IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v131y2025ics0306919225000077.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Much ado about nothing? An empirical analysis of consumer behaviour in the presence of ‘dual food quality’

Author

Listed:
  • Federica, Di Marcantonio
  • Barreiro-Hurle, Jesus
  • Menapace, Luisa
  • Liesbeth, Colen
  • François J., Dessart
  • Pavel, Ciaian

Abstract

Marketing food products with slightly different compositions as identical across countries is a common practice in the food industry. While food companies argue that different versions reflect taste preferences, some Central and Eastern European consumers allege that multinational companies sell lower quality products using the same brand name and packaging as in Western European countries. The political attention gathered by this practice, exemplified by the dual food quality (DFQ) debate in the European Union (EU), has largely neglected how the presence of DFQ affects consumers’ purchase decisions. This study aims to help fill this gap. Additionally, it examines the impact of a policy intervention consisting of a ‘made for’ claim and the role of the brand name on consumer choices. Through online discrete-choice experiments and laboratory tasting and rating experiments in six EU countries, no systematic support is found for either the industry’s or the consumers’ arguments. Results also indicate that a policy requiring consumers to be informed about the destination market of different versions would increase consumers’ valuation of domestic products, while at the same time improving transparency and avoiding misleading consumers.

Suggested Citation

  • Federica, Di Marcantonio & Barreiro-Hurle, Jesus & Menapace, Luisa & Liesbeth, Colen & François J., Dessart & Pavel, Ciaian, 2025. "Much ado about nothing? An empirical analysis of consumer behaviour in the presence of ‘dual food quality’," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:131:y:2025:i:c:s0306919225000077
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2025.102803
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919225000077
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2025.102803?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Carlo Russo & Luisa Menapace & Marcello Sansone & Edward Kyei Twum & Negin Fathinejad & Annarita Colamatteo & Maria Anna Pagnanelli, 2020. "Economic rationale behind differences in the composition of seemingly identical branded food products in the Single Market," JRC Research Reports JRC117796, Joint Research Centre.
    2. Graham, Dan J. & Orquin, Jacob L. & Visschers, Vivianne H.M., 2012. "Eye tracking and nutrition label use: A review of the literature and recommendations for label enhancement," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 378-382.
    3. Di Comite, Francesco & Thisse, Jacques-François & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2014. "Verti-zontal differentiation in export markets," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 50-66.
    4. Reed, Americus & Forehand, Mark R. & Puntoni, Stefano & Warlop, Luk, 2012. "Identity-based consumer behavior," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 310-321.
    5. Nes, Kjersti & Ciaian, Pavel & Di Marcantonio, Federica, 2021. "Economic determinants of differences in the composition of seemingly identical branded food products in the EU," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    6. Pavel Ciaian & Federica Di Marcantonio & Liesbeth Colen & Kjersti Nes & Jesus Barreiro-Hurle & François J. Dessart & Luisa Menapace & Carlo Russo & Annarita Colamatteo & Negin Fathinejad & Maria Anna , 2020. "Economic analyses of differences in composition of seemingly identical branded food products in the Single Market," JRC Research Reports JRC120297, Joint Research Centre.
    7. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    8. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    9. Dong, Songting & Ding, Min & Huber, Joel, 2010. "A simple mechanism to incentive-align conjoint experiments," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 25-32.
    10. Shijun Gao & Carola Grebitus & Karen L. DeLong, 2024. "Explaining consumer willingness to pay for country‐of‐origin labeling with ethnocentrism, country image, and product image: Examples from China's beef market," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 72(2), pages 149-166, June.
    11. Ryan Rahinel & Ashley S Otto & Daniel M Grossman & Joshua J Clarkson & Margaret C Campbell & Kevin Lane Keller, 2021. "Exposure to Brands Makes Preferential Decisions Easier," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 48(4), pages 541-561.
    12. Carlos J. Torelli & Rohini Ahluwalia & Shirley Y. Y. Cheng & Nicholas J. Olson & Jennifer L. Stoner, 2017. "Redefining Home: How Cultural Distinctiveness Affects the Malleability of In-Group Boundaries and Brand Preferences," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(1), pages 44-61.
    13. Federica Di Marcantonio & Luisa Menapace & Jesus Barreiro-Hurle & Pavel Ciaian & François J. Dessart & Liesbeth Colen, 2020. "Empirical testing of the impact on consumer choice resulting from differences in the composition of seemingly identical branded products," JRC Research Reports JRC119484, Joint Research Centre.
    14. Kjersti Nes & Federico Antonioli & Federica Di Marcantonio & Pavel Ciaian, 2023. "EU-wide comparison of the characteristics and presentation of branded food products (2021)," JRC Research Reports JRC131303, Joint Research Centre.
    15. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    16. Klaus G. Grunert, 2005. "Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(3), pages 369-391, September.
    17. Roberta Sisto & Giustina Pellegrini & Piermichele La Sala, 2019. "Dual quality food: A negative social externality or a competitiveness opportunity?," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 65(7), pages 307-313.
    18. Ozretic-Dosen, Durdana & Skare, Vatroslav & Krupka, Zoran, 2007. "Assessments of country of origin and brand cues in evaluating a Croatian, western and eastern European food product," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 130-136, February.
    19. Nes, Kjersti & Antonioli, Federico & Di Marcantonio, Federica & Ciaian, Pavel, 2024. "The impact of pre-empting dual food quality regulation on product reformulation and packaging," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    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. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    2. Hofstetter, Reto & Miller, Klaus M. & Krohmer, Harley & Zhang, Z. John, 2021. "A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers' willingness to pay," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 70-84.
    3. Liesbeth Colen & George Chryssochoidis & Pavel Ciaian & Federica Di Marcantonio, 2020. "Differences in composition of seemingly identical branded products: Impact on consumer purchase decisions and welfare," JRC Research Reports JRC118149, Joint Research Centre.
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    5. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    6. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Pavel Ciaian & Federica Di Marcantonio & Liesbeth Colen & Kjersti Nes & Jesus Barreiro-Hurle & François J. Dessart & Luisa Menapace & Carlo Russo & Annarita Colamatteo & Negin Fathinejad & Maria Anna , 2020. "Economic analyses of differences in composition of seemingly identical branded food products in the Single Market," JRC Research Reports JRC120297, Joint Research Centre.
    8. Sebastian Lehmann, 2014. "Toward an Understanding of the BDM: Predictive Validity, Gambling Effects, and Risk Attitude," FEMM Working Papers 150001, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    9. Nes, Kjersti & Ciaian, Pavel & Di Marcantonio, Federica, 2021. "Economic determinants of differences in the composition of seemingly identical branded food products in the EU," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    10. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    11. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    12. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    13. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    14. Dost, Florian & Wilken, Robert, 2012. "Measuring willingness to pay as a range, revisited: When should we care?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 148-166.
    15. Lucie Severová & Roman Svoboda & Karel Šrédl & Marie Prášilová & Alexandr Soukup & Lenka Kopecká & Marek Dvořák, 2021. "Food Safety and Quality in Connection with the Change of Consumer Choice in Czechia (a Case Study)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, June.
    16. Franziska Voelckner, 2006. "An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 137-149, April.
    17. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh B. & Zamarro, Gema, 2023. "Teachers’ willingness to pay for retirement benefits: A national stated preferences experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    18. John List, 2025. "Valuing Non-Marketed Goods and Services Using a List Field Experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00809, The Field Experiments Website.
    19. Luttmer, Erzo F. P. & Zeckhauser, Richard & Kousky, Carolyn, 2006. "Permits to Elicit Information," Working Paper Series rwp06-049, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    20. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.

    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:eee:jfpoli:v:131:y:2025:i:c:s0306919225000077. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    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.