Product Differentiation: Ethical Arguments in the Organic Food Sector

This research report, published in Appetite 62 (2013), investigates promising ethical arguments for product differentiation within the organic food sector. The study employs a mixed methods research approach, combining an Information Display Matrix, Focus Group Discussions, and Choice Experiments across five European countries. The research aims to identify consumer preferences regarding organic food with additional ethical attributes, such as higher animal welfare, local production, and fair producer prices, and assess their relevance in the marketplace. The findings reveal that while consumers generally favor these attributes, the effectiveness of communication strategies varies. The research highlights the potential for product differentiation in the organic sector by exceeding existing minimum regulations and emphasizes the value of a mixed methods approach for gaining comprehensive insights. The study also discusses implications for both researchers and practitioners in the organic food industry, offering insights into consumer behavior and market opportunities.

Research report
Promising ethical arguments for product differentiation in the organic
food sector.A mixed methods research approachq
Katrin Zandera,c,⇑
, Hanna Stolzb, Ulrich Hamma
a Department of Agricultural and Food Marketing at the University of Kassel,Steinstrasse 19,D-37213 Witzenhausen,Germany
b Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) Socio-economic Division,Ackerstrasse,CH-5070 Frick,Switzerland
c Thünen-Institute of Market Analysis,Bundesalle 50,38116 Braunschweig,Germany1
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 2 February 2012
Received in revised form 12 November 2012
Accepted 20 November 2012
Available online 30 November 2012
Keywords:
Organic food
Consumer behaviour
Ethical consumerism
Information Display Matrix
Mixed methods research
Animal welfare
Local production
Fair producer prices
Attitude behaviour gap
a b s t r a c t
Ethical consumerism is a growing trend worldwide.Ethical consumers’expectations are increasing and
neither the Fairtrade nor the organic farming concept covers allthe ethical concerns of consumers.
Against this background the aim of this research is to elicit consumers’preferences regarding organic
food with additional ethical attributes and their relevance at the market place. A mixed methods researc
approach was applied by combining an Information Display Matrix, Focus Group Discussions and Choice
Experiments in five European countries.According to the results of the Information Display Matrix,
‘higher animal welfare’, ‘local production’ and ‘fair producer prices’ were preferred in all countries. These
three attributes were discussed with Focus Groups in depth,using rather emotive ways oflabelling.
While the ranking of the attributes was the same,the emotive way of communicating these attributes
was, for the most part,disliked by participants.The same attributes were then used in Choice Experi-
ments,but with completely revised communication arguments.According to the results of the Focus
Groups,the arguments were presented in a factual manner,using short and concise statements.In this
research step, consumers in all countries except Austria gave priority to ‘local production’. ‘Higher anima
welfare’and ‘fair producer prices’turned out to be relevant for buying decisions only in Germany and
Switzerland.According to our results,there is substantialpotential for product differentiation in the
organic sector through making use of production standards that exceed existing minimum regulations.
The combination of different research methods in a mixed methods approach proved to be very helpful.
The results of earlier research steps provided the basis from which to learn findings could be applied in
subsequent steps,and used to adjust and deepen the research design.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.
Introduction
Ethical consumerism is a growing trend worldwide. Various
studies indicate that consumers are interested in ethicalvalues
and that ethical consumerism is gaining relevance in food pur-
chase decisions (Carrigan, Smizgin, & Wright, 2004; Miele &
Evans, 2010; Newholm & Shaw, 2007; Shaw & Shiu, 2001;
Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). Examples of ethical consumerism
in the food market are ‘Fairtrade’and (partly) organic products,
which have exhibited impressive growth rates during recent
years.2 The Fairtrade market in Germany increased by 50% be-
tween 2007 and 2008 (Crescenti, 2009) and by 27% from 2009
to 2010 (Rößler, 2011). In the UK, sales of Fairtrade products in-
creased from 16.7 million GBP in 1998 to 799.0 million GBP in
2009 (Fairtrade Foundation,2011). In Switzerland, the Max Have-
laar Foundation reported a growth in sales of 8% between 2010
and 2011 (Max Havelaar-Stiftung, 2011). Similar developments
have taken place in the organic food sector. The turnover of
the global market for organic food has increased by 200% from
17.9 billion USD in 2000, to 54.9 billion USD in 2009 (Sahota,
0195-6663/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.11.015
q Acknowledgments: The authors greatly appreciate the helpful comments of three
anonymous reviewers and gratefully acknowledge the financialsupport for this
research provided by the members of the CORE Organic Funding Body Network,
being former partners of the FP6 ERA-NET Project,CORE Organic (Coordination of
European Transnational Research in Organic Food and Farming,EU FP6 Project No.
011716).
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [e-mail] (K.Zander).
1 Present address.
2 Organic food is also consumed for personalreasons,of which health consider-
ations are most important (see e.g. Aertsens, Verbeke, Mondelaers, & van
Huylenbroeck, 2009; Hughner, McDonagh, Prothero, Shultz, & Stanton, 2007; Pearson,
Henryks,& Jones,2010).
Appetite 62 (2013) 133–142
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Appetite
j o u r n a lhomepage: w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / a p p e t

2011). The growth of organic markets between 2000 and 2009
was also impressive in European countries: 183% in Germany
(AMI, 2011), 129% in the UK (Soil Association, 2010) and 90%
in Switzerland (FiBL, 2010). However, market shares for both
markets are still small: the share of organic in all food sales in
2010 were at about 6.0% in Austria, 5.7% in Switzerland and
3.5% in Germany (Willer,2012). The market volume for fair trade
products is even less and at about one sixth of the organic mar-
ket in Germany (Der Handel, 2012; Schaack, Willer, & Padel,
2011), one third in Switzerland (Max Havelaar-Stiftung, 2011;
Schaack et al., 2011) and three quarters in the UK (CNN, 2012;
Schaack et al., 2011).
Neither of these ethical market segments is independentof
the other and a growing share of products is certified according
to both Fairtrade and organic farming standards. At the same
time, in the organic sector,more and more consumers seem to
be dissatisfied with anonymous,homogenous organic food prod-
ucts, which may be produced under unknown socialconditions.
They want greater traceability and information about the diverse
origins and conditions under which organic food is produced,
and from where and how it is transported. Thus, neither the
Fairtrade nor the organic farming concept covers allthe ethical
concerns ofconsumers.
But what are the ethical concerns of (organic) food consumers?
Although research has shown that consumers of organic food know
only little about organic production standards (Janssen & Hamm,
2011), they have their own expectations aboutthe production
methods of the organic products they buy. These expectations
are related to animal welfare,support for local production struc-
tures and the well-being of those engaged in food production
(Aschemann & Hamm,2007; Browne,Harris, Hofny-Collins,Pas-
iecznik, & Wallace,2000; Goig,2007; Hughner et al.,2007; Lusk
& Briggeman, 2009; Ozcaglar-Toulouse, Shiu, & Shaw, 2006; Torju-
sen,Sangstad,O’Doherty Jensen,& Kjærnes,2004).Generally,or-
ganic consumers are characterised by a strong interest in
deliberate pro-socialbehaviour (Spiller & Lüth,2004; Sylvander
& François,2006; Zanoli et al.,2004).Padel and Gössinger (2008)
categorised the various ethical concerns (additional to common or-
ganic farming standards) according to the three pillars of
sustainability.
Social issues,such as fair, safe and equitable working condi-
tions, ban on child labour and exploitation of foreign workers,
employment of disabled people,re-integration of drug addicts
or delinquents.
Environmental issues, such as protection of natural resources,
water,soil, biodiversity or climate as well as conservation and
enhancement of landscapes.
Economic issues, such as fair prices for organic farmers,manu-
facturers or retailers, long-term contracts for smaller farms,
processing or trading companies, support for enterprises in dis-
advantaged or mountainous regions.
Other issues which might be summarised under the term spiri-
tual (or cultural) concerns,such as cultural or religious convic-
tions or the preservation of specific agricultural or
manufacturing traditions. The well-being of farm animals
would also be part of this category.
Local production is difficult to assign to one of these categories
since environmental,such as short transport distances,as well as
economic and culturalaspects are associated with it (Roinenen,
Arvola,& Lähteenmäki,2006).
While, on the one hand,organic consumers’interest in ‘ethical
consumption’is increasing,on the other hand organic production
is subject to growing international competition and price pressure.
In order to survive growing internationalcompetition,more and
more European farmers try to minimise production costs by orient-
ing their production systems towards minimum organic standards,
for example,according to the EU Regulation on Organic Farming
834/2007.These standards concentrate on environmental aspects
and some animal welfare concerns but do not cover further ethical
concerns,such as social aspects or local production.Accordingly,
actual production methods and ways of distribution might be quite
different from what consumers expect.At the same time,farmers
might engage in production methods which meet standards signif-
icantly higher than what is required by the EU Reg.on Organic
Farming or other standards.In order to secure competitiveness
they need to know how to efficiently communicate their additional
efforts to consumers.In any case,organic farmers and processors
need to care about adjusting and communicating their production
methods in line with customers’ concerns, in order to remain cred-
ible and to secure,or even increase,market shares.Organic pro-
duction according to standards that are higher than those of the
named EU Reg.can be assumed to offer additionalopportunities
for product differentiation within the organic market, such as local
production,higher animal welfare standards,improved biodiver-
sity and other.
Previous research has indicated that consumer concerns
regarding organic food vary between countries.However, most
studies have focused only on one country and different studies
use different methodological approaches.Therefore,the question
of whether variation between countries is due to culturalmat-
ters or due to the use of different research methods still re-
mains open. The research presented in this paper consists ofa
cross-country comparison between five European countries
(Austria, Germany,Italy, Switzerland and the United Kingdom),
employing exactly the same methodologicalapproaches in each
country.
The aim of this contribution is threefold: first,to identify the
three additionalethical attributes which are ofmost interest to
consumers of organic food,second,to discuss with consumers on
ways to successfully communicate these attributes, and third to as-
sess the relevance of these attributes in purchase decisions. For this
purpose,‘mixed methods research’was used which combined dif-
ferent methodological approaches in order to systematically ana-
lyse consumer preferences step by step as well as from different
perspectives.
Section ‘‘Methodological approach’’of this article describes the
different methods that were combined in order to meet the aims of
this contribution.Section ‘‘Consumers’preferences for additional
ethical attributes of organic food’’presents and discusses the re-
sults according to the research methods employed.The paper
closes with a discussion of conclusions for researchers regarding
the use of the mixed methods research approach, and for practitio-
ners regarding the opportunities for product differentiation within
the organic market.
Methodological approach
The research was undertaken in severalsteps,since the task
was to derive specific, promising ‘communication arguments’
from the wide and foggy array of ethical concerns in the organic
sector.This is why a mixed methods research approach (MMR)
was used, combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a
subsequent manner.Typically,MMR brings both of these meth-
ods together within the same research project(Bryman,2004),
neglecting the traditional premise of using either exclusively
quantitative or qualitative methodology (Teddlie & Tashakkori,
2010).MMR offers the possibility of different perspectives in or-
der to increase the validity of results and to increase confidence,
and/or to make use of the convergent or complementary effect
134 K. Zander et al. / Appetite 62 (2013) 133–142

of different approaches.Another issue is that of including and
drawing out the various aspects in order to obtain a differenti-
ated picture of the whole (Bryman, 2006). ‘‘The key goal in
studies that pursue complementarity is to use the strengths of
one method to enhance the performance ofthe other method’’
(Morgan,1998: 365).The use of separated studies,distinct from
each other but linked by a joint superior topic,also falls under
the MMR approach (Brennan, 2000). The choice of the most
appropriate method and mix of methods out of the large number
of options depends on the research topic under question (Teddlie
& Tashakkori, 2010). Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989)
identify five reasons for mixing different research methods: tri-
angulation,complementarity,development,initiation and expan-
sion. Within this study, the advantage of using a combination of
different methods laid in ‘development’,because insights were
generated at each step of the research which enabled the specific
design of the next.
By employing an MMR approach,the relevance ofadditional
ethical concerns for organic consumers was analysed systemati-
cally using four empirical research steps (Fig.1).
Firstly,in order to identify and learn from successful examples
of activities undertaken by organic farmers in the communication
of additional ethical characteristics of the production process,an
inventory was carried out.This was conducted using an internet
survey of 100 organic farms on which standards clearly exceeded
those laid down by the EU Regulation on Organic Farming. Subse-
quently, structured telephone interviews were conducted with
twenty of these farmers,exhibiting different communication ap-
proaches,in order to understand their specific activities, back-
grounds and communication aims (Padel & Gössinger, 2008).
Bearing in mind the wide array of ethical considerations in the or-
ganic sector (as described in the ‘‘Introduction’’),the seven most
promising approaches and their associated ethical attributes used
in communication were then selected, following extensive discus-
sion by market experts from the project team. This step was
needed in order to reduce the large number of potentially relevant
additional ethical attributes.
Information Display Matrix
The ethical attributes selected were further investigated in the
first of three steps ofconsumer research,using an Information
Display Matrix (IDM). The IDM is a method which monitors the
information search behaviour that precedes the purchase decision.
By means of a computer-based tool,test persons are offered vari-
ous product options with different attributes. The two-dimensional
matrix presents attributes in rows and product alternatives in col-
umns. The fields of the matrix hide information on each product
alternative (Jacoby,Jaccard,Kuss, Troutman,& Mazursky, 1987).
Participants are asked to open as many fields as they wish so as
to acquire the information they need for their purchase decision.
By analysing the amount,content and sequence ofinformation
search,decision-making processes can be better understood,pat-
terns of information search can be detected and the relative weight
of product attributes for the purchase decision can be identified
(Andersson,2001; Aschemann-Witzel & Hamm,2011; Bettman &
Zins, 1977; Jasper & Shapiro, 2002). Monitoring information search
behaviour can also provide different indicators from which conclu-
sions can be drawn about consumer preferences,including the
quantity of information requested for each attribute,the share of
respondents considering each attribute before decision-making,
and the order in which information about different attributes is
requested,particularly the frequency with which an attribute is
considered first.In the latter context,economic theory is needed
according to the proposition of decreasing marginal benefit,the
most valuable information for the purchase decision is requested
first (Solomon,Bamossy,Askegaard,& Hogg, 2010). Hence,it is
hypothesised that information which is searched for at an earlier
stage has a higher impact on the purchase decision than that which
is sought later. Similarly, this would also apply to the relative
frequency with which information on each attribute is requested.
A matrix of seven product options and eight possible attributes
for the product was developed in this study (Fig.2). The product
was 1 L of organic milk, with each particular option having a differ-
ent combination of additional ethical characteristics.One of the
Step 1
Farm Survey
Overview of communication
activities on organic farms
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Information Display Matrix
Expert Discussion
Decision on 7 additional ethical attributes for next research step
Reduction to the 3 most relevant ethical attributes in each country
Consumer research
Focus Group Discussions
Insights on consumers reaction to different ways of communication
Choice Experiments
Relevance of precise information on purchase behaviour
Fig. 1. Hierarchy of employed empirical research steps.Source: Own compilation.
K. Zander et al. / Appetite 62 (2013) 133–142 135

virtual milk cartons was a standard organic product without any
additional ethical properties. Organic products with additional eth-
ical characteristics were offered at a 20% higher price in compari-
son with the ‘standard’ organic product. By clicking the
corresponding field,the respondents could uncover the informa-
tion they needed in order to come to a virtual purchase decision
for one of the products.Participants were recruited at random in
front of retail shops that offered a relatively high share of organic
food. In the five study countries,nearly 1200 regular and occa-
sional consumers of organic foods,including milk,participated in
the IDM and completed the accompanying questionnaire (Zander
& Hamm,2010).
Focus Groups
In the next step, the three most important additionalethical
attributes according to the results of the IDM were tested in each
country,using Focus Groups (FG).The aim of this research step
was twofold: First, to elicit consumers’ responses to different ways
of communicating these attributes in order to learn how to com-
municate these attributes in the subsequent step of Choice Exper-
iments in a promising manner, and second, to compare the ranking
of the attributes with the earlier research step.
FG are loosely-structured interactive discussions among a small
group of respondents (6–12), accompanied by a trained facilitator.
The strength of this technique lies in discovering the unexpected,
which may result from a free-flowing group discussion.FG were
held in the form of a consumer jury,following an adaptation of
the elaboration likelihood modelby Petty and Cacioppo (1986),
and they were combined with an individual ‘paper and pencil’ rat-
ing of communication proposals (Naspetti& Zanoli, 2011). The
analysis of the data was purely text-based.3
It was decided to use organic eggs as the test product, since or-
ganic eggs have a relatively high consumption share among con-
sumers in all study countries and are easily comparable between
countries.4 In order to be as close to reality as possible,package la-
bels were developed. For each of the three attributes a symbolic, gra-
phic artwork was designed. Additionally, for each attribute two
different labels were designed with different wordings of head-
lines/slogans and different body copy wordings,resulting in six dif-
ferent labels for egg packages (Naspetti & Zanoli,2011).Given the
fact that the most relevant ethical attributes were the same in all five
study countries (see Section ‘‘Relevance of different ethical attributes
on purchase decisions: IDM’’), identical labels were used to allow for
a cross-culturalcomparison of consumers’attitudes.The design of
the labels was intended to touch consumers at the emotional level
and, therefore, it was based on various heart images,reflecting care,
love and respect.5 The heart image was included in the graphics and
also in the slogans or headings of the labels. The aim was to measure
the underlying perception and attitudinal response to each label and
to gain insights into how to communicate these arguments effec-
tively (Naspetti & Zanoli, 2011). In total, 15 FG with regular and
occasional organic consumers were conducted across the five coun-
tries. Recruitment of participants took place at random in front of
food stores with a high share of organic food. Guidelines, with differ-
ent sections and key questions,were developed to structure the
group discussions and thus to obtain comparable exchange of infor-
mation in all countries.Similarly, guidelines were used to analyse
the original data and to elaborate country reports on the results of
Fig. 2. Information Display Matrix screen,showing information for one combination of product and attribute.Source: Own presentation.
3 For other methodologicaltools which integrate group interactions in a more
explicit way,see Halkier (2010).
4 The change from milk to eggs as test product became necessary due to the
outcome of the IDM research.The additional ethical attributes identified for further
research (e.g. local production, fair prices for farmers) turned out to be difficult to test
in any depth with milk; particularly in Italy,where high shares of organic milk are
imported and offered mainly as UHT, and not as fresh milk as is the case in the other
study countries.
5 According to Solomon et al.(2010: 37) ‘love’is one of the possible relationships
consumers can have with a brand or a product.
136 K. Zander et al. / Appetite 62 (2013) 133–142

the FG, which were then merged to one single report on the outcome
of the FG. This approach was preferred over an analysis of the trans-
lated raw material from each country by a single researcher, so as to
avoid the risk of basic misunderstandings and loss of detail in the fi-
nal results (Janssen & Hamm,2011).
Choice Experiments
Finally,Choice Experiments (CE) were conducted.CE are used
to reveal stated preferences and the willingness to pay of consum-
ers. For this purpose,test persons are usually presented with dif-
ferent product options,which have different characteristics,and
they must choose one of these products. Usually,each test person
repeats the purchase decision a number of times.
For the CE, organic eggs were again used as test product.
According to the results of the FG, however, the egg package labels
were redesigned in order to better address consumer concerns and
to be better accepted.Specific communication arguments were
developed for each attribute and used in this research step.The
new labels contained only short and concise arguments,while
the images had been removed.Three price levels were included
in the choice sets. Price level 1 corresponded to the average organic
egg price in the country concerned. Price levels 2 and 3 amounted
to 120% and 140% of price level 1,respectively.Additional ethical
arguments were tested individually or in different combinations,
with varying price levels 1–3,on two organic egg alternatives in
each choice set. Additionally, a reference product alternative (with-
out any ethical argument)was offered at price level 1 in each
choice set,as well as a ‘no choice’option. This no choice option
was included in order to prevent bias caused by ‘forced choice’
(Dhar & Simonson,2003) and to create a buying situation closer
to reality. A fractional factorial d-efficient design using the soft-
ware NGene was created.An unlabelled design was chosen and
18 choice sets were constructed. Each choice set consisted of three
alternatives and the choice sets were split into three blocks.Thus,
each respondent made six consecutive choices,and one of the six
choices was randomly chosen as a binding purchase decision in or-
der to increase the reliability of the results, following the approach
of Lusk and Schroeder (2004).Consumers obtained an incentive
which they could spend on eggs in the choice experiment.
For the experiments in each study country,at least 80 organic
consumers (regular and occasional)6 were recruited via telephone
by market research institutions. In total 400 consumers participated
in laboratory experiments. Quota sampling was used with respect to
age,gender and employment.
Data obtained through the Choice Experiments were analysed
using random parameter logit models (RPL) (Revelt & Train,
1998) and,for each country,a separate modelwas estimated.In
RPL models,the choice probability in a choice set t is conditional
over the vector of taste parameters bnt of K elements that can be
random.Furthermore,the choice probability is conditional on the
individual-specific error componentseni. The conditional probabil-
ity that a consumer n chooses a specific alternative i from a choice
set J in choice t of a sequence of choices T is:
Pðint bnj ;enÞ ¼ eXintbnþ1ðejnÞ
P J
j¼1eXjntbnþ1ðejnÞ
By the exponential function e, a constant change in the independent
variable gives the same proportional change in the dependent var-
iable (here,choice).Xint represents a vector of variables explaining
choice and bn is a vector of parameters to be estimated.Finally ejn
is the error component as described above and 1(. . .) serves as an
indicator function for the experimentally-designed alternatives
involving choice in each choice set, serving as additional error com-
ponent meant to capture the cognitive effort of evaluating a hypo-
thetical purchase. Other than basic multinomial logit models (MNL),
RPL models account for heterogeneous preferences – which are
likely to occur in the case of additional ethical attributes of organic
food – and do not rely on the IIA assumption (‘independence of
irrelevant alternatives’)(Hahn, 1997; Hensher, Rose, & Greene,
2005; Teratanavat & Hooker,2006).
Consumers’preferences for additional ethical attributes of
organic food
This section focuses on presenting the results of different steps
of the consumer research: the Information Display Matrix,Focus
Groups and the Choice Experiments.
Relevance of different ethical attributes on purchase decisions: IDM
Based on the inventory of organic farms and expertdiscus-
sion, the attributes ‘animal welfare’,‘regional/localproduction’,
‘care farming’,‘social criteria of production’,‘biodiversity’,‘cul-
tural features of production’and ‘fair prices for farmers’were se-
lected for the first step of consumer research.An Information
Display Matrix (IDM) was used in order to extract,from the ori-
ginal seven selected,the three additional ethical attributes re-
garded as most relevant for consumers’purchase decisions.The
indicator used to derive consumers’ preferences for additional
ethical attributes was the relative share of each attribute in first
requests for information.According to this indicator,information
on ‘animal welfare’and ‘localproduction’were the most impor-
tant additional ethical attributes on average,followed by ‘fair
prices for farmers’in almost all countries.For Italian consumers,
‘local production’ appeared to be more importantthan ‘animal
welfare’, and the ‘fair prices for farmers’ argument was less
important than product price.Swiss participants had a high rel-
ative preference for ‘animalwelfare’and ‘local production’com-
pared to other attributes,and ‘product price’was less important
than in other countries (Table 1).There were no differences be-
tween regular and occasionalconsumers of organic food regard-
ing the ordering of the additional ethicalattributes.Significantly
however,occasionalconsumers accessed the product price more
frequently first (15.6%) than regular consumers (9.5%) (Chi2
-Test
for Independence).
Another indicator used to reveal consumers’ preference was the
share of respondents looking for information about a particular
attribute at least once.The ranking of attributes according to this
indicator was similar to the results presented in Table 1.Interest-
ingly, on average, only 80% of all respondents considered the attri-
bute ‘product price’ at least once before making their virtual
purchase decision.In other words, 19.7% of test persons did not
ask for any information at all on product prices before opting for
the product.This proportion was significantly higher among con-
sumers who regularly buy organic food (25.3%) in comparison with
those who buy organic food only occasionally (17.4%) (Chi2
-Test for
Independence). Similar results regarding relatively low price sensi-
tivity among regular organic consumers were found by Plassmann
and Hamm (2011).
Communication of selected ethical attributes: FG
Based on these results,and in order to understand both the
perception and acceptance ofdifferent ways of communicating
these additional ethical concerns in each study country, the
6 In order to exclude those consumers who were unfamiliar with the concept of
organic food, potential test persons had to correctly answer the question ‘‘How do you
identify organic products?’’.
K. Zander et al. / Appetite 62 (2013) 133–142 137

three most important additional ethical attributes ‘animal
welfare’,‘local production’ and ‘fair prices for farmers’ were
discussed in the Focus Groups (FG) with consumers of organic
food. Discussions were based on the six different egg labels that
had been designed (see Section ‘‘Methodologicalapproach’’and
Table 2).
Although attitudes towards the attributes were almost the same
in all study countries,there were large differences between coun-
tries in the way the labels as a whole were perceived and accepted.
Particularly in Germany, Switzerland and the UK, eggs were appar-
ently perceived more cognitively as ‘think’products, while the
affective,emotional ‘feel’aspect (Claeys,Swinnen,& Vanden Abe-
ele,1995; Naspetti & Zanoli,2011) seemed to be more important
in the perception of egg labels in Austria and Italy.The use of the
‘heart’symbol to address specific ethicalconcerns was – except
in Italy and to a limited extent in Austria – not successful. The
egg packaging labels presented to consumers in the FG (Fig.3)
were perceived to be much too emotive and were mostly disliked
in all countries,except Italy.
‘‘The purpose of the designers to address people saying we feel bet-
ter in this world if hens are less tortured, that’s what I like. But the
way it is presented is disgusting!’’[FG2.3F_DE].7
Others felt under pressure to do something good by purchasing
‘ethical’eggs,for example:
‘‘If you want to be a good man, then you have to buy these eggs. If
you don’t buy them,then you don’t want anything good for this
world!’’[FG3.4M_DE]
‘‘Not like this:If you have a heart,then you will buy this egg.’’
[FG1.4M_DE]
‘‘Exactly. If you don’t buy this egg, then you are a heartless person.’’
[FG1.2M_DE]
Instead,participants preferred labels with concise statements
that referred to very specific aspects of production.
Although the general style of the labels was not very well ac-
cepted, it became obvious that, in all countries, the ‘animal welfare’
arguments were the most popular, followed by ‘local food produc-
tion’ and ‘fair prices for farmers’. These results are in line with our
results from the previous research step IDM and also with other
studies where ‘animal welfare’ issues were mainly found to be very
important for consumers in most European countries (EC,2005;
Evans & Miele,2008; Hughner et al.,2007; Padel & Foster,2005;
Zanoli et al.,2004).
‘Animal welfare’ arguments,such as ‘freedom to live and
roam outdoors’,were widely appreciated by participants in all
countries. Arguments such as ‘the hens are looked after with
Table 1
Relevance of attributes: relative frequency of each attribute to be selected first (in %).Source: Own calculations (see also Zander & Hamm,2009).
Austria Germany Italy Switzerland UK All
Animal welfare 21.3 22.1 18.0 27.6 17.9 21.4
Local production 19.2 22.9 21.9 25.1 17.1 21.2
Fair prices for farmers 17.1 15.4 8.2 13.4 14.6 13.8
Product price 13.8 11.3 20.6 6.7 14.6 13.3
Care farms 9.6 7.9 9.4 4.6 9.6 8.2
Social criteria of production 6.3 10.8 9.4 5.9 6.7 7.8
Biodiversity 5.0 5.8 6.9 9.2 9.6 7.3
Cultural features 7.9 3.8 5.6 7.5 10.0 7.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 2
Wording used in the Focus Groups by attribute.Source: Own compilation.
Slogan Body copy
Animal welfare
1. The heart’s choice The hens are looked after with love and care,
fed organic feed free from GMOs and are free
to live and roam outdoors!
2. Produced with the heart The welfare of our hens is close to our heart!
They have access to the outdoors where they
are free to roam,and they are fed on natural,
GMO-free feed.For them we have chosen a
100% organic healthy life!
Local production
1. From the heart of our
region
These organic eggs are produced close to
where I live and are brought to my table with
minimum transport and less pollution!
2. The heart of tradition Our region is close to our heart. This regional
product safeguards our rural values and
traditions
Fair prices
1. I support those who have
our world at heart!
Buying these eggs rewards the work of
organic farmers who safeguard and preserve
our mother Earth!
2. The wellbeing of our
farmers is close to our
heart!
A fair deal: buying these eggs rewards the
hard work of organic farmers and their
families and secures their survival!
Fig. 3. Example of an egg package label for Focus Groups. Source: Own presentation.
7 [FG2.3F_DE]: Participant No.3 (female) from FG 2 in Germany.
138 K. Zander et al. / Appetite 62 (2013) 133–142

love and care’ were only liked by some participants. However,
consumer perception of such statements also dependson the
type of animal, and some participants mentioned that similar
arguments for milk would be more acceptable in the case of
cows. In particular, German and Swiss participants preferred
product statements that were much more to the point and less
emotive.
With regard to ‘local production’ attributes, consumers fa-
voured detailed information such as place of production, and
even about the producer or farmer him/herself. The discus-
sions revealed that local products were preferred over regio-
nal, while regional products were preferred over national. The
argument ‘minimum transport and less pollution’ was per-
ceived as a concise message which many participants
appreciated.
‘‘Why can’t it just say produced locally instead of putting from the
heart of our region? Get rid of the heart!’’[FG3.5F_UK9].
In the context of organic egg production,the ‘fair prices for
farmers’argument turned out to be very difficult to communi-
cate. The argument for supporting farmers did not work well
because of its proximity to the international Fairtrade concept.
Most consumers felt that the situation for European farmers
was not comparable with that of poor farmers in developing
countries.
‘‘We are not talking about sport shoes sewn by kids. Instead we are
talking about eggs produced in Germany.’’[FG1.2F_DE].
‘‘They sell their eggs anyway so why should they be rewarded fur-
ther?’’[FG1.1M_UK].
‘‘As if it is our fault that farmers don’t survive’’or ‘‘this is just too
much.’’[FG1.3M_AT].
‘‘I have to say that on this one that I’m not too worried about the
well-being of the farmer.I’m more concerned about the chick that
laid the egg.’’[FG3.4M_UK].
It was clear from their discussions that participants did not
understand why domestic poultry farmers should receive any spe-
cial support. They also entered into the wider debate on the mean-
ing of ‘fair prices’/‘fair to whom?’,as well as aspects of fairness in
agricultural production more generally. Thus,‘fair prices for farm-
ers’ emerged as a complex attribute that will need particular atten-
tion as regards ‘‘finding the right words’’.Furthermore,consumer
reactions to this attribute may also depend on the product: while
the consumers’response in the context of egg production was
rather negative,there are several successful examples of the ‘fair
prices for farmers’argument being used by dairy farmers in Ger-
many and in Austria.
Consumers preferences for selected ethical attributes: CE
In the Choice Experiments, the three attributes of ‘animal wel-
fare’, ‘local production’ and ‘fair prices’ were transformed into
short and concise arguments. Before starting the CE, consuemrs re-
ceived a short information leafletabout the attributes (Box 1).
Regarding origin,‘‘from domestic production’’(yes/no; 1/0) and
‘‘from localproduction’’(yes/no; 1/0) were presented to the test
persons.In each case the specific country or a region close to the
survey location was named.
The argument for animal welfare was ‘‘highest animal welfare
standards’’ (yes/no; 1/0), and that for communicating fair producer
prices was ‘‘fair prices for our organic farmers:20 cents extra’’
(yes/no; 1/0).
Box 1 Information on claims test persons received before
doing the Choice Experiments.Source: Own compilation.
1a. From the respective countrya
Organic eggs with the claim ‘‘from the respective country’’
are a domestic organic produce. When buying these eggs,
you support the organic farmers in your country and con-
tribute to avoid long transport distances.
1b. From the respective regionb
Organic eggs with the claim ‘‘from the respective region’’
are a local organic product. When buying these eggs,
you support the organic farmers in your region and con-
tribute to avoid long transport distances.
2. Highest animal welfare standards
Animal standards in organic egg production are higher
than in conventionalegg production. Organic eggs with
the claim ‘‘highest animal welfare standards’’are from
farms that follow the highest animal welfare standards,
which are higher than organic standards. The laying hens
have an extra large free range area of more than 10 m2 per
laying hen. The range is designed to provide a high quality
of life including sand bathing facilities and shelter. The
large barns provide plenty of perches and littered nests.
When buying these eggs,you support especially animal
friendly egg production.
3. Fair prices for our organic farmers: 20 pence extra
Organic eggs with the claim ‘‘fair prices for our organic
farmers: 20 pence extra’’guarantee fair producer prices.
At the moment, a farmer in (XYZ)c receives Xd Euro/GBP/
Swiss Francs per 6 organic eggs.When buying eggs with
the claim ‘‘fair prices for our organic farmers: 20 pence
extra’’,an additional payment of 20 cent per box is paid
directly to the egg producer. When buying these eggs
you contribute to a higher farm income.
a
‘from the respective country’:this term was replaced by the
name of the study country (e.g.Italia in Italy, Deutschland in
Germany)
b
‘from the respective region’: this term was replaced by the name
of the neighbour region,exactly named in each case.
c
XYZ was replaced by the name of the respective country
d
X was replaced by the actual producer price for 6 eggs, unit 63g
in each country
The results of the Choice Experiments confirmed that, in a close
to reality purchase decision,people generally preferred organic
products with additional ethical arguments over standard organic
products. This result is indicated in Table 2, which shows the mean
parameters estimated by the random parameter logit models. The
signs of the parameters indicate the direction of the impact: posi-
tive signs indicate an increasing probability ofchoice when the
explanatory variable becomes larger.Since all of the explanatory
variables except price are dichotomous,the figures can be com-
pared and indicate the relative impact of each additionalethical
argument on the probability of choice.
The relevance of place of origin in the purchase decision for eggs
(see Table 2) demonstrates that an indication of the specific region
K. Zander et al. / Appetite 62 (2013) 133–142 139

of production,close to the place of purchase,is a promising attri-
bute; only in Austria did this indication fail. This result is sup-
ported by previous research,showing that domestic origin is
more relevant than localorigin in Austria (BMLFUW, 2008). The
low preference for domestic production in most other study coun-
tries may be due to the fact that consumers generally expect eggs
to be produced within the country.A further explanation may be
found in the research design. ‘From domestic production’ is a more
general term than ‘from local production’,which means that eggs
with the latter argument also fulfilled the argument of domestic
origin. According to these results,the additional ethical argument
‘from local production’ increases the probability of choosing organ-
ic eggs more than any other ethical argument tested. These results
are in line with other recent research on the importance of local
origin of food for consumers’purchase decisions (e.g.DLG,2011).
Organic eggs produced according to ‘highestanimal welfare
standards’had the second highest impact on the probability of
choice, and this was followed by ‘fair prices for farmers’. However,
only German and Swiss test persons showed a significantly in-
creased probability to buy organic products which are labelled
with these additionalattributes.Consumers in Austria,Italy and
the UK did not exhibit any preferences in this regard.
The Adjusted Pseudo-R2 values in Table 3 are a measure of mod-
el fit, showing the share of variation in the data which is explained
by the model. The Adjusted Pseudo-R2 values of these models indi-
cate a good model fit (Hensher et al.,2005).
In comparing the results of all three steps of consumer research,
marked differences emerge which require explanation.A short
summary of each research step gives the background for the
discussion:
– When testing the relevance of the seven additional ethical attri-
butes using the Information Display Matrix, ‘higher animal wel-
fare standards’ and ‘local production’ turned out to be the most
important attributes.‘Fair producer prices’were on the third
place,except Italy.
– The intensive discussion of these three attributes by Focus
Groups showed that consumers mostly disliked emotive ways
of labelling.Instead,they preferred concise and factualstate-
ments.Given the fact that rather emotive labels were used in
this research step,the labels referring to higher animal welfare
were accepted more than those indicating local production and
fair producer prices.The emotionalwording of the ‘fair price’
attribute was particularly disliked.Test persons did not like
its close association with the international Fairtrade movement;
they did not perceive the situation of European farmers to be
comparable with that of farmers in developing countries.
– In the final research step,specific arguments (that is,‘word-
ings’) were used to communicate additionalethical attributes
to consumers and to identify consumer purchase behaviour
through Choice Experiments.In CE, which generally aim at
being close to real purchase decisions, the results were different
from those of previous research steps.‘Localproduction’was
the preferred attribute in all countries, except Austria. In
Austria, domestic production was ranked highest. ‘Higher
animal welfare’ standards led to higher probability ofchoice
only in Germany and in Switzerland and ‘fair producer prices’
additionally in Italy.
These differences are partly due to the different aims of each re-
search step.Methodologicalreasons also seem to be ofdecisive
influence on the variation of results.In particular, the final step
(Choice Experiments) aimed at testing the preferences exhibited
in earlier research steps,in a test environment close to real pur-
chase situations.Generally,it can be concluded from our research
that there are preferences among consumers for organic products
with additional ethical properties.When trading-off these proper-
ties with the product price at the market place, preferences do not
change,but they become less relevant.This may be partly due to
an attitude behaviour gap which has been reported in literature
(Fisher & Katz,2000),particularly when asking consumers about
their ethical behaviour (see e.g. Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). Another
reason is that consumers have to consider budget constraints in
real purchase decisions and,in the two earlier research steps con-
sumers did not, or only to a lower degree, have to weigh up the rel-
ative influence of ethical properties and product price.As turned
out in the IDM research step and not surprisingly, regular consum-
ers of organic food might more often decide in favour of ethical
attributes at the cost of higher prices than occasional consumers.
Also the use of different products in the various research steps
might have had an impact on the results.
Conclusions
According to our results there is remarkable potential for prod-
uct differentiation within the organic sector through applying pro-
duction and/or distribution systems which follow even higher
ethical standards than those required by EU basic regulations on
Organic Farming (EU Reg. 834/2007). With regard to international
competition,the integration of additional ethical attributes into
production processes is likely to be much easier for farmers and
processors from the same cultural background. Thus, the introduc-
tion and development of further ethical standards is a possibility
for European producers,so as to secure market shares in the face
of competitors from culturally-distant countries.
With regard to methodology,we conclude that employing a
mixed methods research approach in the way that has been pre-
sented in this article has offered the opportunity to systematically
analyse the issue of additional ethical concerns in organic farming,
consumers’preferences and the consequences for their purchase
decisions (Fig.4).
Table 3
Impact of different ethical arguments and price levels on the probability of choice of organic eggs.Source: Own calculations.
Attribute Austria Germany Italy Switzerland United Kingdom
Mean parameters (standard errors)
From local production 0.45 (0.34) 1.76 (0.33)*** 2.19 (0.66)*** 1.49 (0.32)*** 0.69 (0.28)***
From domestic production 0.80 (0.39)* 0.73 (0.37) 0.50 (0.48) 0.46 (0.32) 0.35 (0.30)
Highest animal welfare standards 0.63 (0.43) 1.11 (0.37)** 0.82 (0.41) 1.38 (0.35)*** 0.10 (0.28)
Fair prices for our organic farmers: 20 pence/20 cents/50 centimes extra0.43 (0.27) 0.85 (0.26)** 0.72 (0.36)* 0.56 (0.23)** 0.31 (0.21)
Product price 5.92 (0.75) *** 2.30 (0.62) *** 5.52 (1.02) *** 2.08 (0.45) *** 3.09 (0.84) ***
Adj. Pseudo-R2 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.51 0.56
Significance levels:
* p 6 0.1.
** p 6 0.01.
*** p 6 0.001.
140 K. Zander et al. / Appetite 62 (2013) 133–142

By combining the methods in the way shown in Fig. 4, the find-
ings of earlier research steps were used to go into more and more
depth in the later stages of research.The combination of different
methods enabled the immediate acquisition ofknowledge,even
from less successful research efforts, such as the rather emotive de-
sign of the labels for egg packaging. Particular benefit was derived
from the fact that the same researchers were involved throughout
and communication procedures were rigorous. Since the results of
every research step were interpreted by the whole project team, it
became possible to derive conclusions regarding the potential for
market differentiation using efficient communication of additional
ethical concerns in the organic sector. A constraint of our approach
might be the need to change the test product from milk to eggs in
the course of the research. This leads to the specific challenges of a
multi-method approach: significant higher effort is needed in
developing the design ofthe various subsequent research steps.
Likely outcomes of each step need to be taken into account when
designing the whole research in order to avoid necessary adjust-
ments of later research steps which might result in a break of
the planned research agenda.Adjustments of research steps need
to consider not only the immediate topic under question but also
the whole strand of research.
The use of identical methodologicalapproaches in all study
countries allows for cross-country comparisons.Preference struc-
tures regarding additionalethical attributes of organic food are
similar in all countries.However,Italian consumers respond less
to these attributes with the exception of‘local production’.The
FG revealed no noteworthy differences in the preferences for dif-
ferent attributes.Nevertheless,differences exist regarding the lik-
ing of different ways of communication. Italian and partly
Austrian consumers can be reached with emotive ways of commu-
nication. Coming closer to real purchase decisions,in the CE it
turned out that Austrian consumers prefer domestic produce over
local which is in contrast to consumers in other study countries.
Apart from adjusting systems of production, successful product
differentiation depends on target-oriented and effective
communication with consumers.Organic farmers and processors
need to communicate the additionalethical efforts that are re-
flected in their production processes.Only then are consumers gi-
ven the opportunity to make purchase decisions that consider
individual ethical attitudes and convictions.
Further research should focus on the specific differences be-
tween occasional and regular consumers of organic food.Regular
consumers are assumed to put higher values on additional ethical
attributes than do occasional consumers. Another issue for further
research is to test the extent to which consumer preferences for
additional ethical attributes vary between different food products.
Another interesting question is related to consumer preferences
when comparing organic with conventional products,both fulfill-
ing additional ethical criteria,since we tested only organic prod-
ucts against each other.
References
Aertsens,J., Verbeke,W., Mondelaers,K., & van Huylenbroeck,G. (2009).Personal
determinants of organic food consumption.A review. British Food Journal,111,
1140–1167.
AMI (Agrarmarkt Informations-Gesellschaft) (2011).AMI-Marktbilanz Öko-Landbau
2011.Bonn.
Andersson,P. (2001).P1198. Software for tracing decision behavior in lending to
small businesses.BehaviorResearch Methods,Instruments,& Computers,33,
234–242.
Aschemann,J., & Hamm, U. (2007). The organic market. In W. Lockeretz (Ed.),
Organic farming.An international history (pp.123–151).Wallingford: CABI.
Aschemann-Witzel,J., & Hamm,U. (2011).Measuring consumers’information and
acquisition behavior with the computer-based information-display-matrix.
Methodology.European Journal of Research Methodsfor the Behavioraland
Social Sciences,7, 1–10.
Bettman,J. R., & Zins, M. A. (1977). Constructive processes in consumer choice.
Journal of Consumer Research,4, 75–85.
BMLFUW (2008). LebensmittelberichtÖsterreich 2008 [Food reportAustria 2008].
Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft,Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft.
Wien: Eigenverlag.
Brennan,J. (2000). Mixing methods.Qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot:
Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Browne, A. W., Harris, P. J. C., Hofny-Collins, A. H., Pasiecznik,N., & Wallace, R.
(2000). Organic production and ethical trade. Definition, practice and links. Food
Policy,25,69–89.
Bryman,A. (2004).Social research methods.New York: Oxford University Press.
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research.How is it
done? Qualitative Research,6, 97–113.
Step 1
Farm Survey
Overview of communication
activities on organic farms
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Information Display Matrix
Expert Discussion
Attributes: animal welfare, care farming, fair prices, biodiversity, social
criteria of production, local production, cultural features
Important attributes: animal welfare, fair prices, local production
Consumer research
Focus Group Discussions
Precise arguments for animal welfare, local production and fair
prices, fair prices without reference to Fairtrade
Choice Experiments
Precise information on local production and higher animal welfare
standards (in Germany and Switzerland) with highest impact on
purchase decision
Fig. 4. Research steps and corresponding results at each stage.Source: Own compilation.
K. Zander et al. / Appetite 62 (2013) 133–142 141

Carrigan,M., Smizgin, I., & Wright, J. (2004). Shopping for a better world? An
interpretive study of the potential for ethical consumption within the older
market.Journal of Consumer Marketing,21,401–417.
Claeys,C.,Swinnen,A., & Vanden Abeele,P. (1995).Consumers’means-end chains
for ‘think’ and ‘feel’ products. International Journal for Research in Marketing, 12,
193–208.
CNN (2012).British shoppers lead world in fair trade.CNN, March 22,2012.<http://
edition.cnn.com/2012/03/22/business/fair-trade-marketplace-europe/index.
html> Downloaded 29.10.12.
Crescenti,M. (2009).Fair unterwegs [Fair on the way].Der Handel,09, IV–V.
Der Handel (2012). Fairtrade-Umsatz wächst um fast ein Fünftel. Der Handel,
20.04.2012. <http://www.derhandel.de/news/unternehmen/pages/Fairer-Handel-
Fairtrade-Umsatz-waechst-um-fast-ein-Fuenftel-8472.html> Downloaded 29.10.12.
Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice.Journal of
Marketing Research,40,146–160.
DLG (2011).Regionalität aus Verbrauchersicht [Localproduction from the consumers‘
perspective]. Studie, Frankfurt. <http://www.dlg.org/39.html?detail/dlg.org/4/1/
4479>.
EC (European Commission) (2005).SpecialEurobarometer.Attitudes ofconsumers
towards the welfare of farmed animals.Brussels. <http://ec.europa.eu/food/
animal/welfare/euro_barometer25_en.pdf> Downloaded 01.12.11.
Evans,A., & Miele, M. (2008). Consumers’view about farm animalwelfare.Part II.
European comparative reportbased on FocusGroup research.Welfare quality
report.Cardiff.
Fairtrade Foundation (2011). Facts and figures on Fairtrade. London: Fairtrade
Foundation. <http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/what_is_fairtrade/facts_and_figures.
aspx> Downloaded 02.09.11.
FiBL (Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau) (2010). Entwicklung des
biologischen Landbausin der Schweiz 2000–2009 [Developmentof organic
farming in Switzerland 2000–2009].Frick.
Fisher, R. J., & Katz, J. E. (2000). Social-desirability bias and the validity of self
reported values.Psychology & Marketing,17,105–120.
Goig, R. L. (2007). Trade and global cognitive orientation.A focus on Spanish fair
trade consumers.International Journal of Consumer Studies,31,468–477.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework
for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
11,255–274.
Hahn, C. (1997). Conjoint- und discrete Choice-Analyse als Verfahren zur Abbildung von
Präferenzstrukturen und Produktauswahlentscheidungen.Ein theoretischerund
computergestützter empirischer Vergleich.Münster, Lit.
Halkier, B. (2010).Focus groups as social enactments.Integrating interaction and
content in the analysis of focus group data.Qualitative Research,10,71–89.
Hensher,D. A., Rose,J., & Greene,W. H. (2005).The implications on willingness to
pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes.Transportation,32,203–222.
Hughner, R. S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C. J., & Stanton, J. (2007). Who are
organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase
organic food.Journal of Consumer Behaviour,6, 94–110.
Jacoby, J., Jaccard, J., Kuss, A., Troutman, T., & Mazursky, D. (1987). New directions in
behavioural process research.Implications for social psychology.Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology,23,146–175.
Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2011). Consumer perception of different organic
certification schemes in five European countries.Organic Agriculture,1, 31–43.
Jasper, J. D., & Shapiro, J. (2002). MouseTrace.A better mousetrap for catching
decision processes.Behavior Research Methods,Instruments & Computers,34,
375–382.
Lusk, J. L., & Briggeman,B. C. (2009).Food values.American Journalof Agricultural
Economics,91,184–196.
Lusk, J. L., & Schroeder, T. C. (2004). Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A
test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journalof Agricultural
Economics,86,467–482.
Max Havelaar-Stiftung (2011). Jahresbericht2011 [Annual report 2011]. Zurich.
<http://www.maxhavelaar.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/publikationen/mh12_
JB2011_d.pdf> Downloaded 29.10.12.
Miele, M., & Evans,A. (2010).When food become animals.Ruminations on ethics
and responsibility in care-full practices of consumption. Ethics, Place &
Environment,13,171–190.
Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative
methods. Application to health research. Qualitative Health Research,8,
362–376.
Naspetti, S., & Zanoli, R. (2011). Communicating ethicalarguments to organic
consumers.A study on 5 European countries. InternationalJournal on Food
System Dynamics,2, 253–273.
Newholm, T., & Shaw, D. (2007). Studying the ethical consumer. A review of
research.Journal of Consumer Behaviour,6, 253–270.
Ozcaglar-Toulouse,N., Shiu, E., & Shaw, D. (2006).In search of fair trade.Ethical
consumer decision making in France.International Journal of Consumer Studies,
30,502–514.
Padel, S., & Gössinger, K. (Eds.) (2008). Farmer consumer partnerships communicating
ethical values.A conceptualframework.CORE Organic Project Series Report,
Aberystwyth,Vienna.<http://orgprints.org/12821/>.
Padel,S., & Foster,C. (2005).Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour.
Understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food.British Food
Journal,107,606–625.
Pearson,D., Henryks,J., & Jones,H. (2010).Organic food.What we know (and not
know) about organic consumers.Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems,26,
171–177.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,19,123–205.
Plassmann, S., & Hamm, U. (2011). Einflussfaktoren auf die Zahlungsbereitschaft für
Öko-Lebensmittel [Impact factors on the willingness to pay for organic food]. In
G. Leithold,K. Becker,C. Brock,S. Fischinger,A. Spiegel,K., et al.(Eds.),Es geht
ums Ganze.Forschen im Dialog von Wissenschaftund Praxis (pp. 282–285).
Beiträge zur 11. Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau, 16. 18 March 2011
Gießen.<http://orgprints.org/17425/>.
Revelt, D., & Train, K. (1998). Mixed logit with repeated choices. Review of Economics
and Statistics,80,647–657.
Roinenen, K., Arvola, A., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2006). Exploring consumers‘ perceptions
of local food with two different qualitative techniques. Laddering and word
association.Food Quality and Preference,17,20–30.
Rößler, T. (2011). Fair-trend ungebrochen [Fair trend continues]. Der Handel, 09, 4–5.
Sahota,A. (2011). The global market for organic food & drink. In H. Willer, & L.
Kilcher (Eds.), The world of organic agriculture (pp.62–66). FiBL and IFOAM,
Frick.
Schaack, D., Willer, H., & Padel, S. (2011). The organic market in Europe. In H. Willer,
& L. Kilcher (Eds.), The world of organic agriculture. Statistics and emerging trends
2011.Bonn and Frick.
Shaw, D., & Shiu, E. (2001). Ethics in consumer choice.A multivariate modelling
approach.European Journal of Marketing,37,1485–1498.
Soil Association (2010).Organic market report 2010.Bristol.
Solomon, M. R., Bamossy, G. J., Askegaard, S., & Hogg, M. (2010). Consumer behaviour.
A European perspective.New York: Prentice Hall Europe.
Spiller, A., & Lüth, M. (2004). Determinanten zum Kaufverhalten von Konsumenten
[Determinants of consumer behaviour]. In C. Leitzmann, A. Beck, U. Hamm, & R.
Hermanowski (Eds.),Praxishandbuch Bio-Lebensmittel.Hamburg: Behr’s.
Sylvander, B., & François, M. (2006). Organic and low input food consumers’
concerns and perspectives for developing the organic market in the future.In
C.B. Andreasen, L. Elsgaard, L. Sondergaard-Sorensen,& G. Hansen (Eds.),
Organic farming and European rural development. Proceedings of the joint organic
congress (pp.586–587).Odense (DK).
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed
methods research.In A. Tashakkori,& C.Teddlie (Eds.),Mixed methods in social
and behavioural research (pp.1–41). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Teratanavat,R., & Hooker, N. H. (2006). Consumer valuations and preference
heterogeneity for a novel functional food. Journal of Food Science,71,
533–541.
Torjusen, H., Sangstad,L., O’Doherty Jensen,K., & Kjærnes, U. (2004). European
consumers’conceptionsof organic food.A review of available research.Oslo.
<http://orgprints.org/2490/>.
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption.Exploring the
consumer ‘‘attitude-behavioralintention’’ gap. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics,19,169–194.
Willer, H. (2012). The European market for organic food. Presentation at Biofach 2012,
16 February 2012. <http://www.organic-world.net/fileadmin/documents/
yearbook/2012/2012-02-16/willer-2012-02-16-session-global-market.pdf>
Downloaded 29.10.12.
Zander, K., & Hamm, U. (2009). Ethische Werte aus Sicht der Verbraucher. Das Beispiel
von Lebensmitteln aus ökologischer Produktion [Ethical values from the consumers’
perspective.The case of organic food]. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für
Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaus 2009.30 September–2
Oktober 2009.<http://purl.umn.edu/53963>.
Zander, K., & Hamm, U. (2010). Consumer preferences for additional ethical
attributes of organic food.Food Quality and Preference,21,495–503.
Zanoli, R.,Bähr, M.,Botschen,M., Laberenz,H., Naspetti,S.,& Thelen,E. (2004). The
European consumer and organic food.Aberystwyth: University of Wales.
142 K. Zander et al. / Appetite 62 (2013) 133–142