IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fan/rissri/vhtml10.3280-riss2021-002024.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Genetically modified and socially responsible foods: A significant relationship for consumer?s preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Daniela Covino
  • Flavio Boccia
  • Immacolata Viola

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to underline and syntetize a possible consumer be-haviour and willingness to pay towards a particular type of genitally modified food linked to specific indications on the label about the implementation of corpo-rate social responsibility initiatives by manufacturing companies. Through a quan-titative model on a sample of hundreds Italian families, it was possible to consider possible consumers? preferences regarding that consumption through a choice ex-periment and to verify the drivers of that purchase and preference heterogeneity across consumers? choice, and the willingness to pay, for the products with those features. Indications obtained from the relationships between the variables ana-lyzed also form a topic for future studies and useful for companies? strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniela Covino & Flavio Boccia & Immacolata Viola, 2021. "Genetically modified and socially responsible foods: A significant relationship for consumer?s preferences," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(2), pages 371-383.
    • Handle: RePEc:fan:rissri:v:html10.3280/riss2021-002024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/Scheda_Rivista.aspx?IDArticolo=70297&Tipo=ArticoloPDF
    Download Restriction: Single articles can be downloaded buying download credits, for info: https://www.francoangeli.it/DownloadCredit
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pasquale Sarnacchiaro & Flavio Boccia, 2018. "Some remarks on measurement models in the structural equation model: an application for socially responsible food consumption," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(7), pages 1193-1208, May.
    2. Flavio Boccia & Daniela Covino, 2016. "Innovation and sustainability in agri-food companies: The role of quality," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(1), pages 131-141.
    3. Wuyang Hu & Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Michele M. Veeman, 2009. "Consumers' Preferences for GM Food and Voluntary Information Access: A Simultaneous Choice Analysis," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(2), pages 241-267, June.
    4. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    5. Flavio Boccia & Pasquale Sarnacchiaro, 2020. "Chi‐squared automatic interaction detector analysis on a choice experiment: An evaluation of responsible initiatives on consumers' purchasing behavior," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 1143-1151, March.
    6. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey & Jordan Louviere, 2002. "Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 161-170.
    7. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schroeder, Ted C. & Fox, John A. & Biere, Arlo W., 2005. "European Preferences for Beef Steak Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 1-14, August.
    8. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    9. Li, Jinhu & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2015. "Does more education lead to better health habits? Evidence from the school reforms in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 83-91.
    10. Rim Lassoued & Konstantinos Giannakas, 2010. "Economic Effects of the Consumer‐oriented Genetically Modified Products in Markets with a Labelling Regime," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 499-526, September.
    11. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    12. Finucane, Melissa L. & Holup, Joan L., 2005. "Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1603-1612, April.
    13. Richard D. Smart & Matthias Blum & Justus Wesseler, 2017. "Trends in Approval Times for Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States and the European Union," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 182-198, February.
    14. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    15. Assunta Di Vaio & Flavio Boccia & Loris Landriani & Rosa Palladino, 2020. "Artificial Intelligence in the Agri-Food System: Rethinking Sustainable Business Models in the COVID-19 Scenario," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-12, June.
    16. Dannenberg, Astrid, 2009. "The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food -- A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2182-2192, June.
    17. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:5:p:466-480 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    20. Jayson L. Lusk & W. Bruce Traill & Lisa O. House & Carlotta Valli & Sara R. Jaeger & Melissa Moore & Bert Morrow, 2006. "Comparative Advantage in Demand: Experimental Evidence of Preferences for Genetically Modified Food in the United States and European Union," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 1-21, March.
    21. Daniela Covino & Flavio Boccia, 2016. "Potentialities of new agri-biotechnology for sustainable nutrition," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(2), pages 97-106.
    22. Alexa Spence & Ellen Townsend, 2006. "Examining Consumer Behavior Toward Genetically Modified (GM) Food in Britain," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 657-670, June.
    23. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521142373.
    24. Scott Adams, 2002. "Educational Attainment and Health: Evidence from a Sample of Older Adults," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 97-109.
    25. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521194204.
    26. John Cranfield & Spencer Henson & Oliver Masakure, 2011. "Factors Affecting the Extent to which Consumers Incorporate Functional Ingredients into their Diets," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 375-392, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniela Covino & Immacolata Viola & Tetiana Paientko & Flavio Boccia, 2021. "Neuromarketing: some remarks by an economic experiment on food consumer perception and ethic sustainability," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(1), pages 187-199.
    2. Flavio Boccia & Pasquale Sarnacchiaro, 2020. "Chi‐squared automatic interaction detector analysis on a choice experiment: An evaluation of responsible initiatives on consumers' purchasing behavior," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 1143-1151, March.
    3. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    4. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: A choice experiment applied to water quality," Working Papers in Economics 126, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    5. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    6. David Throsby & Anita Zednik & Jorge E. Araña, 2021. "Public preferences for heritage conservation strategies: a choice modelling approach," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 45(3), pages 333-358, September.
    7. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    8. Ali Ardeshiri & Spring Sampson & Joffre Swait, 2019. "Seasonality Effects on Consumers Preferences Over Quality Attributes of Different Beef Products," Papers 1902.02419, arXiv.org.
    9. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    10. Falco, Paolo & Maloney, William F. & Rijkers, Bob & Sarrias, Mauricio, 2015. "Heterogeneity in subjective wellbeing: An application to occupational allocation in Africa," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 137-153.
    11. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    12. William H Greene & Mark N Harris & Christopher Spencer, 2013. "Estimating the Standard Errors of Individual-Specific Parameters in Random Parameters Models," Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre Working Paper series WP1309, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School.
    13. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
    14. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    15. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    16. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    17. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    18. Mauricio Sarrias, 2020. "Random Parameters and Spatial Heterogeneity using Rchoice in R," REGION, European Regional Science Association, vol. 7, pages 1-19.
    19. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fan:rissri:v:html10.3280/riss2021-002024. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Stefania Rosato (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/sommario.aspx?IDRivista=168 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.