IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i21p14299-d960514.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Are People Willing to Pay for Social Sustainability? A Choice Experiment among Dutch Consumers

Author

Listed:
  • Fenna Arnoldussen

    (Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1111, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Mark J. Koetse

    (Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1111, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Sander M. de Bruyn

    (CE Delft, Oude Delft 180, 2611 HH Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Onno Kuik

    (Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1111, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

A relatively large number of studies has shown that consumers are willing to pay more for products that are certified as being environmentally or socially responsible, but most of these studies focus on the willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental benefits, while insights into the WTP for social benefits are limited. More research in this area will shed light on consumer choices and help policymakers to better direct the food industry toward social sustainability. In this paper, we carry out a Discrete Choice Experiment among Dutch consumers to measure consumer WTP for five social sustainability benefits; (1) no child labor; (2) liveable wage and safe working environment; (3) project for the education of workers; (4) equal wages for men and women; and (5) freedom to join a trade union. The novelty of our research in comparison with previous studies is that we aim to differentiate the WTP for various social standards instead of estimating an overall WTP for fair-trade labels. In addition to average price premiums per social standard, our latent class models also give insight into heterogeneity in WTP, or more specifically, stated price premiums by different groups (or market segments) in society. The results suggest that substantial price premiums for social sustainability benefits may exist, which currently are not reflected in food prices. Including price premiums for market products that fully incorporate societal costs of those products, so-called true prices or shadow prices, will decrease consumer demand for less-sustainable products and will lead to a fairer and more sustainable economic system. Our results also show that the price premiums may vary substantially between the various categories of social sustainability benefits and across products and market segments. Further research on assessing the motivations behind consumer choices for more-sustainable products is crucial here, especially for campaigns aimed at enhancing their market shares.

Suggested Citation

  • Fenna Arnoldussen & Mark J. Koetse & Sander M. de Bruyn & Onno Kuik, 2022. "What Are People Willing to Pay for Social Sustainability? A Choice Experiment among Dutch Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-21, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:21:p:14299-:d:960514
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14299/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14299/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yang, Shang-Ho & Hu, Wuyang & Mupandawana, Malvern & Liu, Yun, 2012. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Coffee: A Chinese Case Study," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(1), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Scarpa Riccardo & Del Giudice Teresa, 2004. "Market Segmentation via Mixed Logit: Extra-Virgin Olive Oil in Urban Italy," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Leslie J. Verteramo Chiu & Jura Liaukonyte & Miguel I. Gómez & Harry M. Kaiser, 2017. "Socially responsible products: what motivates consumers to pay a premium?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(19), pages 1833-1846, April.
    4. France Caillavet & Adélaïde Fadhuile & Véronique Nichèle, 2016. "Taxing animal-based foods for sustainability: environmental, nutritional and social perspectives in France," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(4), pages 537-560.
    5. Dan Rigby & Michael Burton, 2005. "Preference heterogeneity and GM food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(2), pages 269-288, June.
    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. Loureiro, Maria L. & Lotade, Justus, 2005. "Do fair trade and eco-labels in coffee wake up the consumer conscience?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 129-138, April.
    8. Hellwig, Robert & Atasoy, Ayse Tugba & Madlener, Reinhard, 2020. "The Impact of Social Preferences and Information on the Willingness to Pay for Fairtrade Products," FCN Working Papers 6/2020, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    9. Galarraga, Ibon & Markandya, Anil, 2004. "Economic techniques to estimate the demand for sustainable products: a case study for fair trade and organic coffee in the United Kingdom," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 4(07), pages 1-26.
    10. Riccardo Scarpa & Timothy J. Gilbride & Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher, 2009. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(2), pages 151-174, June.
    11. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    12. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    13. Volker Lingnau & Florian Fuchs & Florian Beham, 2019. "The impact of sustainability in coffee production on consumers’ willingness to pay–new evidence from the field of ethical consumption," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 65-93, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    16. Rousu Matthew C. & Corrigan Jay R., 2008. "Estimating the Welfare Loss to Consumers When Food Labels Do Not Adequately Inform: An Application to Fair Trade Certification," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-26, May.
    17. Tully, Stephanie M. & Winer, Russell S., 2014. "The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 255-274.
    18. Campbell, Danny & Lorimer, Victoria & Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George, 2010. "Attribute processing in environmental choice analysis: implications for willingness to pay," 84th Annual Conference, March 29-31, 2010, Edinburgh, Scotland 91718, Agricultural Economics Society.
    19. Marine Le Gall-Ely, 2009. "Definition, Measurement and Determinants of the Consumer's Willingness to Pay: a Critical Synthesis and Directions for Further Research," Post-Print hal-00522828, HAL.
    20. Paul T. M. Ingenbleek & Domenico Dentoni, 2016. "Learning from Stakeholder Pressure and Embeddedness: The Roles of Absorptive Capacity in the Corporate Social Responsibility of Dutch Agribusinesses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-18, October.
    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. Aikaterini Koumoutsea & Paraskevi Boufounou & George Mergos, 2023. "Evaluating the Creative Economy Applying the Contingent Valuation Method: A Case Study on the Greek Cultural Heritage Festival," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Eleonora Sofia Rossi & José A. Zabala & Francesco Caracciolo & Emanuele Blasi, 2023. "The Value of Crop Diversification: Understanding the Factors Influencing Consumers’ WTP for Pasta from Sustainable Agriculture," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(3), 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. Volker Lingnau & Florian Fuchs & Florian Beham, 2019. "The impact of sustainability in coffee production on consumers’ willingness to pay–new evidence from the field of ethical consumption," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 65-93, April.
    2. Jorge A. Valenciano-Salazar & Francisco J. André & Mario Soliño, 2021. "Paying for Sustainable Coffee in a Developing Country: Consumers’ Profile in Costa Rica," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-15, August.
    3. 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.
    4. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    5. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, April.
    6. Veronika Andorfer & Ulf Liebe, 2012. "Research on Fair Trade Consumption—A Review," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 106(4), pages 415-435, April.
    7. Enoch Owusu-Sekyere & Awudu Abdulai & Henry Jordaan & Helena Hansson, 2020. "Heterogeneous demand for ecologically sustainable products on ensuring environmental sustainability in South Africa," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 22(1), pages 39-64, January.
    8. Tully, Stephanie M. & Winer, Russell S., 2014. "The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 255-274.
    9. Bosbach, Moritz & Maietta, Ornella Wanda, 2019. "The Implicit Price for Fair Trade Coffee: Does Social Capital Matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 34-41.
    10. Friederike Paetz, 2021. "Recommendations for Sustainable Brand Personalities: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, April.
    11. Vlaeminck, Pieter & Vranken, Liesbet, 2015. "Do labels capture consumers’ actual willingness to pay for Fair Trade characteristics?," Working Papers 206438, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    12. David Bürgin & Robert Wilken, 2022. "Increasing Consumers’ Purchase Intentions Toward Fair-Trade Products Through Partitioned Pricing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(4), pages 1015-1040, December.
    13. Lee L. Schulz & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2010. "Cow‐Calf Producer Preferences for Voluntary Traceability Systems," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 138-162, February.
    14. Lefoll, Erwin & Günther, Isabel & Veronesi, Marcella, 2022. "Low Demand for Fair Trade Chocolate: Lack of Efficiency, Attention, Knowledge or Trust?," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264065, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    15. Jeff Luckstead & Heather A. Snell & Lawton Lanier Nalley & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Joshua Sarpaning, 2022. "A multi‐country study on consumers' valuation for child‐labor‐free chocolate: Implications for child labor in cocoa production," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 1021-1048, June.
    16. Takahashi, R. & Todo, Y., 2018. "When do consumers stand up for the environment? Evidence from a large-scale social experiment to promote environmentally friendly coffee," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277507, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Florian Vincent Haase & Maria Kohlmeyer & Beatrice Rich & Ralf Woll, 2016. "Determination of Additional Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Technical Products Using Discrete Choice Analysis," Journal of Management and Sustainability, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 6(1), pages 45-58, March.
    18. Kontoleon Andreas & Yabe Mitsuyasu, 2006. "Market Segmentation Analysis of Preferences for GM Derived Animal Foods in the UK," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-38, December.
    19. Takahashi, Ryo, 2021. "How to stimulate environmentally friendly consumption: Evidence from a nationwide social experiment in Japan to promote eco-friendly coffee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    20. Tamaki Kitagawa & Kenichi Kashiwagi & Hiroko Isoda, 2020. "Effect of Religious and Cultural Information of Olive Oil on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.

    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:21:p:14299-:d:960514. 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.