IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i18p5046-d267524.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cow Milk versus Plant-Based Milk Substitutes: A Comparison of Product Image and Motivational Structure of Consumption

Author

Listed:
  • Rainer Haas

    (Institute of Marketing & Innovation, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180 Vienna, Austria)

  • Alina Schnepps

    (Institute of Marketing & Innovation, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180 Vienna, Austria)

  • Anni Pichler

    (Institute of Marketing & Innovation, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180 Vienna, Austria)

  • Oliver Meixner

    (Institute of Marketing & Innovation, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180 Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

Cow milk is under increased scrutiny due to its environmental impact and ethical considerations concerning animal welfare. At the same time, a rising share of consumers is switching to plant-based milk substitutes (abbreviated “plant milk”). The objective of this study was (1) to analyze the product image of plant milk and cow milk and (2) to compare the motivational structure behind the consumption of both product categories. For this purpose, a quantitative survey with Austrian consumers was carried out to analyze the product image of plant milk in comparison to cow milk (n = 1001). The product image analysis revealed that the product image of cow milk is still much better than that of plant milk. Amongst others, cow milk is considered to be healthier, more natural, and better for bones. Product image valuation was dependent on the (non-)consumption of plant milk. Plant milk consumers evaluated plant milk significantly better; they considered plant milk to be much better digestible and allergy-free. The qualitative study using means-end-chain analysis, with two sub-samples of interviewees (plant milk consumers, n = 30, and cow milk consumers, n = 30), identified different motives for the consumption of cow milk and plant milk. Motives that were only reported from cow milk consumers are the origin of milk and the support of small-scale dairy production of farmers. Motives of plant milk consumers were much more diverse and included animal welfare and sustainability aspects.

Suggested Citation

  • Rainer Haas & Alina Schnepps & Anni Pichler & Oliver Meixner, 2019. "Cow Milk versus Plant-Based Milk Substitutes: A Comparison of Product Image and Motivational Structure of Consumption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-25, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:18:p:5046-:d:267524
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/18/5046/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/18/5046/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mohammed Ziaul Hoque & Md. Nurul Alam, 2018. "What Determines the Purchase Intention of Liquid Milk during a Food Security Crisis? The Role of Perceived Trust, Knowledge, and Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Haas, Rainer & Sterns, James & Meixner, Oliver, 2013. "US Consumers’ Perception of Local and Organic Food: An Analysis Based on Means-End Chain Analysis and Word Association," 2013 International European Forum, February 18-22, 2013, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 164759, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    3. Bradley J. Cardinale & J. Emmett Duffy & Andrew Gonzalez & David U. Hooper & Charles Perrings & Patrick Venail & Anita Narwani & Georgina M. Mace & David Tilman & David A. Wardle & Ann P. Kinzig & Gre, 2012. "Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity," Nature, Nature, vol. 486(7401), pages 59-67, June.
    4. Wongprawmas, Rungsaran & Canavari, Maurizio & Imami, Drini & Gjonbalaj, Mujë & Gjokaj, Ekrem, . "Attitudes and preferences of Kosovar consumers towards quality and origin of meat," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 120(3).
    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. Annika Carlsson Kanyama & Björn Hedin & Cecilia Katzeff, 2021. "Differences in Environmental Impact between Plant-Based Alternatives to Dairy and Dairy Products: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-16, November.
    2. Khanal, Binod & Lopez, Rigoberto, 2021. "Demand for Plant Based Beverages and Market Competition in Fluid Milk Markets," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315369, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. D. M. D. Rasika & Janak K. Vidanarachchi & Selma F. Luiz & Denise Rosane Perdomo Azeredo & Adriano G. Cruz & Chaminda Senaka Ranadheera, 2021. "Probiotic Delivery through Non-Dairy Plant-Based Food Matrices," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-23, June.
    4. Giovanni Sogari & Giulia Andreani & Florine Livat & Md Mofakkarul Islam, 2025. "Understanding young consumers’ motivations for purchasing plant-based burgers: insights from the means-end chain theory," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 13(1), pages 1-31, December.
    5. Merlino, Valentina Maria & Massaglia, Stefano & Blanc, Simone & Brun, Filippo & Borra, Danielle, . "Differences between Italian specialty milk in large-scale retailing distribution," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 24(2).
    6. Pingali, Prabhu & Boiteau, Jocelyn & Choudhry, Abhinav & Hall, Aaron, 2023. "Making meat and milk from plants: A review of plant-based food for human and planetary health," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    7. Hansen, Rebecca & Gebhardt, Beate & Hess, Sebastian, 2022. "European Demand for Plant-Based Dairy Substitutes: Hype or Hope for a Broader Transformation of the Food System," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329590, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    8. Meike Rombach & Xiaomeng Lucock & David L. Dean, 2023. "No Cow? Understanding US Consumer Preferences for Plant-Based over Regular Milk-Based Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-12, July.
    9. Georgie Hurst & Laxmi Prasad Pant, 2025. "The role of dairy alternatives in just food system transitions: a scoping review," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 42(2), pages 1191-1206, June.
    10. Annika Lonkila & Minna Kaljonen, 2021. "Promises of meat and milk alternatives: an integrative literature review on emergent research themes," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(3), pages 625-639, September.
    11. Valentina Maria Merlino & Stefano Massaglia & Simone Blanc & Filippo Brun & Danielle Borra, 2022. "Differences between Italian specialty milk in large-scale retailing distribution," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 24(2), pages 1-28.
    12. Rozenn Gazan & Florent Vieux & Anne Lluch & Stephanie de Vriese & Beatrice Trotin & Nicole Darmon, 2022. "Individual Diet Optimization in French Adults Shows That Plant-Based “Dairy-like” Products May Complement Dairy in Sustainable Diets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, February.
    13. David Kilian & Ulrich Hamm, 2021. "Perceptions of Vegan Food among Organic Food Consumers Following Different Diets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-17, August.
    14. Ainuson-Quampah, Joana & Amuna, Norbert Ndaah & Holdsworth, Michelle & Aryeetey, Richmond, 2022. "A review of food-based dietary guidelines in Africa: Opportunities to enhance the healthiness and environmental sustainability of population diets," African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), vol. 22(02).
    15. Krampe, Caspar & Fridman, Adar, . "Oatly, a serious 'problem' for the dairy industry? A case study," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 25(01).
    16. Weinrich, Ramona & Petersen, Thies & Hirsch, Stefan, 2024. "Information quality of the Nutri-Score and companies’ communication strategy," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343725, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Rizal Edy Halim & Shinta Rahmani & Gita Gayatri & Asnan Furinto & Yudi Sutarso, 2022. "The Effectiveness of Product Sustainability Claims to Mitigate Negative Electronic Word of Mouth (N-eWOM)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), 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. Yang Liu & Jing Zhao & Xi Zheng & Xiaoyang Ou & Yaru Zhang & Jiaying Li, 2023. "Evaluation of Biodiversity Maintenance Capacity in Forest Landscapes: A Case Study in Beijing, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-23, June.
    2. Laura Emma Milani Marin & Alessandra Cecilia Jacomuzzi, 2020. "Insects at the table: What consumers know," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(1), pages 195-208.
    3. Bardsley, Douglas K. & Bardsley, Annette M., 2014. "Organising for socio-ecological resilience: The roles of the mountain farmer cooperative Genossenschaft Gran Alpin in Graubünden, Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 11-21.
    4. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    5. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    6. Nibedita Mukherjee & Jean Huge & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas & Nico Koedam, 2014. "Ecosystem service valuations of mangrove ecosystems to inform decision making and future valuation exercises," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/217963, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Philipp D Lösel & Coline Monchanin & Renaud Lebrun & Alejandra Jayme & Jacob J Relle & Jean-Marc Devaud & Vincent Heuveline & Mathieu Lihoreau, 2023. "Natural variability in bee brain size and symmetry revealed by micro-CT imaging and deep learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(10), pages 1-26, October.
    8. Yiwei Lian & Yang Bai & Zhongde Huang & Maroof Ali & Jie Wang & Haoran Chen, 2024. "Spatio-Temporal Changes and Habitats of Rare and Endangered Species in Yunnan Province Based on MaxEnt Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Prem Chandra Pandey & Manish Pandey, 2023. "Highlighting the role of agriculture and geospatial technology in food security and sustainable development goals," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 3175-3195, October.
    10. Eva M. Murgado-Armenteros & María Gutierrez-Salcedo & Francisco José Torres-Ruiz, 2020. "The Concern about Biodiversity as a Criterion for the Classification of the Sustainable Consumer: A Cross-Cultural Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-14, April.
    11. Iliriana Miftari & Rainer Haas & Oliver Meixner & Drini Imami & Ekrem Gjokaj, 2022. "Factors Influencing Consumer Attitudes towards Organic Food Products in a Transition Economy—Insights from Kosovo," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, May.
    12. Chun-Huo Chiu & Anne Chao, 2014. "Distance-Based Functional Diversity Measures and Their Decomposition: A Framework Based on Hill Numbers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-17, July.
    13. Guangdong Li & Chuanglin Fang & James E. M. Watson & Siao Sun & Wei Qi & Zhenbo Wang & Jianguo Liu, 2024. "Mixed effectiveness of global protected areas in resisting habitat loss," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, December.
    14. Sarah R. Weiskopf & Forest Isbell & Maria Isabel Arce-Plata & Moreno Di Marco & Mike Harfoot & Justin Johnson & Susannah B. Lerman & Brian W. Miller & Toni Lyn Morelli & Akira S. Mori & Ensheng Weng &, 2024. "Biodiversity loss reduces global terrestrial carbon storage," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    15. Shuangshuang Liu & Qipeng Liao & Mingzhu Xiao & Dengyue Zhao & Chunbo Huang, 2022. "Spatial and Temporal Variations of Habitat Quality and Its Response of Landscape Dynamic in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-20, March.
    16. Jennifer M. H. Loch & Linda J. Walters & Melinda L. Donnelly & Geoffrey S. Cook, 2021. "Restored Coastal Habitat Can “Reel In” Juvenile Sportfish: Population and Community Responses in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida, USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-22, November.
    17. Jessica Chavez & Vincent Nijman & Desak Ketut Tristiana Sukmadewi & Made Dwi Sadnyana & Sophie Manson & Marco Campera, 2024. "Impact of Farm Management on Soil Fertility in Agroforestry Systems in Bali, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-15, September.
    18. Guangzi Li & Jun Cai, 2022. "Spatial and Temporal Differentiation of Mountain Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs and Synergies: A Case Study of Jieshi Mountain, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-16, April.
    19. Liam Langan & Simon Scheiter & Thomas Hickler & Steven I. Higgins, 2025. "Amazon forest resistance to drought is increased by diversity in hydraulic traits," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, December.
    20. Krishen, Anjala S. & Barnes, Jesse L. & Hu, Han-fen, 2025. "Consumer knowledge and sustainable decision-making: A mixed-method inquiry and proposed model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:18:p:5046-:d:267524. 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.