IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i5p1375-d143726.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Public Concerns? Developing a Moral Concerns Scale Regarding Non-Product Related Process and Production Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Winnie Isabel Sonntag

    (Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Marketing for Food and Agricultural Products, Georg-August-University, Platz der Goettinger Sieben 5, 37073 Goettingen, Germany)

  • Achim Spiller

    (Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Marketing for Food and Agricultural Products, Georg-August-University, Platz der Goettinger Sieben 5, 37073 Goettingen, Germany)

Abstract

In recent years, citizens have been more frequently scrutinizing non-product related process and production methods (npr-PPM) of various products, such as food, out of moral considerations. In 2014, the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body reached a landmark decision and accepted an European Union (EU)-wide import ban of seal products under the justification of Art. XX (a) General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) due to “public moral concerns”. However, up to now there has been no valid and reliable scale to quantify moral concerns. Therefore, we developed a tool—the Moral Concerns Scale (MCS)—to measure moral concerns of a society about, for example, animal welfare or child labor in a valid and reliable manner for npr-PPM. This scale was developed and tested in two independent studies with German citizens (in 2016 and 2017) using three case studies: hens laying eggs in battery cages, the inhumane killing of seals, and the use of child labor. According to the results of both studies, the reliability and validity of the developed scale can be confirmed.

Suggested Citation

  • Winnie Isabel Sonntag & Achim Spiller, 2018. "Measuring Public Concerns? Developing a Moral Concerns Scale Regarding Non-Product Related Process and Production Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1375-:d:143726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1375/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1375/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ingo Balderjahn & Anja Buerke & Manfred Kirchgeorg & Mathias Peyer & Barbara Seegebarth & Klaus-Peter Wiedmann, 2013. "Consciousness for sustainable consumption: scale development and new insights in the economic dimension of consumers’ sustainability," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 3(4), pages 181-192, December.
    2. Grethe, Harald, 2007. "High animal welfare standards in the EU and international trade - How to prevent potential `low animal welfare havens'?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 315-333, June.
    3. Grimsrud, Kristine M. & McCluskey, Jill J. & Loureiro, Maria L. & Wahl, Thomas I., 2002. "Consumer Attitudes Towards Genetically Modified Foods In Norway," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Sonntag, Winnie & Spiller, Achim, 2016. "Prozessqualitäten in der WTO: Ein Vorschlag für die reliable Messung von moralischen Bedenken," DARE Discussion Papers 1603, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    5. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-17, December.
    6. Lutz Hildebrandt & Dirk Temme, 2006. "Probleme der Validierung mit Strukturgleichungsmodellen," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2006-082, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    7. Hobbs, Jill E. & Kerr, William A., 2006. "Consumer information, labelling and international trade in agri-food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 78-89, February.
    8. Sykes, Katie, 2014. "Sealing animal welfare into the GATT exceptions: the international dimension of animal welfare in WTO disputes," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 471-498, July.
    9. Magdalena Öberseder & Bodo Schlegelmilch & Patrick Murphy & Verena Gruber, 2014. "Consumers’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: Scale Development and Validation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 101-115, September.
    10. Heng, Yan & Hanawa Peterson, Hikaru & Li, Xianghong, 2013. "Consumer Attitudes toward Farm-Animal Welfare: The Case of Laying Hens," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-17.
    11. Clay M. Voorhees & Michael K. Brady & Roger Calantone & Edward Ramirez, 2016. "Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 119-134, January.
    12. Sidali, Katia Laura & Spiller, Achim & von Meyer-Hofer, Marie, 2016. "Consumer Expectations Regarding Sustainable Food: Insights from Developed and Emerging Markets," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(3), pages 1-30, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Veronika Villnow & Meike Rombach & Vera Bitsch, 2019. "Examining German Media Coverage of the Re-Evaluation of Glyphosate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, March.
    2. Rui Pedro Fonseca & Ruben Sanchez-Sabate, 2022. "Consumers’ Attitudes towards Animal Suffering: A Systematic Review on Awareness, Willingness and Dietary Change," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-23, December.

    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. Sonntag, Winnie Isabel & Spiller, Achim, 2017. "Messung moralischer Besorgnis gegenüber Prozessstandards am Fallbeispiel der Käfighaltung von Legehennen - Skalenentwicklung und -validierung," 57th Annual Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 13-15, 2017 261992, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    2. Sonntag, Winnie & Spiller, Achim, 2016. "Prozessqualitäten in der WTO: Ein Vorschlag für die reliable Messung von moralischen Bedenken," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260775, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    3. Ali Eldesouky & Francisco J. Mesias & Miguel Escribano, 2020. "Consumer Assessment of Sustainability Traits in Meat Production. A Choice Experiment Study in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, May.
    4. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher & Olynk, Nicole, 2009. "Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 492-498, December.
    5. Brenna Ellison & Kathleen Brooks & Taro Mieno, 2017. "Which livestock production claims matter most to consumers?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 819-831, December.
    6. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan, 2020. "Consumer Willingness to pay for Organic and Animal Welfare Product Attributes: Do Experimental Results Align with Market Data?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304328, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Spiller, Achim & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Sonntag, Winnie, 2016. "Gibt es eine Zukunft für die moderne konventionelle Tierhaltung in Nordwesteuropa?," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260780, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    8. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2011. "On mandatory labeling of animal welfare attributes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 430-437, June.
    9. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    10. Chen, Yanyan & Mandler, Timo & Meyer-Waarden, Lars, 2021. "Three decades of research on loyalty programs: A literature review and future research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 179-197.
    11. Wang, Le & Luo, Xin (Robert) & Li, Han, 2022. "Envy or conformity? An empirical investigation of peer influence on the purchase of non-functional items in mobile free-to-play games," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 308-324.
    12. Antonio Martos-Pedrero & David Jiménez-Castillo & Francisco Joaquín Cortés-García, 2022. "Examining drivers and outcomes of corporate social responsibility in agri-food firms," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(3), pages 79-86.
    13. Luger, Michaela & Hofer, Katharina Maria & Floh, Arne, 2022. "Support for corporate social responsibility among generation Y consumers in advanced versus emerging markets," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(2).
    14. Jayson Lusk, 2011. "The market for animal welfare," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 561-575, December.
    15. Mahadzirah Mohamad & Asyraf Afthanorhan* & Zainudin Awang & Morliyati Mohammad, 2019. "Comparison Between CB-SEM and PLS-SEM: Testing and Confirming the Maqasid Syariah Quality of Life Measurement Model," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 5(3), pages 608-614, 03-2019.
    16. Apak, Ömer Ceyhun & Gürbüz, Ahmet, 2023. "The effect of local food consumption of domestic tourists on sustainable tourism," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    17. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    18. Yuan-Shuh Lii & May-Ching Ding & Chih-Huang Lin, 2018. "Fair or Unfair: The Moderating Effect of Sustainable CSR Practices on Anticipatory Justice Following Service Failure Recovery," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, December.
    19. Rebecca Pera & Giampaolo Viglia, 2017. "Can snacking be healthy? A comparison between coeliacs and health conscious food consumers," MERCATI & COMPETITIVIT?, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2017(3), pages 79-99.
    20. Szilvia Molnár & László Szőllősi, 2020. "Sustainability and Quality Aspects of Different Table Egg Production Systems: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1375-:d:143726. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.