IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2016i12p1302-d84947.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market Opportunities for Animal-Friendly Milk in Different Consumer Segments

Author

Listed:
  • Sophie De Graaf

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
    Social Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
    Animal Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), 9090 Melle-Gontrode, Belgium)

  • Filiep Vanhonacker

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
    Department of Applied Biosciences, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium)

  • Ellen J. Van Loo

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium)

  • Jo Bijttebier

    (Social Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium)

  • Ludwig Lauwers

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
    Social Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium)

  • Frank A. M. Tuyttens

    (Animal Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), 9090 Melle-Gontrode, Belgium)

  • Wim Verbeke

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium)

Abstract

Consumers have increasing, but highly variable, interest in sustainability attributes of food, including ethical aspects, such as animal welfare. We explored market opportunities for animal-friendly cow’s milk based on segmentation (cluster) analysis. Flemish survey participants ( n = 787) were clustered ( n = 6) based on their intention to purchase (IP) animal-friendly milk, and their evaluation of cows’ welfare state (EV). Three market opportunity segments were derived from clusters and labelled as “high”, “moderate” and “limited”. Only 8% of the participants belong to the “high market opportunities” segment, characterized by a high IP and a low EV. The “limited” segment (44%) indicated a neutral to low IP and a positive EV. The “moderate” segment (48%) had a moderately positive IP and positive/negative EV. Reported willingness to pay, interest in information about the state of animal welfare and importance of the product attribute “animal welfare” differed among segments and were strongly related to IP. Most promising selling propositions about animal-friendly milk were related to pasture access. The high degree of differentiation within the Flemish milk market reveals market opportunities for animal-friendly milk, but for an effective market share increase supply of animal-friendly products needs to get more aligned with the heterogeneous demand.

Suggested Citation

  • Sophie De Graaf & Filiep Vanhonacker & Ellen J. Van Loo & Jo Bijttebier & Ludwig Lauwers & Frank A. M. Tuyttens & Wim Verbeke, 2016. "Market Opportunities for Animal-Friendly Milk in Different Consumer Segments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:12:p:1302-:d:84947
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/12/1302/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/12/1302/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Brian C. Briggeman & Jayson L. Lusk, 2011. "Preferences for fairness and equity in the food system," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 1-29, March.
    3. Toma, Luiza & McVittie, Alistair & Hubbard, Carmen & Stott, Alistair W., 2009. "A Structural Equation Model of the Factors Influencing British Consumers’ Behaviour towards Animal Welfare," 113th Seminar, September 3-6, 2009, Chania, Crete, Greece 58149, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2003. "A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 631-649, May.
    5. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 137-150.
    6. Carolina Liljenstolpe, 2008. "Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 67-84.
    7. Diamantopoulos, Adamantios & Schlegelmilch, Bodo B. & Sinkovics, Rudolf R. & Bohlen, Greg M., 2003. "Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 465-480, June.
    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. Sylwia Żakowska-Biemans & Agnieszka Tekień, 2017. "Free Range, Organic? Polish Consumers Preferences Regarding Information on Farming System and Nutritional Enhancement of Eggs: A Discrete Choice Based Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, November.
    2. Gerrit Antonides, 2017. "Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: A Collection of Empirical Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-5, September.
    3. Kees Vringer & Eline van der Heijden & Daan van Soest & Herman Vollebergh & Frank Dietz, 2017. "Sustainable Consumption Dilemmas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-21, June.
    4. María Manuela Palacios-González & Antonio Chamorro-Mera, 2020. "Analysis of Socially Responsible Consumption: A Segmentation of Spanish Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-15, October.
    5. Michal Patak & Lenka Branska & Zuzana Pecinova, 2021. "Consumer Intention to Purchase Green Consumer Chemicals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-14, July.
    6. Karynn Capilé & Claire Parkinson & Richard Twine & Erickson Leon Kovalski & Rita Leal Paixão, 2021. "Exploring the Representation of Cows on Dairy Product Packaging in Brazil and the United Kingdom," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-24, July.

    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, Yu-Chen, 2018. "Factors affecting consumers’ willingness to pay for animal welfare eggs in Taiwan," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    2. Hartmann, Monika & Simons, Johannes, 2015. "The Farm Animal Welfare - Dilemma: Can concerted Action of the Value Chain be a solution?," 148th Seminar, November 30-December 1, 2015, The Hague, The Netherlands 229280, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Faical Akaichi & Klaus Glenk & Cesar Revoredo‐Giha, 2022. "Bundling food labels: What role could the labels “Organic,” “Local” and “Low Fat” play in fostering the demand for animal‐friendly meat," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 349-370, April.
    4. Ali Eldesouky & Francisco J. Mesias & Miguel Escribano, 2020. "Consumer Assessment of Sustainability Traits in Meat Production. A Choice Experiment Study in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, May.
    5. Marescotti, Maria Elena & Caputo, Vincenzina & Demartini, Eugenio & Gaviglio, Anna, 2020. "Consumer preferences for wild game cured meat label: do attitudes towards animal welfare matter?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(4), June.
    6. Adelina Gschwandtner, 2014. "The Organic Food Premium: A Canterbury Tale," Studies in Economics 1411, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    7. Ching-Hua Yeh & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "To Purchase or Not to Purchase? Drivers of Consumers’ Preferences for Animal Welfare in Their Meat Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    8. Fang, Yingkai & Asche, Frank & Gao, Zhifeng, 2020. "Can ecolabel certifications for restaurants influence consumer choices away from home?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304268, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Schreiner, J.A., 2018. "Assessing consumer and producer preferences for animal welfare using a common elicitation format," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277467, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Malin Jonell & Beatrice Crona & Kelsey Brown & Patrik Rönnbäck & Max Troell, 2016. "Eco-Labeled Seafood: Determinants for (Blue) Green Consumption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-19, September.
    11. Matteo Migheli, 2021. "Green purchasing: the effect of parenthood and gender," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 10576-10600, July.
    12. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    13. David Yoon Kin Tong & Chau Keng Tee & Hishamuddin Ismail, 2016. "Developing the Profile of Green Consumer and Family Decision Making Model: A Review," Journal of Emerging Trends in Marketing and Management, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 1(1), pages 282-291, September.
    14. Philippe Polome & Anne van der Veen & Peter Geurts, 2006. "Is Referendum the Same as Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 174-188.
    15. Carter, Kealy & Jayachandran, Satish & Murdock, Mitchel R., 2021. "Building A Sustainable Shelf: The Role of Firm Sustainability Reputation," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 507-522.
    16. Hamid Mahmood Gelaidan & Abdullah Al-Swidi & Muhammad Haroon Hafeez, 2023. "Studying the Joint Effects of Perceived Service Quality, Perceived Benefits, and Environmental Concerns in Sustainable Travel Behavior: Extending the TPB," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-22, July.
    17. Ishmael Tingbani & Lyton Chithambo & Venancio Tauringana & Nikolaos Papanikolaou, 2020. "Board gender diversity, environmental committee and greenhouse gas voluntary disclosures," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2194-2210, September.
    18. Zou, Lili Wenli & Chan, Ricky Y.K., 2019. "Why and when do consumers perform green behaviors? An examination of regulatory focus and ethical ideology," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 113-127.
    19. Grigoriadis, Theocharis, 2017. "Religion, administration & public goods: Experimental evidence from Russia," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 42-60.
    20. Long Niu & Chuntian Lu & Lijuan Fan, 2023. "Social Class and Private-Sphere Green Behavior in China: The Mediating Effects of Perceived Status and Environmental Concern," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-15, February.

    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:8:y:2016:i:12:p:1302-:d:84947. 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.