IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i10p6295-d820993.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Jumping on the Bandwagon of Responsibility—Or Not? Consumers’ Perceived Role in the Meat Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Jeanette Klink-Lehmann

    (Department of Agricultural and Food Market Research, Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, Nussallee 21, 53115 Bonn, Germany)

  • Nina Langen

    (Department of Education for Sustainable Nutrition and Food Science, Institute of Vocational Education and Work Studies, Technische Universität Berlin, Marchstr. 23, MAR 1-1, 10587 Berlin, Germany)

  • Johannes Simons

    (Department of Agricultural and Food Market Research, Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, Nussallee 21, 53115 Bonn, Germany)

  • Monika Hartmann

    (Department of Agricultural and Food Market Research, Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, Nussallee 21, 53115 Bonn, Germany)

Abstract

It is evident that sustainable meat consumption and production require shared responsibility for actions and consequences by consumers and producers. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the relevant focus areas within the meat food value chain that consumers attach relevance to. Furthermore, the study provides an understanding of potential actions of consumer social responsibility (C N SR) and reasons for not taking responsibility. The study is based on an online consumer survey ( n = 1003) including standardized and open-ended questions. Data were analyzed via content analysis using a combination of inductive and deductive analyses in an iterative process. Results reveal that consumers consider animal husbandry as the core area where there is a need to take responsibility. This is followed by food safety, slaughtering, and transport, while environment and social issues related to the working conditions of employees are judged to have lower relevance. In most focus areas, the large majority of respondents attribute responsibility to one or several of the other stakeholder groups but not to consumers of meat products. Recommendations for the meat sector as well as for policymakers are derived in this paper to further encourage meat consumers to take their part of the overall responsibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeanette Klink-Lehmann & Nina Langen & Johannes Simons & Monika Hartmann, 2022. "Jumping on the Bandwagon of Responsibility—Or Not? Consumers’ Perceived Role in the Meat Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:6295-:d:820993
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/6295/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/6295/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tandon, Anushree & Dhir, Amandeep & Kaur, Puneet & Kushwah, Shiksha & Salo, Jari, 2020. "Why do people buy organic food? The moderating role of environmental concerns and trust," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    2. Mei‐Fang Chen, 2008. "Consumer Trust in Food Safety—A Multidisciplinary Approach and Empirical Evidence from Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1553-1569, December.
    3. Scott Vitell, 2015. "A Case for Consumer Social Responsibility (CnSR): Including a Selected Review of Consumer Ethics/Social Responsibility Research," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(4), pages 767-774, September.
    4. Johannes Simons & Alexander Hinrichs, 2021. "Die Initiative Tierwohl der deutschen Ernährungswirtschaft," Springer Books, in: Wanja Wellbrock & Daniela Ludin (ed.), Nachhaltiger Konsum, chapter 0, pages 769-781, Springer.
    5. Harvey, David & Hubbard, Carmen, 2013. "Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: An anatomy of market failure," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 105-114.
    6. Michal Carrington & Benjamin Neville & Gregory Whitwell, 2010. "Why Ethical Consumers Don’t Walk Their Talk: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Gap Between the Ethical Purchase Intentions and Actual Buying Behaviour of Ethically Minded Consumers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 139-158, November.
    7. Klink, Jeanette & Langen, Nina & Hecht, Stefanie & Hartmann, Monika, 2014. "Sustainability as Sales Argument in the Fruit Juice Industry? An Analysis of On-Product Communication," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 5(3), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Von Hardenberg, Louisa & Heise, Heinke, 2018. "German Pig Farmers’ Attitudes Towards Farm Animal Welfare And Their Willingness To Participate In Animal Welfare Programs: An Empirical Study," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276867, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    9. Terlau, Wiltrud & Hirsch, Darya, 2015. "Sustainable Consumption and the Attitude-Behaviour-Gap Phenomenon - Causes and Measurements towards a Sustainable Development," 2015 International European Forum (144th EAAE Seminar), February 9-13, 2015, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 206233, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    10. Hyunsoo Kim & Chang Won Lee, 2018. "The Effects of Customer Perception and Participation in Sustainable Supply Chain Management: A Smartphone Industry Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-19, July.
    11. Alphonce, Roselyne & Alfnes, Frode & Sharma, Amit, 2013. "Voting or Buying: Inconsistency in Preferences toward Food Safety in Restaurants," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150296, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Michael P. Schlaile & Katharina Klein & Wolfgang Böck, 2018. "From Bounded Morality to Consumer Social Responsibility: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Socially Responsible Consumption and Its Obstacles," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 561-588, May.
    13. Deirdre Shaw & Robert McMaster & Terry Newholm, 2016. "Care and Commitment in Ethical Consumption: An Exploration of the ‘Attitude–Behaviour Gap’," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 251-265, June.
    14. Brishti Guha, 2020. "Revisiting the volunteer's dilemma: group size and public good provision in the presence of some ambiguity aversion," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(2), pages 1308-1318.
    15. von Hardenberg, Louisa & Heise, Heinke, 2018. "German Pig Farmers’ Attitudes towards Animal Welfare Programs and their Willingness to Participate in these Programs: An Empirical Study," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(3), June.
    16. Baskentli, Sara & Sen, Sankar & Du, Shuili & Bhattacharya, C.B., 2019. "Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility: The role of CSR domains," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 502-513.
    17. Terlau, Wiltrud & Hirsch, Darya, 2015. "Sustainable Consumption and the Attitude-Behaviour-Gap Phenomenon - Causes and Measurements towards a Sustainable Development," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 6(3), pages 1-16, July.
    18. Heise, Heinke & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2016. "What do consumers think about farm animal welfare in modern agriculture? Attitudes and shopping behaviour," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 20(3), November.
    19. Lewis Akenji & Magnus Bengtsson, 2014. "Making Sustainable Consumption and Production the Core of Sustainable Development Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-17, January.
    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. Yamoah, Fred A. & Yawson, David Eshun, 2022. "Promoting global well-being through fairtrade food: the role of international exposure," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 26(2), November.
    2. Atsushi Watabe & Simon Gilby, 2020. "To See a World in a Grain of Sand—The Transformative Potential of Small Community Actions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-19, September.
    3. Maria Teresa Trentinaglia De Daverio & Teresina Mancuso & Massimo Peri & Lucia Baldi, 2020. "How Does Consumers’ Care for Origin Shape Their Behavioural Gap for Environmentally Friendly Products?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Ayman Kassem & Ahmad Muhammad Ragab & Abdullah Alomran & Eid Alotaibi & Tarek AbdelAzim Ahmed & Eman Shaker & Abdallah Alajloni, 2021. "Underlying Factors of Tourist Social Responsibility (TSR) within the COVID-19 Context: An Empirical Investigation of the Saudi Tourism Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-24, December.
    5. Hyesun Hwang & Harim Yeo, 2022. "Inconsistency between subjective propensity and practice of sustainable consumption: Impact of the consumers' values‐in‐behavior and social participation," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1796-1810, December.
    6. Carla Rossi & Francesca Rivetti, 2020. "Assessing Young Consumers’ Responses to Sustainable Labels: Insights from a Factorial Experiment in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    7. Sarah Verdonk & Keri Chiveralls & Drew Dawson, 2017. "Getting Wasted at WOMADelaide: The Effect of Signage on Waste Disposal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-17, February.
    8. Eva-Maria Waltner & Werner Rieß & Christoph Mischo, 2019. "Development and Validation of an Instrument for Measuring Student Sustainability Competencies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, March.
    9. Lianne Foti & Avis Devine, 2019. "High Involvement and Ethical Consumption: A Study of the Environmentally Certified Home Purchase Decision," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-11, September.
    10. Tan, Teck Ming & Makkonen, Hannu & Kaur, Puneet & Salo, Jari, 2022. "How do ethical consumers utilize sharing economy platforms as part of their sustainable resale behavior? The role of consumers’ green consumption values," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    11. Alex Hiller & Tony Woodall, 2019. "Everything Flows: A Pragmatist Perspective of Trade-Offs and Value in Ethical Consumption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(4), pages 893-912, July.
    12. Andy Felix Jităreanu & Mioara Mihăilă & Alexandru-Dragoș Robu & Florin-Daniel Lipșa & Carmen Luiza Costuleanu, 2022. "Dynamic of Ecological Agriculture Certification in Romania Facing the EU Organic Action Plan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-17, September.
    13. Percy Marquina & Vincent Charles, 2021. "A Bayesian resampling approach to estimate the difference in effect sizes in consumer social responses to CSR initiatives versus corporate abilities," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1680-1699, November.
    14. von Geibler, Justus & Stelzer, Franziska, 2020. "Reallabore als umweltbezogenes Politikinstrument: Kurzstudie im Rahmen der Digitalagenda des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit," Wuppertal Reports 19, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.
    15. Robert Caruana & Sarah Glozer & Giana M. Eckhardt, 2020. "‘Alternative Hedonism’: Exploring the Role of Pleasure in Moral Markets," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 143-158, September.
    16. Silvia H. Bonilla & Helton R. O. Silva & Marcia Terra da Silva & Rodrigo Franco Gonçalves & José B. Sacomano, 2018. "Industry 4.0 and Sustainability Implications: A Scenario-Based Analysis of the Impacts and Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-24, October.
    17. Garcia, Teresa Cristina & Durand-Morat, Alvaro & Yang, Wei & Popp, Michael & Schreckhise, William, 2022. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for second-generation ethanol in Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    18. Carmen Bălan, 2020. "How Does Retail Engage Consumers in Sustainable Consumption? A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-25, December.
    19. Jin-Myong Lee & Hyo-Jung Kim & Jong-Youn Rha, 2017. "Shopping for Society? Consumers’ Value Conflicts in Socially Responsible Consumption Affected by Retail Regulation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, October.
    20. Adam Czudec, 2022. "The Altruistic Behaviour of Consumers Who Prefer a Local Origin of Organic Food," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12, April.

    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:14:y:2022:i:10:p:6295-:d:820993. 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.