IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumers’ Attitude toward Sustainable Food Products: Ingredients vs. Packaging


  • Soyoung Seo

    (Food Biz. Lab, Program in Regional Information, Seoul National University, Gwanak-gu 151-742, Korea)

  • Hee-Kyung Ahn

    (School of Business, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu 133-791, Korea)

  • Jaeseok Jeong

    (Graduate School of Pan-Pacific International Studies, Kyung Hee University Global Campus, Seochon-dong 17104, Korea)

  • Junghoon Moon

    (Food Biz. Lab, Program in Regional Information, Seoul National University, Gwanak-gu 151-742, Korea)


The availability of and preference for eco-friendly products have increased; however, understanding of sustainable products is still insufficient because most studies have been focused only on organic products. The availability and understanding of organic products are high, but not complete. With regards to environmental protection, it is important to focus not only on the eco-friendly ingredients but also on the eco-friendly packaging because packaging has recently been found to be a primary cause of pollution. Through three studies, this article investigated the interaction between the effect of consumers’ willingness to buy (WTB), the price premium for eco-friendliness (internal: eco-friendly ingredients vs. external: eco-friendly packaging), and the product’s attributes. Three experimental studies were conducted to determine whether the consumers’ WTB and the price premium for sustainable products differ according to the eco-friendliness of the product and the product’s attributes. In Study 1 and Study 3, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted; and, in Study 2, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted. The results of Study 1 and Study 2 suggested that the consumers’ WTB for sustainable products can differ according to the product’s attribute. Moreover, results of Study 3 revealed that consumers’ WTB and satisfaction for sustainable products can differ according to level of packaging.

Suggested Citation

  • Soyoung Seo & Hee-Kyung Ahn & Jaeseok Jeong & Junghoon Moon, 2016. "Consumers’ Attitude toward Sustainable Food Products: Ingredients vs. Packaging," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-19, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:10:p:1073-:d:81205

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Rigby, D. & Caceres, D., 2001. "Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 21-40, April.
    2. Gunne Grankvist & Ulf Dahlstrand & Anders Biel, 2004. "The Impact of Environmental Labelling on Consumer Preference: Negative vs. Positive Labels," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 213-230, June.
    3. McCarty, John A. & Shrum, L. J., 1994. "The recycling of solid wastes: Personal values, value orientations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 53-62, May.
    4. Zanoli, Raffaele & Naspetti, Simona, 2002. "Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food. A means-end approach," MPRA Paper 32712, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Jana Hojnik & Mitja Ruzzier & Maja Konečnik Ruzzier, 2019. "Transition towards Sustainability: Adoption of Eco-Products among Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(16), pages 1-29, August.
    2. Andreas Aigner & Robert Wilken & Sylvie Geisendorf, 2019. "The Effectiveness of Promotional Cues for Organic Products in the German Retail Market," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(24), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Babak Nemat & Mohammad Razzaghi & Kim Bolton & Kamran Rousta, 2019. "The Role of Food Packaging Design in Consumer Recycling Behavior—A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(16), pages 1-23, August.
    4. Bjorn De Koeijer & Jos De Lange & Renee Wever, 2017. "Desired, Perceived, and Achieved Sustainability: Trade-Offs in Strategic and Operational Packaging Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-29, October.
    5. Gonzalo Wandosell & María C. Parra-Meroño & Alfredo Alcayde & Raúl Baños, 2021. "Green Packaging from Consumer and Business Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Jesús García-Arca & A. Trinidad González-Portela Garrido & J. Carlos Prado-Prado, 2017. "“Sustainable Packaging Logistics”. The link between Sustainability and Competitiveness in Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-17, June.
    7. Gheorghe Orzan & Anca Francisca Cruceru & Cristina Teodora Bălăceanu & Raluca-Giorgiana Chivu, 2018. "Consumers’ Behavior Concerning Sustainable Packaging: An Exploratory Study on Romanian Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-11, May.

    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. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    2. Bogdan Wierzbiński & Tomasz Surmacz & Wiesława Kuźniar & Lucyna Witek, 2021. "The Role of the Ecological Awareness and the Influence on Food Preferences in Shaping Pro-Ecological Behavior of Young Consumers," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Rigby, Dan & Woodhouse, Phil & Young, Trevor & Burton, Michael, 2001. "Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 463-478, December.
    4. Adam Kleofas Berbeć & Beata Feledyn-Szewczyk & Christian Thalmann & Rebekka Wyss & Jan Grenz & Jerzy Kopiński & Jarosław Stalenga & Paweł Radzikowski, 2018. "Assessing the Sustainability Performance of Organic and Low-Input Conventional Farms from Eastern Poland with the RISE Indicator System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, May.
    5. Steiner, B.E. & Peschel, A.O. & Grebitus, C., 2017. "Multi-Product Category Choices Labeled for Ecological Footprints: Exploring Psychographics and Evolved Psychological Biases for Characterizing Latent Consumer Classes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 251-264.
    6. Bansal, Sangeeta & Chakravarty, Sujoy & Ramaswami, Bharat, 2013. "The informational and signaling impacts of labels: experimental evidence from India on GM foods," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(6), pages 701-722, December.
    7. van Calker, Klaas Jan & Antink, Rudi H.J. Hooch & Beldman, Alfons C.G. & Mauser, Anniek, 2005. "Caring Dairy: A Sustainable Dairy Farming Initiative in Europe," 15th Congress, Campinas SP, Brazil, August 14-19, 2005 24234, International Farm Management Association.
    8. Christopher Jeffords, 2014. "Preference-directed regulation when ethical environmental policy choices are formed with limited information," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 573-606, March.
    9. Cherrier, Helene & Türe, Meltem, 2020. "Value dynamics in ordinary object disposal," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 221-228.
    10. Marcos Ferasso & Miguel Blanco & Lydia Bares, 2021. "Territorial Analysis of the European Rural Development Funds (ERDF) as a Driving Factor of Ecological Agricultural Production," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    11. Vehapi Semir, 2015. "A Study of the Consumer Motives which Influence the Purchase of Organic Food in Serbia," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 53(1), pages 102-118, March.
    12. Burton, Michael P. & Rigby, Dan & Young, Trevor, 2003. "Modelling the adoption of organic horticultural technology in the UK using Duration Analysis," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(1), pages 1-26, March.
    13. Agnieszka Wojewódzka-Wiewiórska & Anna Kłoczko-Gajewska & Piotr Sulewski, 2019. "Between the Social and Economic Dimensions of Sustainability in Rural Areas—In Search of Farmers’ Quality of Life," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 12(1), pages 1-26, December.
    14. Jordy F. Gosselt & Thomas Rompay & Laura Haske, 2019. "Won’t Get Fooled Again: The Effects of Internal and External CSR ECO-Labeling," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 413-424, March.
    15. Kilbourne, William E. & Beckmann, Suzanne C. & Thelen, Eva, 2002. "The role of the dominant social paradigm in environmental attitudes: a multinational examination," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 193-204, March.
    16. Thanh Hoai Nguyen & Hai Quynh Ngo & Pham Ngoc Nha Ngo & Gi-Du Kang, 2018. "Understanding the Motivations Influencing Ecological Boycott Participation: An Exploratory Study in Viet Nam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    17. Mohamed Gafsi & Jean-Luc Favreau, 2014. "Diversity of operating logics and sustainability of organic farms [Diversité des logiques de fonctionnement et durabilité des exploitations en agriculture biologique]," Post-Print hal-02076167, HAL.
    18. Anna Gaviglio & Mattia Bertocchi & Maria Elena Marescotti & Eugenio Demartini & Alberto Pirani, 2016. "The social pillar of sustainability: a quantitative approach at the farm level," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-19, December.
    19. de Boer, Joop & Boersema, Jan J. & Aiking, Harry, 2009. "Consumers' motivational associations favoring free-range meat or less meat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 850-860, January.
    20. Abadi, Bijan & Yadollahi, Arash & Bybordi, Ahmad & Rahmati, Mehdi, 2020. "The discrimination of adopters and non-adopters of conservation agricultural initiatives in northwest Iran: Attitudinal, soil testing, and topographical modules," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).


    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:8:y:2016:i:10:p:1073-:d:81205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    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: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.