. The deviation of the residuals from the horizontal line is not perfectly constant across the x-axis but there is no clear ascending or descending pattern in the width of the residuals. It can therefore be assumed that there is homoscedasticity in the residuals. Additionally, the residuals appear to be horizontally aligned in a linear fashion, indicating that they are linearly distributed. Thus, both the assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity of residuals are met.

5.4.3. Independent sampling

The data for this study were collected using an online survey. Although it could not be checked whether respondents filled in the survey individually or together with other respondents, there are no indications that the latter is the case. Therefore there is little reason to suspect this assumption to be false.

5.5. Testing of the model

To test the hypotheses of this study, a linear regression is performed. The results of this regression are shown in Table 5 below. The model overall is good at predicting the intention of consumers to purchase or not purchase sustainably produced craft beer (adj. r2_{=.64) and the model is significant (p<.01). Five of the measured effects are}

significant. The first significant effect is that of the importance of sustainability when purchasing craft beer (β = .57, p<.01). This effect is positive and significant, indicating that consumers for whom sustainability is an important dimension to pay attention to when purchasing craft beer on average have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

(40)

30 The third significant effect is that of knowledge of production (β = .08, p<.05). This effect is also positive and significant, indicating that consumers who are more aware of how sustainably the craft beers they drink are produced, on average have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

The fourth significant effect is that of sustainability (β = .24, p<.05). This effect is also positive and significant, indicating that consumers who have a more positive attitude towards sustainability on average have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

The fifth significant effect is that of gender (β = -.30, p<.05). This effect is negative and significant, indicating that on average, men have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer than women.

The other variables are not significant, indicating that no significant effect was found between these variables and the purchase intention for sustainably produced craft beer. However, they do add value to the adjusted r2_{. This means that they are useful}

(41)

31

Table 5. Testing of the conceptual model

Variables β t Constant 1.10 1.20 Importance of Taste -.10 -1.11 Importance of Price .01 .84 Importance of Bottle .07 1.35 Importance of Sustainability .57 11.76** Importance of Local Identity .16 3.53** Importance of Alcohol Percentage .01 .22

Normative Behavior .01 .08

Difficulty Acquiring Knowledge -.02 -.55 Knowledge of Production .08 2.06*

Sustainability .24 2.60*

Innovativeness -.08 -1.37

Age -.00 -.27

Gender -.30 -2.01*

Yearly income of household -.03 -1.32 Level of education -.01 -.16

Adj. R2 _=.64**

*p<.05. **p<.01

5.6. Additional analyses

As very little is known about craft beer drinkers, some additional information was requested from respondents. Firstly, the reported attitude towards sustainability (measured with the variable “Sustainability”) and the importance of sustainability when purchasing craft beer (measured with the variable “Importance of Sustainability”) correlate significantly (r=.358, p<.01). This indicates that there is a significant positive relationship between how concerned a consumer is and how important sustainability is when purchasing craft beer

(42)

32 The amount of craft beers the respondents drink monthly ranges from zero to 120, with a mean of over 20 craft beers per month. The average amount of years respondents have been drinking craft beer is also surprising. The average amount of years is close to 11, with the maximum at 42. As craft beer in the Netherlands has only become very popular over the last 10 years, there clearly must be a lot of respondents that were ahead of the trend. The difference in amount of different craft beers that respondents have tried also varies widely. The minimum lies at zero or close to zero, while the maximum lies at 15000. Even at a pace of drinking 120 different craft beers every month, it would take over 10 years to get there.

(43)

33

Table 6. Information on amount of drinking

Gender Variables Mean SD Min Max Valid N

Average amount of craft beers per month

20.29 17.78 0 120 369

All Years of experience drinking craft beer

10.75 9.07 0 42 369

Amount of different craft beers

834.48 1606.72 5 15000 369

23.61 16.64 1 120 181

Men

(Gender=0)

Years of experience drinking craft beer

12.18 9.58 1 42 180

1094.25 1720.76 5 13000 181

11.42 11.38 1 65 67

Women (Gender=1)

Years of experience drinking craft beer

7.07 6.67 1 30 67

281.85 513.722 8 2000 67

Men pay more attention to the sustainability of craft beer. To the statement “I have never thought about the sustainability of drinking craft beer”, men had an average score of 3.73 while women had an average score of 4.2 on a scale of seven. With a score of 1 being “totally disagree” and 7 being “totally agree”, on average more women pay less attention to the sustainability of drinking craft beer than men.

(44)

34 respondents specifically mentioned Gulpener, mainly using phrases such as “organic”, “use of local products” and “uses solar energy” to describe Gulpener’s sustainability characteristics. Craft beer brewery De Leckere was also mentioned quite often, 15 times in total. They are known for their organic beers.

(45)

35

6. Discussion

The main goal of this study was to examine to what extent the theory of planned behavior, consumers’ engagement with sustainability and their level of innovativeness can be used to predict the consumers’ intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. The findings and theoretical implications of the findings are discussed first. This is followed by the managerial implications for craft beer breweries, after which the reader is provided with limitations of this study and suggestions for further research.

6.1. Findings and theoretical implications

Overall, the model provides a good prediction of how high the intention of consumers is to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. All factors that were found to significantly influence that intention are discussed below.

(46)

36 The effects of other aspects (importance of price, bottle, alcohol percentage and taste) that were used to measure behavioral intention do not influence consumers’ intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. The hypotheses about their effects (H1A, H1B, H1C & H1F) are thus not supported by the data in this study.

It is striking that no relationship was found between the importance of price and taste and the intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. Taste is often mentioned to be an important reason for consumers to purchase sustainably produced products, especially organic products (e.g. Kihlberg & Risvik, 2007). However, there are also studies such as the study by Gleim et al. (2013) that show a negative perception of the quality of sustainable products. In the case of craft beer, there may be reasons underlying a positive or negative attitude towards sustainably produced craft beer that involve taste but are not researched in this study. For example, it could be that the quality of sustainably produced craft beers varies much, resulting in contrasting experiences of consumers with regard to sustainably produced craft beers.

Only 190 out of the 1397 craft beers that the respondents in this study listed in their top fives of best craft beers they have ever drunk, come from a craft beer brewery that is mentioned at least once by respondents as engaging in sustainable brewing. That is less than 14% of all the beers in the top five. Based on this finding one could argue that if there was a significant relationship between taste and intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer, it would most likely be negative. Most of the beers that were mentioned that come from a sustainable brewery are either from Struise, a Belgian brewery considered to be one of the best in the world, from De Molen, one of the best breweries in the Netherlands, or from Gulpener, the largest sustainable lager brewery in the Netherlands. Gulpener has been a trend setter in sustainable brewing since the 1990’s. Both Struise and De Molen have become more active with sustainable brewing over the past few years, as have many other breweries. Other sustainable breweries are at this point in time probably either lagging in terms of quality or are less well-known. Many craft beer breweries have such a low capacity that they only sell locally.

(47)

37 found. One possible explanation for this finding is that craft beers are usually much more expensive in comparison to lager, and are still increasing in price. As this price difference is so large, consumers might have gotten used to paying a lot more for craft beer. A small difference in price between conventional and sustainably produced craft beers if there is one can therefore go unnoticed. This could result in a smaller influence of price on the decision to purchase sustainably produced craft beer compared to other product categories.

6.1.2. Normative behavior

An effect of social pressure on the intention to perform certain behavior, in this case purchasing sustainably produced craft beer, is not found in this study. According to the theory of planned behavior, consumers are influenced in their behavior by social pressure to perform certain behavior. Although respondents in this study on average reported to be subject to above average social pressure with regard to the purchasing of craft beer, that does not appear to uniformly push consumers towards either having a higher or a lower intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. Thus, the hypothesis (H2) that consumers who are subject to more social influence with regard to the craft beers they purchase have a lower intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer is not supported by the findings in this study.

6.1.3. Perceived behavioral control

Consumers who find it more difficult to acquire knowledge on how craft beer is produced were not found to have a higher or lower intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. This finding is interesting as the theory of planned behavior suggests that factors that restrict consumers from engaging in certain behavior will have a negative impact on their intention to perform that behavior. When consumers feel that it is difficult for them to learn about craft beer, they are restricted in their ability to become aware of the differences between conventional and sustainably produced craft beer. Consequently, identifying to which of these categories a craft beer belongs is very difficult.

(48)

38 beers or lack thereof, do not have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. Consumers who find it more difficult to acquire knowledge on how craft beer is produced were expected to have a lower intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. However this hypothesis (H3) is not supported by the findings.

Knowing how sustainably the craft beers that consumer drink are produced has a positive effect on their intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. This supports the hypothesis (H4) that consumers who are more aware of how sustainably the craft beers they drink are produced, have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. The hypothesis was based on the notion of the theory of planned behavior that consumers who perceive to have more control over a situation, in this case the positive impact of purchasing craft beer from a sustainable brewery, have a higher intention to engage in that behavior.

Consumers of craft beer who know much about how craft beer is produced probably have better understanding of the implications of craft beer being brewed sustainably or not. This is true for both environmental (for example how much energy and water some breweries save by brewing sustainably) and social (for example how many jobs for handicapped people can be generated by a sustainable brewery) sustainability. Knowing what impact they can have by purchasing from those breweries might positively impact their intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. The implicit assumption that is made here is that consumers will choose for a more sustainable option when given the opportunity. This might not be the case for everyone.

The difficulty of acquiring knowledge about craft beer and the knowledge a consumer has on the sustainability of craft beer seem to be an extension of each other. The effect of the control belief is not significant but the effect of the perceived behavioral control is. This seems to indicate that it is the consumer’s knowledge about the production of craft beer, not how easy it is for him or her to access that knowledge, that influences the intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

6.1.4. Demographics

(49)

39 This contradicts the findings in previous studies (e.g. “Organic Consumers”, 2001; Magnusson et al., 2001; Leeuw, Valois, Ajzen & Schmidt, 2015), suggesting that women are more engaged with purchasing sustainable products than men. A possible reason for this finding is that drinking craft beer is a hobby historically dominated by men. This fact is also reflected in the dataset of this study. On average, men drink more craft beers per month, have been drinking craft beer for more years and have drunk more different craft beers in total. It could be that through drinking more different craft beers and knowing more about it, men on average have become more engaged with craft beer and how it is made. This would explain why women on average are less engaged with the sustainability of craft beer than men.

The other demographics which are age, income and education, do not have an effect on the intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer.

6.2. Managerial implications

The main contribution of this study is that for the first time, a model is provided that reliably explains craft beer drinkers’ intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. Multiple factors that have been found to significantly influence the intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer, can be managed by producers of sustainable craft beer to enhance their sales. Men have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer than women. With approximately 70% of all beer drinkers being men, there seems to be plenty of potential to increase sales without having to cater to a different demographic.

(50)

40 their respective city. A great example of this is “Weizenbier”, which is wheat beer that is still associated with Bavaria in Germany where it was invented.

The second finding that is interesting for sustainable breweries is that consumers for whom sustainability is an important characteristic in their purchasing decision of craft beer, have a much higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. Additionally, it was also found that consumers with a more positive attitude towards sustainability have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. It might be that for sustainable breweries, stressing the sustainability aspects of their beers can help increase their sales to more sustainability minded consumers. For example, the Belgian brewery Lupulus and the Dutch brewery De Leckere already clearly advertise their organic beers as being organic. Gulpener also provides much on what it does to brew as sustainably as possible. It might also be very effective for sustainable breweries to sell their beers in certain types of stores. For breweries that stress their local identity that could mean selling their beers in stores that sell regional products, while organic breweries could sell their beers in organic stores.

(51)

41 stressing sustainable and – if applicable – regional characteristics, these might be seen as a differentiating factor that the personnel use to sell the beers to their customers. This has been working very well for Baxbier, a Dutch brewery that puts much emphasis on identification with the city of Groningen, but it has also proven to work well for breweries in other cities and countries such as for the enormous amount of brew pubs in the United States.

The fourth finding that craft beer breweries can take advantage of, is that men have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. If the intention to purchase is a good indicator for actual purchase intention, it might be a sound strategy for sustainable craft breweries to mainly focus on marketing to men. Not only because they have a higher intention to purchase sustainably produce craft beer, but also the majority of craft beer drinkers is men and on average they drink way more craft beers than women. Therefore the potential sales of sustainably produced craft beer seem to be a lot higher among men than among women.

The final finding that sustainable breweries should take to heart is that craft beers from sustainable breweries are underperforming in the battle for best craft beers. One reason of this can be the coverage. Many small breweries sell their beers locally. But for the larger breweries this is not an excuse. Of course not all breweries have the goal to grow. But for breweries that want to make a difference on a larger scale, the best way to do that still appears to be brewing some of the very best beers around.

6.3. Limitations and suggestions for further research

This study provides some new and unique insights into the factors that influence the intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. However there are also multiple limitations that should be taken into account. The biggest limitation is probably the way in which the triple bottom line was operationalized. According to the triple bottom line there are three types of beliefs that influence consumers’ intention to engage in an activity. These three types of beliefs, which are behavioral, normative and control beliefs, might not have been accurately measured by the questions and statements in the survey.

(52)

42 It is very improbable that the six aspects that were measured are all the aspects of the quality of craft beer that consumers take into account when purchasing craft beer. Additionally, measuring the importance of different aspects of quality might not have been the best way to measure the behavioral beliefs of consumers regarding sustainable craft beer. Instead it might make more sense to measure the relationship between these characteristics and how the consumers perceive them.

Another limitation regarding the dataset is that the ambiguity of some statements led to responses that were not usable for the analyses. One example of such a statement is “I know where the craft beers I drink come from”. This can be interpreted as a question about how the craft beers that the consumer drinks are produced in a similar way to asking a child where milk comes from. However, it can also be interpreted as a question about the region or country of origin of the craft beer, or from which brewery the beers come from. A second example of such a question is “I am a true beer connoisseur”. A high score on that statement does not have to automatically mean that the respondent knows how craft beer is made. Unfortunately, these mistakes were discovered due to some feedback from respondents that was received after almost all the data were already collected.

Most respondents in the sample that is used in this study are quite young, with an average age of close to 34. A reason for this could be that the data were collected among Facebook users and young people are overrepresented on Facebook. Older people might hold different opinions on craft beer and sustainability. It could therefore be that despite the relatively large sample, extrapolation of the findings in this study to the entire population of Dutch craft beer drinkers does not match the actual behavior of Dutch craft beer drinkers. However, according to the model there is no significant effect between the age of respondents and their intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer. The skewness in the age demographic is therefore unlikely to influence the reliability of the model. In other contexts it might be important to have a more equal distribution of respondents of different ages. For example when researching changes of drinking behavior, as older consumers might have more years of experience with drinking craft beer.

(53)

43 craft beer with the given model. However, only the consumers’ intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer was measured, not their actual purchase behavior. According to the theory of planned behavior, perceived behavioral control influences the degree in which the intention to purchase will result in actual purchasing behavior. It would be very interesting to see if and how a higher intention to purchase sustainably produced craft beer really leads to corresponding purchasing behavior. Is it a matter of price? Or rather a matter of quality? Or are sustainably produced craft beers simply not available everywhere? Moreover, which factors of the perceived behavioral control impact the discrepancy between intention and actual purchase behavior?

Additionally, qualitative research could provide valuable insights into what kind of image sustainable beers and breweries have and how well aware consumers are of how environmentally unfriendly most beers are brewed. Finally, the impact of local identity deserves more attention. What do consumers of craft beer define as regional? It might be that consumers view craft beers that originate from the Netherlands as regional, in comparison to beers from the United Kingdom or the United States for example. If that is the case, then Dutch breweries can cater their ‘regional’ products to the entire Dutch craft beer drinking population instead of just to the inhabitants of their own regions.

(54)

(55)

45

Bibliography

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Kuhl, J. & Beckman, J. (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior. Heidelberg: Springer.

Bartels, J. & Reinders, M.J. (2010). Social identification, social representations, and consumer innovativeness in an organic food context: A cross-national comparison.

Food Quality and Preference, 21(4), 347-352.

Bevolking; geslacht, leeftijd, burgerlijke staat en region, 1 januari. (2016, April 29). Retrieved June 16, 2016, from Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?PA=03759ned

Brundtland. G. H., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., Chidzero, B., Fadika, L., Hauff, V. et al. (1987). Report of the World Commision on Environment and Development: Our

Common Future. Retrieved June 16, 2016, from

http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

Canonico, L., Comitini, F. & Ciani, M. (2014). Dominance and influence of selected Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains on the analytical profile of craft beer refermentation.

Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 120(3), 262-267.

Chekima, B., Chekima, S., Wafa, S.A.W.S.K., Igau, O.A., Sondoh Jr., S.L. (2016). Sustainable consumption: the effects of knowledge, cultural values, environmental advertising, and demographic. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World

Ecology, 23(2), 210-220.

(56)

46 CRAFT BREWER VOLUME SHARE OF U.S. BEER MARKET REACHES DOUBLE DIGITS IN 2014. (2015, March 16). Retrieved June 16, 2016, from BREWERS ASSOCIATION: https://www.brewersassociation.org/press-releases/craft-brewer-volume-share-of-u-s-beer-market-reaches-double-digits-in-2014/

Diels, L., Hupperts, P. & Silva., C. (2014). Duurzaamheidsverslag 2014. Retrieved June 16, 2016, from https://view.publitas.com/gulpener/duurzaamheidsverslag-2014/

Eck, P.S. van, Jager, W. & Leeflang, P.S.H. (2011). Opinion Leaders’ Role in Innovation Diffusion: A Simulation Study. Journal of Product Innovation Management,

28(2), 187-203.

Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with Forks: Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century. Chichester: Capstone Publishing Ltd.

Giovenzana, V., Beghi, R. & Guidetti, R. (2014). Rapid evaluation of craft beer quality during fermentation process by vis/NIR spectroscopy. Journal of Food

Engineering, 142, 80-86.

Gleim, M.R., Smith, J.S., Andrews, D. & Cronin Jr., J.J. (2013). Against the Green: A Multi-method Examination of the Barriers to Green Consumption. Journal of Retailing,

89(1), 44-61.

Govidnasamy, R. & Italia, J. (1990). Predicting willingness to pay a premium for organically grown fresh produce. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 30(2), 44-53.

Hoalst-Pullen, N., Patterson, M.W., Mattord, R.A. & Vest, M.D. (2014). The

Geography of Beer. Netherlands: Springer.

Hoogopgeleiden, 2014. (2015, July 22). Retrieved June 16, 2016, from Rijksoverheid: http://www.clo.nl/indicatoren/nl2100-opleidingsniveau-

(57)

47 Jongh, J. de & Worrell, L. (2013, May). Nationaal Bieronderzoek Nederland. Retrieved June 16, 2016, from Nederlandse Brouwers:

http://www.nederlandsebrouwers.nl/site/assets/files/1227/nationaal_bieronderzoek_ 2013.pdf

Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding Social Networks: Theories, Concepts, and

Findings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kiesel, K. & Villas-Boas, S. (2007). Got Organic Milk? Consumer Valuations of Milk Labels after the Implementation of the USDA Organic Seal. Journal of Agricultural & Food

Industrial Organization, 5(1), 1-40.

Kihlberg, I. & Risvik, E. (2007). Consumers of organic foods – value segments and liking of bread. Food Quality and Preference, 18(3), 471-481.

Leeuw, A. de, Valois, P., Ajzen, I. & Schmidt, P. (2015). Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 42, 128-138.

Liobikienė, G., Mandravickaitė, J. & Bernatonienė, J. (2016). Theory of planned behavior approach to understand the green purchasing behavior in the EU: A cross-cultural study. Ecological Economics, 125, 38-46.

Loureiro, M.L., McCluskey, J.J. & Mittelhammer, R.C. (2001). Assessing Consumer Preferences for Organic, Eco-labeled, and Regular Apples. Journal of Agricultural and

Resource Economics, 26(2), 404-416.

(58)

48 Martinho, G., Pires, A., Portela, G. & Fonseca, M. (2015). Factors affecting consumers’ choices concerning sustainable packaging during product purchase and recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 103, 58-68.

Minton, A.P. & Rose, R.L. (1997). The Effects of Environmental Concern on Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Business

Research, 40(1), 37-48.

Monster, L. & Pijll, S. van der. (2015, October). Duurzaamheid wordt de norm voor consumenten. Duurzaamheidskompas, 15. Retrieved June 16, 2016, from http://www.duurzaamheidkompas.nl/downloads/duurzaamheidkompas_15_trendrapp ort.pdf

Nederland streeft België voorbij qua aantal bierbrouwers. (2015, June 23). NOS. Retrieved June 16, 2016, from http://nos.nl/artikel/2042938-nederland-streeft-belgie-voorbij-qua-aantal-bierbrouwers.html

Olsmats, C., Nilsson, B. & Pousette, S. (2015). Perceptions of Sustainability and Functional Aspects on Liquid Carton Board Packaging Materials versus Competing Materials for Juice Applications in Sweden. Beverages, 1, 194-203.

Organic Consumers: They May Not Be Who You Think They Are. (2003, May 7). Retrieved June 16, 2016, from Packaged Facts:

http://www.packagedfacts.com/about/release.asp?id=205

Paul, J., Modi, A. & Patel, J. (2016). Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. Journal of Retailing and Consumer

Services, 29, 123-134.