IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i10p5398-d552851.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainable Meat: Looking through the Eyes of Australian Consumers

Author

Listed:
  • Lívia Garcez de Oliveira Padilha

    (The Centre for Global Food and Resources, The University of Adelaide, 10 Pulteney St., Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia)

  • Lenka Malek

    (The Centre for Global Food and Resources, The University of Adelaide, 10 Pulteney St., Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia)

  • Wendy J. Umberger

    (The Centre for Global Food and Resources, The University of Adelaide, 10 Pulteney St., Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia)

Abstract

Sustainability is a complex and multifaceted concept that comprises environmental, economic, social, and cultural dimensions. Growing consumer concerns over the impacts of global meat production and consumption have led to increasing interest in sustainability initiatives and the use of sustainability labels. Yet, an understanding of what sustainability means to consumers in the context of meat and how consumers relate production-related credence attributes of chicken meat to sustainability remains limited. Between September 2019 and January 2020, an exploratory research study was conducted using a multi-method approach. Participants completed an online survey before participating in a series of eye-tracking choice tasks followed by in-depth interviews. The study revealed that the environmental dimension of sustainability is most important to consumers’ definition of a “sustainable food system”. Likewise, the sustainability of chicken meat products was most commonly associated with the perceived environmental impact of chicken meat production, followed by animal welfare aspects. Consumers made incorrect inferences about some sustainability labels and these inferences sometimes contributed to positive associations with sustainability. Consumers frequently associated a higher price with higher sustainability, indicating a belief that “doing the right thing” might cost more. This study provides new insights regarding consumers’ perceptions of production-related credence attributes and sustainability labels.

Suggested Citation

  • Lívia Garcez de Oliveira Padilha & Lenka Malek & Wendy J. Umberger, 2021. "Sustainable Meat: Looking through the Eyes of Australian Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-24, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5398-:d:552851
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5398/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5398/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grunert, Klaus G., 2011. "Sustainability in the Food Sector: A Consumer Behaviour Perspective," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2(3), pages 1-12, December.
    2. David Tilman & Michael Clark, 2014. "Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7528), pages 518-522, November.
    3. Maria Luz Loureiro & Jill J. McCluskey, 2000. "Assessing consumer response to protected geographical identification labeling," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(3), pages 309-320.
    4. Meise, Jan Niklas & Rudolph, Thomas & Kenning, Peter & Phillips, Diane M., 2014. "Feed them facts: Value perceptions and consumer use of sustainability-related product information," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 510-519.
    5. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Hoefkens, Christine & Verbeke, Wim, 2017. "Healthy, sustainable and plant-based eating: Perceived (mis)match and involvement-based consumer segments as targets for future policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 46-57.
    6. Joop de Boer, 2003. "Sustainability labelling schemes: the logic of their claims and their functions for stakeholders," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(4), pages 254-264, July.
    7. Katriina Soini & Joost Dessein, 2016. "Culture-Sustainability Relation: Towards a Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-12, February.
    8. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 137-150.
    9. Grunert, Klaus G. & Hieke, Sophie & Wills, Josephine, 2014. "Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 177-189.
    10. Fiala, Nathan, 2008. "Meeting the demand: An estimation of potential future greenhouse gas emissions from meat production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 412-419, October.
    11. Malek, Lenka & Duffy, Gillian & Fowler, Hazel & Katzer, Lisa, 2020. "Use and understanding of labelling information when preparing infant formula: Evidence from interviews and eye tracking," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    12. Camilla C. Erskine & Lyndhurst Collins, 1997. "Eco-labelling: success or failure?," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 125-133, June.
    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. Yuri Borgianni & Lorenzo Maccioni & Anton Dignös & Demis Basso, 2022. "A Framework to Evaluate Areas of Interest for Sustainable Products and Designs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-17, June.
    2. Ching-Hua Yeh & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "To Purchase or Not to Purchase? Drivers of Consumers’ Preferences for Animal Welfare in Their Meat Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    3. Jeremy De Valck & John Rolfe & Darshana Rajapaksa & Megan Star, 2022. "Consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for improved environmental standards: insights from cane sugar in the Great Barrier Reef region," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(3), pages 505-531, July.
    4. Groth, Carolin & Wegmann, Christoph & Meyerding, Stephan G.H., 2023. "Perception of product sustainability: The case of processed tomatoes – A qualitative study in Germany," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).

    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. Alexander J. Stein & Marcelo Lima, 2022. "Sustainable food labelling: considerations for policy-makers," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 103(2), pages 143-160, June.
    2. Danilo Bertoni & Daniele Cavicchioli & Franco Donzelli & Giovanni Ferrazzi & Dario G. Frisio & Roberto Pretolani & Elena Claire Ricci & Vera Ventura, 2018. "Recent Contributions of Agricultural Economics Research in the Field of Sustainable Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Yokessa, Maïmouna & Marette, Stéphan, 2019. "A Review of Eco-labels and their Economic Impact," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 119-163, April.
    4. Herrmann, R. & Bissinger, K. & Krandick, L., 2018. "Implicit Prices of Sustainability Characteristics in Foods: the Case of the German Online Market for Honey," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277079, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Herrmann, Roland & Bissinger, Katharina & Krandick, Lisa, 2018. "Price Premia for Sustainability Characteristics in Foods: Measurement Matters!," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276855, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    6. Leonard Maaya & Michel Meulders & Nick Surmont & Martina Vandebroek, 2018. "Effect of Environmental and Altruistic Attitudes on Willingness-to-Pay for Organic and Fair Trade Coffee in Flanders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, November.
    7. Jeremy De Valck & John Rolfe & Darshana Rajapaksa & Megan Star, 2022. "Consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for improved environmental standards: insights from cane sugar in the Great Barrier Reef region," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(3), pages 505-531, July.
    8. Leach, Allison M. & Emery, Kyle A. & Gephart, Jessica & Davis, Kyle F. & Erisman, Jan Willem & Leip, Adrian & Pace, Michael L. & D’Odorico, Paolo & Carr, Joel & Noll, Laura Cattell & Castner, Elizabet, 2016. "Environmental impact food labels combining carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 213-223.
    9. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Seo, Han-Seok & Zhang, Baoyue & Verbeke, Wim, 2015. "Sustainability labels on coffee: Consumer preferences, willingness-to-pay and visual attention to attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 215-225.
    10. De Bauw, Michiel & Franssens, Samuel & Vranken, Liesbet, 2022. "Trading off environmental attributes in food consumption choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    11. Joanna Kaczorowska & Krystyna Rejman & Ewa Halicka & Agata Szczebyło & Hanna Górska-Warsewicz, 2019. "Impact of Food Sustainability Labels on the Perceived Product Value and Price Expectations of Urban Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-17, December.
    12. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Hoefkens, Christine & Verbeke, Wim, 2017. "Healthy, sustainable and plant-based eating: Perceived (mis)match and involvement-based consumer segments as targets for future policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 46-57.
    13. Mei‐Fang Chen, 2020. "The impacts of perceived moral obligation and sustainability self‐identity on sustainability development: A theory of planned behavior purchase intention model of sustainability‐labeled coffee and the," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2404-2417, September.
    14. Irene Blanco-Gutiérrez & Consuelo Varela-Ortega & Rhys Manners, 2020. "Evaluating Animal-Based Foods and Plant-Based Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria and SWOT Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-26, October.
    15. Antonino Galati & Giuseppina Migliore & Alkis Thrassou & Giorgio Schifani & Giuseppina Rizzo & Nino Adamashvili & Maria Crescimanno, 2023. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Agri-Food Products Delivered with Electric Vehicles in the Short Supply Chains," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 12(2), pages 193-207, June.
    16. Matthias Staudigel & Aleksej Trubnikov, 2022. "High price premiums as barriers to organic meat demand? A hedonic analysis considering species, cut and retail outlet," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 309-334, April.
    17. Coralie Hellwig & Kim Bolton & Greta Häggblom-Kronlöf & Kamran Rousta, 2022. "Aspects Affecting Food Choice in Daily Life as Well as Drivers and Barriers to Engagement with Fungi-Based Food—A Qualitative Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-25, December.
    18. Nadine E. van der Waal & Frans Folkvord & Rachid Azrout & Corine S. Meppelink, 2022. "Can Product Information Steer towards Sustainable and Healthy Food Choices? A Pilot Study in an Online Supermarket," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-17, January.
    19. Takahashi, Ryo & Todo, Yasuyuki & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2018. "How Can We Motivate Consumers to Purchase Certified Forest Coffee? Evidence From a Laboratory Randomized Experiment Using Eye-trackers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 107-121.
    20. Sylwia Żakowska-Biemans & Agnieszka Tekień, 2017. "Free Range, Organic? Polish Consumers Preferences Regarding Information on Farming System and Nutritional Enhancement of Eggs: A Discrete Choice Based Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, November.

    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:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5398-:d:552851. 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.