Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring Influences of Different Communication Approaches on Consumer Target Groups for Ethically Produced Beef

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Communicating the process quality of ethically produced food effectively is of highest interest to policy makers, organizations, retailers and producers in order to enhance ethical food production and increase ethical label use. The objective of this paper is to unveil the effectiveness of different communication treatments in regard to changing purchase behavior of different consumer groups. Different communication material for beef produced according to consumer expectations was compiled and applied in a consumer survey—incorporating a choice experiment and a questionnaire—with 676 respondents in three cities of Germany. A Latent Class Mixed Logit Model was basis to identify different consumer segments and their response to the different communication treatments. The effects of different communication treatments unveil the importance to address information in an objective manner. Target groups could be enlarged through the assessment of clear, objective information. Moreover, most consumers were more likely to refrain from choosing a cheap beef product from conventional, barn-based rearing. Hence, consumers might be interested in reducing their overall consumption of beef and prefer the consumption of high value ethical beef with less frequency. Producers, market actors and policy makers should realize that a high share of consumers, not only smaller target groups, value ethical food and may be ready to change their consumption habits, if they are adequately informed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the group which received the documentary film, an estimation procedure was possible, when skipping 54 observations. For the group which received the leaflet, no segmentation was conceivable at all.

References

  • Apostolidis, C., & McLeay, F. (2016). Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat consumption through substitution. Food Policy, 65, 74–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechtold, K.-B., & Abdulai, A. (2014). Combining attitudinal statements with choice experiments to analyze preference heterogeneity for functional dairy products. Food Policy, 47, 97–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BMEL\. (2017). Deutschland, wie es isst. Ernaehrungsreport 2017. Berlin. Retrieved from http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Broschueren/Ernaehrungsreport2017.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.

  • Borkfelt, S., Kondrup, S., Röcklinsberg, H., Bjørkdahl, K., & Gjerris, M. (2015). Closer to nature? A critical discussion of the marketing of “Ethical” animal products. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(6), 1053–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggeman, B. C., & Lusk, J. L. (2011). Preferences for fairness and equity in the food system. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 38(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, B., Rose, J., & Crase, L. (2012). Does anybody like water restrictions? Some observations in Australian urban communities. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 56(1), 61–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jonge, J., & van Trijp, H. (2014). Heterogeneity in consumer perceptions of the animal friendliness of broiler production systems. Food Policy, 49, 174–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Pelsmacker, P., & Janssens, W. (2007). A model for fair trade buying behaviour: The role of perceived quantity and quality of information and of product-specific attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4), 361–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentoni, D. T., Tonsor, G., Calantone, R., & Christopher Peterson, H. (2014). Disentangling direct and indirect effects of credence labels. British Food Journal, 116(6), 931–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eurobarometer. (2007). Attitudes of consumer towards animal welfare: Special Eurobarometer 270. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf.

  • Eurobarometer. (2016). Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare.: Special Eurobarometer 442. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECIAL/surveyKy/2096.

  • European Commission. (2010). Labelling related to animal welfare. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare/other_aspects/labelling_en.

  • Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Introducing statistical methods. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fliess, B., Lee, H-J., Dubreuil, O. L., & Agatiello, O. (2007). CSR and Trade: Informing consumers about social and environmental conditions of globalised production (OECD trade policy working paper No. 47–PART I).

  • German Federal Research Institute of Nutrition and Food. (2008). National Nutrition Survey (II). Karlsruhe. Retrieved from https://www.mri.bund.de/fileadmin/MRI/Institute/EV/NVS_II_Abschlussbericht_Teil_1_mit_Ergaenzungsbericht.pdf.

  • German Federal Statistical Office. (2014). Genesis-online Databank. Retrieved from Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) website: https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online/data;jsessionid=6D9A2A0F67C339C4BD244A7A68FF1383.tomcat_GO_1_1?Menu=Willkommen.

  • Greene, W. (2016). Nlogit. Reference guide.

  • Grunert, K. G., Hieke, S., & Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy, 44, 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C., & Hamm, U. (2016). How important is local food to organic-minded consumers? Appetite, 96, 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, D. A., Rose, J., & Greene, W. A. (2015). Applied choice analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, S., & Beharry-Borg, N. (2012). Accounting for latent attitudes in willingness-to-pay studies: The case of coastal water quality improvements in Tobago. Environmental & Resource Economics, 52(1), 109–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honkanen, P., & Olsen, S. O. (2009). Environmental and animal welfare issues in food choice. British Food Journal, 111(3), 293–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, M., Busch, C., Rödiger, M., & Hamm, U. (2016a). Motives of consumers following a vegan diet and their attitudes towards animal agriculture. Appetite, 105, 643–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, M., Rödiger, M., & Hamm, U. (2016b). Labels for animal husbandry systems meet consumer preferences: Results from a meta-analysis of consumer studies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29(6), 1071–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonell, M., Crona, B., Brown, K., Rönnbäck, P., & Troell, M. (2016). Eco-labeled seafood: Determinants for (blue) green consumption. Sustainability, 8(9), 884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, K. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langen, N. (2011). Are ethical consumption and charitable giving substitutes or not?: Insights into consumers’ coffee choice. Food Quality and Preference, 22(5), 412–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loebnitz, N., & Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2016). Communicating organic food quality in China: Consumer perceptions of organic products and the effect of environmental value priming. Food Quality and Preference, 50, 102–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J. L., & Briggeman, B. C. (2009). Food values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(1), 184–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J. L., & Norwood, F. B. (2016). Some vegetarians spend less money on food, others don’t. Ecological Economics, 130, 232–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J. L., Roosen, J., & Fox, J. A. (2003). Demand for beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn: A comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(1), 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J. L., & Schroeder, T. C. (2004). Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(2), 467–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior (pp. 105–142). Frontiers in Economis: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ökobarometer. (2016). Ökobarometer 2016: Repräsentative Bevölkerungsbefragung im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL). Retrieved from https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Ernaehrung/Oekobarometer2016.html.

  • Paulssen, M., Temme, D., Vij, A., & Walker, J. L. (2014). Values, attitudes and travel behavior: A hierarchical latent variable mixed logit model of travel mode choice. Transportation, 41(4), 873–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sax, J. K., & Doran, N. (2016). Food labeling and consumer associations with health, safety, and environment. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 44, 630–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simoes, J. S., Marsico, E. T., da Cruz, A. G., de Freitas, M. Q., Doro, L. H., & Conte-Junior, C. A. (2015). Effect of sustainability information on consumers’ liking of freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 95(15), 3160–3164. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.7055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1927). Psychophysical analysis. The American Journal of Psychology, 38(3), 368–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonkin, E., Coveney, J., Meyer, S. B., Wilson, A. M., & Webb, T. (2016). Managing uncertainty about food risks - Consumer use of food labelling. Appetite, 107, 242–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Valor, C., Carrero, I., & Redondo, R. (2014). The influence of knowledge and motivation on sustainable label use. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27(4), 591–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., Nayga, R. M., & Verbeke, W. (2014). Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat. Food Policy, 49, 137–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Loo, E. J., Hoefkens, C., & Verbeke, W. (2017). Healthy, sustainable and plant-based eating: Perceived (mis)match and involvement-based consumer segments as targets for future policy. Food Policy, 69, 46–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Wezemael, L., Ueland, O., Rodbotten, R., de Smet, S., Scholderer, J., & Verbeke, W. (2012). The effect of technology information on consumer expectations and liking of beef. Meat Science, 90(2), 444–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., & Verbeke, W. (2014). Public and consumer policies for higher welfare food products: Challenges and OPPORTUNITIES. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27(1), 153–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W. (2008). Impact of communication on consumers’ food choices. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 67(3), 281–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadavalli, A., & Jones, K. (2014). Does media influence consumer demand? The case of lean finely textured beef in the United States. Food Policy, 49, 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Food and Agricultural Marketing, University of Kassel, Steinstr. 19, 37213, Witzenhausen, Germany

    Antje Risius & Ulrich Hamm

Authors
  1. Antje Risius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ulrich Hamm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antje Risius.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Risius, A., Hamm, U. Exploring Influences of Different Communication Approaches on Consumer Target Groups for Ethically Produced Beef. J Agric Environ Ethics 31, 325–340 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9727-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9727-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation