IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i4p1270-d321417.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Food Safety Trust, Risk Perception, and Consumers’ Response to Company Trust Repair Actions in Food Recall Crises

Author

Listed:
  • Chuanhui Liao

    (School of Economics and Management, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang 621010, China)

  • Yu Luo

    (School of Economics and Management, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang 621010, China)

  • Weiwei Zhu

    (School of Marxism, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, China)

Abstract

Food recalls have severe impacts on the operation, reputation, and even the survival of a recalling company involved in a crisis, with consumer trust violation being the immediate threat to the recalling firm. The involved firms adopt trust repair strategies and release messages relevant to these actions to the public. In this research, we developed a conceptual model to analyze consumers’ general responses to the food recall, and we then compared the effect of two types of consumer trust repair strategies, i.e., self-sanction and information-sharing. The results show that consumer food safety trust has negative impacts on consumers’ protective behavioral intention during a food recall crisis. In the scientific-evidence sharing group, consumers have a higher risk perception, coping appraisal efficacy, information-seeking tendency, and protection behavioral intention. However, consumers’ food safety trust fails to predict protection behavioral intention because scientific-evidence actions can either be regarded as an explanation and self-serving, or as useful facts and solutions. Self-sanction actions overcome the disadvantages of information-sharing actions, but consumers still require information on facts of and solutions to the crisis. Therefore, it is recommended that recalling firms combine these two strategies in the case of consumer trust repair in food recall crises. Furthermore, the involved firms are encouraged to employ a third party to release the scientific evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Chuanhui Liao & Yu Luo & Weiwei Zhu, 2020. "Food Safety Trust, Risk Perception, and Consumers’ Response to Company Trust Repair Actions in Food Recall Crises," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-16, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:4:p:1270-:d:321417
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/4/1270/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/4/1270/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bozic, Branko, 2017. "Consumer trust repair: A critical literature review," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 538-547.
    2. Ellen Ter Huurne & Jan Gutteling, 2008. "Information needs and risk perception as predictors of risk information seeking," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 847-862, October.
    3. Li, Tongzhe & Bernard, John C. & Johnston, Zachary A. & Messer, Kent D. & Kaiser, Harry M., 2017. "Consumer preferences before and after a food safety scare: An experimental analysis of the 2010 egg recall," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 25-34.
    4. Guanghua Han & Simin Yan, 2019. "Does Food Safety Risk Perception Affect the Public’s Trust in Their Government? An Empirical Study on a National Survey in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-15, May.
    5. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    6. Cleeren, K. & Dekimpe, M.G. & Helsen, K., 2008. "Weathering product-harm crises," Other publications TiSEM 283b51f8-dd35-4a10-930a-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Gillespie, Nicole & Dietz, Graham & Lockey, Steve, 2014. "Organizational Reintegration and Trust Repair after an Integrity Violation: A Case Study," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 371-410, July.
    8. Hui Key Lee & Hishamuddin Abdul Halim & Kwai Lin Thong & Lay Ching Chai, 2017. "Assessment of Food Safety Knowledge, Attitude, Self-Reported Practices, and Microbiological Hand Hygiene of Food Handlers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, January.
    9. Jiaping Zhang & Zhiyong Cai & Mingwang Cheng & Huirong Zhang & Heng Zhang & Zhongkun Zhu, 2019. "Association of Internet Use with Attitudes Toward Food Safety in China: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-19, October.
    10. Shelly Hovick & Vicki S. Freimuth & Ashani Johnson‐Turbes & Doryn D. Chervin, 2011. "Multiple Health Risk Perception and Information Processing Among African Americans and Whites Living in Poverty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1789-1799, November.
    11. Lijie Shan & Shusai Wang & Linhai Wu & Fu-Sheng Tsai, 2019. "Cognitive Biases of Consumers’ Risk Perception of Foodborne Diseases in China: Examining Anchoring Effect," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-14, June.
    12. Chuanhui Liao & Xiaomei Zhou & Dingtao Zhao, 2018. "An Augmented Risk Information Seeking Model: Perceived Food Safety Risk Related to Food Recalls," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, August.
    13. Dirks, Kurt T. & Kim, Peter H. & Ferrin, Donald L. & Cooper, Cecily D., 2011. "Understanding the effects of substantive responses on trust following a transgression," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 87-103, March.
    14. Teun Terpstra & Michael K. Lindell & Jan M. Gutteling, 2009. "Does Communicating (Flood) Risk Affect (Flood) Risk Perceptions? Results of a Quasi‐Experimental Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1141-1155, August.
    15. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Liangyan Wang & Yitong Wang, 2010. "Product Quality Risk Perceptions and Decisions: Contaminated Pet Food and Lead‐Painted Toys," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1572-1589, October.
    16. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 343-353, April.
    17. Jiuchang Wei & Ming Zhao & Fei Wang & Dingtao Zhao, 2016. "The effects of firm actions on customers’ responses to product recall crises: analyzing an automobile recall in China," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 425-443, April.
    18. Hunter, Erik & Röös, Elin, 2016. "Fear of climate change consequences and predictors of intentions to alter meat consumption," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 151-160.
    19. Wim Verbeke, 2005. "Agriculture and the food industry in the information age," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(3), pages 347-368, September.
    20. Peake, Whitney O. & Detre, Joshua D. & Carlson, Clinton C., 2014. "One bad apple spoils the bunch? An exploration of broad consumption changes in response to food recalls," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 13-22.
    21. Lan Yi & Jianping Tao & Zhongkun Zhu & Caifeng Tan & Le Qi, 2019. "Food Safety Incident, Public Health Concern, and Risk Spillover Heterogeneity: Avian Influenza Shocks as Natural Experiments in China’s Consumer Markets," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-30, October.
    22. Nakayachi, Kazuya & Watabe, Motoki, 2005. "Restoring trustworthiness after adverse events: The signaling effects of voluntary "Hostage Posting" on trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 1-17, May.
    23. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.
    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. Emily Sanchez & Ryan B. Simpson & Yutong Zhang & Lauren E. Sallade & Elena N. Naumova, 2022. "Exploring Risk Factors of Recall-Associated Foodborne Disease Outbreaks in the United States, 2009–2019," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-20, April.
    2. Hongfeng Zhang & Chengyun Sun & Lu Huang & Hongyun Si, 2021. "Does Government Intervention Ensure Food Safety? Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Kashyap, Pratyoosh & Suter, Jordan F. & McKee, Sophie C., 2024. "Measuring changes in pork demand, welfare effects, and the role of information sources in the event of an African swine fever outbreak in the United States," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    4. Zuraidah Sulaiman & Hanis Syuhada Ahmad Sugiran & Nornajihah Nadia Hasbullah & Adaviah Mas’od & Suhairul Hashim & David Andrew Bradley, 2022. "Public Awareness of Consumer Products Containing Radioactive Materials: Empirical Evidence from Malaysia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-18, February.

    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. Jiuchang Wei & Ming Zhao & Fei Wang & Peng Cheng & Dingtao Zhao, 2016. "An Empirical Study of the Volkswagen Crisis in China: Customers’ Information Processing and Behavioral Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 114-129, January.
    2. Kähkönen, T. & Blomqvist, K. & Gillespie, N. & Vanhala, M., 2021. "Employee trust repair: A systematic review of 20 years of empirical research and future research directions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 98-109.
    3. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.
    4. Bozic, Branko & Kuppelwieser, Volker G., 2019. "Customer trust recovery: An alternative explanation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 208-218.
    5. Li, Huashan & Bapuji, Hari & Talluri, Srinivas & Singh, Prakash J., 2022. "A Cross-disciplinary review of product recall research: A stakeholder-stage framework," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    6. Zhao, Yuanshuang & Dong, Liang & Sun, Yuhang & Ma, Yunning & Zhang, Ning, 2024. "Is air pollution the original sin of firms? The impact of air pollution on firms' ESG scores," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    7. Chuanhui Liao & Xiaomei Zhou & Dingtao Zhao, 2018. "An Augmented Risk Information Seeking Model: Perceived Food Safety Risk Related to Food Recalls," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, August.
    8. Bozic, Branko, 2017. "Consumer trust repair: A critical literature review," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 538-547.
    9. Yanbo Zhang & Yibao Wang & Ahmad Bayiz Ahmad & Ashfaq Ahmad Shah & Wen Qing, 2021. "How Do Individual-Level Characteristics Influence Cross-Domain Risk Perceptions Among Chinese Urban Residents?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    10. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    11. Brühl, Rolf & Basel, Jörn S. & Kury, Max F., 2018. "Communication after an integrity-based trust violation: How organizational account giving affects trust," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 161-170.
    12. Kevin Fox Gotham & Richard Campanella & Katie Lauve‐Moon & Bradford Powers, 2018. "Hazard Experience, Geophysical Vulnerability, and Flood Risk Perceptions in a Postdisaster City, the Case of New Orleans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 345-356, February.
    13. Lili Wan, 2016. "Tactics to Restore Damaged Customer Relationship after Negative Events," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 6(6), pages 132-137, June.
    14. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-177.
    15. Jianbin Yu & Neal H. Hooker, 2024. "Exploring factors influencing repeated recalls in the US meat and poultry industry," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(4), pages 825-845, October.
    16. Julia Hartmann & Sebastian Forkmann & Sabine Benoit & Stephan C. Henneberg, 2022. "A consumer perspective on managing the consequences of chain liability," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 58(4), pages 58-89, October.
    17. Hornsey, Matthew J. & Chapman, Cassandra M. & La Macchia, Stephen & Loakes, Jennifer, 2024. "Corporate apologies are effective because reform signals are weighted more heavily than culpability signals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    18. Kolotylo-Kulkarni, Malgorzata & Marakas, George M. & Xia, Weidong, 2024. "Understanding protective behavior and vaccination adoption among US individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A four-wave longitudinal study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    19. Chuanhui Liao & Huang Yu & Weiwei Zhu, 2020. "Perceived Knowledge, Coping Efficacy and Consumer Consumption Changes in Response to Food Recall," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, March.
    20. Božič, Branko & Siebert, Sabina & Martin, Graeme, 2020. "A grounded theory study of factors and conditions associated with customer trust recovery in a retailer," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 440-448.

    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:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:4:p:1270-:d:321417. 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.