Consumer preference for sustainability labels in the context of China
Vol 9, Issue 6, 2024, Article identifier:
VIEWS - 26 (Abstract) 0 (PDF)
Abstract
Sustainability Label (SL) have emerged as an important product attribute in recent decades, and have evolved into various types as products with social, environmental, and economic benefits have become more prevalent in the marketplace. With the information of SL in products, consumers are encouraged to embrace environmental sustainability principles and to make environmentally sustainable choices and actions. SL helps alignment between consumers and the industry by enhancing consumers’ understanding of company’s act, and serve as an effective marketing message. However, there is limited research on consumer preferences for different types of sustainable labels or benefits. This study addresses this knowledge gap by applying choice experiment method to assess consumers’ choice behavior for products associated with various SL. Choice experiment designs are separately developed for two most relevant sustainable products (i.e. soymilk and EV) in China. A stated preference method (SPM) consumer survey was conducted in 2022 across six major cities in China, namely Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chengdu, and Xi’an, and a total of 840 valid responses were collected for assessing multinomial logit (MNL) model. Findings show that Chinese consumers prefer SL with environmental benefits, foreign COO/Brand in consuming soymilk, and prefer SL with employee friendliness, domestic COO/Brand for Electric Vehicle (EV). These findings provide insights for marketers and researchers Chinese consumers’ preference for specific SL and brand for two selected product categories.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Desa U. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations; 2016.
2. Degli Esposti P, Mortara A, Roberti G. Sharing and Sustainable Consumption in the Era of COVID-19. Sustainability. 2021; 13(4): 1903.
3. Sigurdsson V, Larsen NM, Folwarczny M, et al. The importance of relative customer-based label equity when signaling sustainability and health with certifications and tags. Journal of Business Research. 2023; 154: 113338. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113338
4. Liu R, Gao Z, Snell HA, et al. Food safety concerns and consumer preferences for food safety attributes: Evidence from China. Food Control. 2020; 112: 107157. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107157
5. Wang C, Ghadimi P, Lim MK, et al. A literature review of sustainable consumption and production: A comparative analysis in developed and developing economies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019; 206: 741-754. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.172
6. Coderoni S, Perito MA. Sustainable consumption in the circular economy. An analysis of consumers’ purchase intentions for waste-to-value food. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020; 252: 119870.
7. Bhattacharyya J, Balaji M, Jiang Y. Causal complexity of sustainable consumption: Unveiling the equifinal causes of purchase intentions of plant-based meat alternatives. Journal of Business Research,2023, 156: 113511.
8. Park HJ, Lin LM. Exploring attitude–behavior gap in sustainable consumption: comparison of recycled and upcycled fashion products. Journal of Business Research. 2020; 117: 623-628. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.025
9. Castka P, Corbett CJ. Governance of eco-labels: Expert opinion and media coverage. Journal of Business Ethics. 2016; 135: 309-326.
10. Gutierrez AMJ, Chiu ASF, Seva R. A Proposed Framework on the Affective Design of Eco-Product Labels. Sustainability. 2020; 12(8): 3234. doi: 10.3390/su12083234
11. Song L, Lim Y, Chang P, et al. Ecolabel’s role in informing sustainable consumption: A naturalistic decision making study using eye tracking glasses. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019; 218: 685-695. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.283
12. De Canio F, Martinelli E. EU quality label vs organic food products: A multigroup structural equation modeling to assess consumers’ intention to buy in light of sustainable motives. Food Research International. 2021; 139: 109846.
13. Gatti N, Gomez MI, Bennett RE, et al. Eco-labels matter: Coffee consumers value agrochemical-free attributes over biodiversity conservation. Food Quality and Preference. 2022; 98: 104509. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104509
14. Sonntag W, Lemken D, Spiller A, et al. Welcome to the (label) jungle? Analyzing how consumers deal with intra-sustainability label trade-offs on food. Food Quality and Preference. 2023; 104: 104746. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104746
15. Chirilli C, Molino M, Torri L. Consumers’ Awareness, Behavior and Expectations for Food Packaging Environmental Sustainability: Influence of Socio-Demographic Characteristics. Foods. 2022; 11(16): 2388.
16. Schiano AN, Harwood WS, Gerard PD, et al. Consumer perception of the sustainability of dairy products and plant-based dairy alternatives. Journal of Dairy Science. 2020; 103(12): 11228-11243. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-18406
17. Annunziata A, Mariani A, Vecchio R. Effectiveness of sustainability labels in guiding food choices: Analysis of visibility and understanding among young adults. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 2019; 17: 108-115. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2018.09.005
18. Gao Z, Li C, Bai J, et al. Chinese consumer quality perception and preference of sustainable milk. China Economic Review. 2020; 59: 100939. doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2016.05.004
19. Liu R, Gao Z, Nayga RM, et al. Consumers’ valuation for food traceability in China: Does trust matter? Food Policy. 2019; 88: 101768. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.101768
20. Herbes C, Beuthner C, Ramme I. How green is your packaging—A comparative international study of cues consumers use to recognize environmentally friendly packaging. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2020; 44(3): 258-271.
21. Murphy B, Martini M, Fedi A, et al. Consumer trust in organic food and organic certifications in four European countries. Food Control. 2022; 133: 108484. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108484
22. Janßen D, Langen N. The bunch of sustainability labels–Do consumers differentiate? Journal of cleaner production. 2017; 143: 1233-1245.
23. Cho YN, Baskin E. It’s a match when green meets healthy in sustainability labeling. Journal of Business Research. 2018; 86: 119-129.
24. Cho YN, Berry C. Understanding the effects of retailer-and manufacturer-provided sustainability labels on product evaluations and purchase-related outcomes. Journal of Business Research. 2019; 100: 73-85.
25. Ding Y, Veeman MM. Chinese consumers’ preferences for quality signals on fresh milk: Brand versus certification. Agribusiness. 2019; 35(4): 593-609. doi: 10.1002/agr.21604
26. Chen J, Lai J, Chen X, Gao Z. Effects of shared characteristics between eco‐labels: A case for organic and local food. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2022.
27. Aprile MC, Punzo G. How environmental sustainability labels affect food choices: Assessing consumer preferences in southern Italy. Journal of cleaner production. 2022; 332: 130046.
28. Siraj A, Taneja S, Zhu Y, et al. Hey, did you see that label? It’s sustainable!: Understanding the role of sustainable labelling in shaping sustainable purchase behaviour for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2022; 31(7): 2820-2838. doi: 10.1002/bse.3049
29. Singh P, Sahadev S, Wei X, et al. Modelling the antecedents of consumers’ willingness to pay for eco‐labelled food products. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2023; 47(4): 1256-1272. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12900
30. Bangsa AB, Schlegelmilch BB. Linking sustainable product attributes and consumer decision-making: Insights from a systematic review. Journal of cleaner production. 2020; 245: 118902.
31. Elliott GR, Cameron RC. Consumer perception of product quality and the country-of-origin effect. Journal of international Marketing. 1994; 2(2): 49-62.
32. Lampert SI, Jaffe ED. A dynamic approach to country‐of‐origin effect. European Journal of Marketing. 1998; 32(1/2): 61-78. doi: 10.1108/03090569810197471
33. Hong ST, Wyer, Jr. RS. Effects of Country-of-Origin and Product-Attribute Information on Product Evaluation: An Information Processing Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research. 1989; 16(2): 175. doi: 10.1086/209206
34. Xu X, Comello MLG, Lee S, et al. Exploring Country-of-Origin Perceptions and Ethnocentrism: The Case of U.S. Dairy Marketing in China. Journal of Food Products Marketing. 2020; 26(2): 79-102. doi: 10.1080/10454446.2020.1722778
35. Fazli-Salehi R, Torres IM, Madadi R, Zúniga MÁ. The Role of Self-Construal and Competitiveness in Consumers’ Self-Brand Connection with Domestic vs. Foreign Brands. Journal of International Consumer Marketing. 2021; 33(3): 319-337.
36. Hien NN, Phuong NN, Tran TV, et al. The effect of country-of-origin image on purchase intention: The mediating role of brand image and brand evaluation. Management Science Letters. Published online 2020: 1205-1212. doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.11.038
37. Han CM. Country image: Halo or summary construct? Journal of Marketing Research. 1989; 26(2): 222-229.
38. Kim MY, Moon S, Iacobucci D. The Influence of Global Brand Distribution on Brand Popularity on Social Media. Journal of International Marketing. 2019; 27(4): 22-38. doi: 10.1177/1069031x19863307
39. Srivastava A, Dey DK, M.S. B. Drivers of brand credibility in consumer evaluation of global brands and domestic brands in an emerging market context. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 2020; 29(7): 849-861. doi: 10.1108/jpbm-03-2018-1782
40. Macall DM, Williams C, Gleim S, et al. Canadian consumer opinions regarding food purchase decisions. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research. 2021; 3: 100098. doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2020.100098
41. Tascioglu M, Eastman J, Bock D, et al. The impact of retailers’ sustainability and price on consumers’ responses in different cultural contexts. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research. 2019; 29(4): 430-455. doi: 10.1080/09593969.2019.1611619
42. Wang J, Pham TL, Dang VT. Environmental Consciousness and Organic Food Purchase Intention: A Moderated Mediation Model of Perceived Food Quality and Price Sensitivity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(3): 850. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17030850
43. Malik C, Singhal N, Tiwari S. Antecedents of consumer environmental attitude and intention to purchase green products: moderating role of perceived product necessity. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management. 2017; 20(5/6): 259. doi: 10.1504/ijetm.2017.091290
44. Kaczorowska J, Rejman K, Halicka E, et al. Impact of food sustainability labels on the perceived product value and price expectations of urban consumers. Sustainability. 2019; 11(24): 7240.
45. Hsu CL, Chang CY, Yansritakul C. Exploring purchase intention of green skincare products using the theory of planned behavior: Testing the moderating effects of country of origin and price sensitivity. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2017; 34: 145-152. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.10.006
46. Louviere JJ, Timmermans HJP. Testing the external validity of hierarchical conjoint analysis models of recreational destination choice. Leisure Sciences. 1992; 14(3): 179-194. doi: 10.1080/01490409209513167
47. Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy. 1996; 74(2): 132-157.
48. McFadden D. The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of public economics. 1974; 3(4): 303-328.
49. Bazzani C, Caputo V, Nayga Jr RM, Canavari M. Revisiting consumers’ valuation for local versus organic food using a non-hypothetical choice experiment: Does personality matter? Food Quality and Preference. 2017; 62: 144-154.
50. Wang J, Tao J, Chu M. Behind the label: Chinese consumers’ trust in food certification and the effect of perceived quality on purchase intention. Food Control. 2020; 108: 106825. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106825
51. Cui, Y., Lissillour, R., Chebeň, J., Lančarič, D., & Duan, C. (2022). The position of financial prudence, social influence, and environmental satisfaction in the sustainable consumption behavioural model: Cross‐market intergenerational investigation during the Covid‐19 pandemic. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(4), 996-1020.
52. Hasan A, Zhiyu W, Mahani AS. Fast estimation of multinomial logit models: R package mnlogit. arXiv. 2014; arXiv:1404.3177.
53. Hao Y, Liu H, Chen H, et al. What affect consumers’ willingness to pay for green packaging? Evidence from China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2019; 141: 21-29. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.001
54. Xu H, Liu B, Qiu L, et al. Does the new energy demonstration cities construction reduce CO2 emission? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2022; 29(33): 50408-50426. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-19436-z
55. Liu Y, Sun W, Liu J. Greenhouse gas emissions from different municipal solid waste management scenarios in China: Based on carbon and energy flow analysis. Waste Management. 2017; 68: 653-661. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.020
56. Man Y, Han Y, Li J, et al. Life cycle energy consumption analysis and green manufacture evolution for the papermaking industry in China. Green Chemistry. 2019; 21(5): 1011-1020. doi: 10.1039/c8gc03604g
57. Herbes C, Rilling B, Macdonald S, et al. Are voluntary markets effective in replacing state-led support for the expansion of renewables?–A comparative analysis of voluntary green electricity markets in the UK, Germany, France and Italy[J].Energy Policy,2020, 141: 111473.
58. Guido G, Prete MI, Peluso AM, et al. The role of ethics and product personality in the intention to purchase organic food products: a structural equation modeling approach. International Review of Economics. 2009; 57(1): 79-102. doi: 10.1007/s12232-009-0086-5
59. Gulseven O, Wohlgenant M. What are the factors affecting the consumers’ milk choices? Agricultural Economics. 2017; 63(6): 271-282. doi: 10.17221/335/2015-agricecon
60. Thøgersen J.Promoting green consumer behavior with eco-labels[J].New tools for environmental protection,2002: 83-104.
61. Bekele GE, Zhou D, Kidane A, Haimanot AB. Analysis of organic and green food production and consumption trends in China. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Business. 2017; 3(4): 64-70.
62. Wang HH, Zhang X, Ortega DL, et al. Information on food safety, consumer preference and behavior: The case of seafood in the US. Food Control. 2013; 33(1): 293-300. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.02.033
63. Wang HH, Zhang RW, Ortega DL. Chinese food safety situation in a globalized world market. Journal of Chinese Economics. 2013; 1(1).
64. Macleod C. China’s organic farms rooted in food-safety concerns. USA Today; 2011.
65. Wu L, Yin S, Xu Y, et al. Effectiveness of China’s Organic Food Certification Policy: Consumer Preferences for Infant Milk Formula with Different Organic Certification Labels. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d’agroeconomie. 2014; 62(4): 545-568. doi: 10.1111/cjag.12050
66. Sharma S, Rou Z. China’s dairy dilemma. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Washington, DC; 2014.
67. Sin LYM, Ho S, So SLM. Research on advertising in mainland China: a review and assessment. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 2000; 12(1): 37-65. doi: 10.1108/13555850010764631
68. Zhou L, Hui MK. Symbolic Value of Foreign Products in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of International Marketing. 2003; 11(2): 36-58. doi: 10.1509/jimk.11.2.36.20163
69. Bartikowski B, Fastoso F, Gierl H. Luxury cars Made-in-China: Consequences for brand positioning. Journal of Business Research. 2019; 102: 288-297.
70. Zhou L, Yang Z, Hui MK. Non-local or local brands? A multi-level investigation into confidence in brand origin identification and its strategic implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2009; 38(2): 202-218. doi: 10.1007/s11747-009-0153-1
71. Baan W, Luan L, Poh F. Double-clicking on the Chinese consumer. McKinsey & Company; 2017.
72. Li D, Wang Z, Yang C. A Controversial Working System in China: The 996 Working Hour System. In: Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Arts, Law and Social Sciences (ALSS 2021).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v9i6.2268
(26 Abstract Views, 0 PDF Downloads)
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Renee B. Kim, Jiayi Li
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/