IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pstr00/0000102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To trust or not to trust? Trust landscape of organic animal husbandry: Mapping consumer attitudes and information demands in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Elisa Bayer
  • Sarah Kühl

Abstract

A mainly positive attitude of consumers towards organic animal husbandry with its higher keeping standards compared to the legal regulations is evident. However, less is known about consumers’ detailed expectations of organic husbandry and in particular their attitude and trust along the value chain of organic animal products. Which consumers trust the most, and how do they want to be informed about organic animal husbandry? Where along the chain are trust deficits that should be addressed in the future to support sustainable food consumption with high animal welfare standards? To answer these important questions a survey was conducted among 729 German meat consumers. Using a cluster analysis, various consumer groups were identified based on their trust levels. Further, these groups were characterized regarding their general attitude, their information behavior, their evaluation of current media reporting, and their preferred way to be informed (emotional/rational) about organic animal products. The results revealed three clusters that clearly differ in their trust level of organic husbandry. Respondents assigned to the first cluster are committed organic consumers with high trust and the most positive attitude. The second cluster, combines respondents who are generally open to organic meat consumption and showing the second highest trust level and positive attitude towards organic. They show a slight favor for a more rational presentation of information. The third cluster is the smallest and can be described as the skeptics with a low interest in organic. The results indicate a general moderate to high trust level along the value chain of organic animal products, with the highest trust in organic retailers and farmers and the least trust in processing and conventional retailers. These are important insights for the organic sector in order to improve consumer trust and therewith increase the market share of organic meat products.Author summary: In the discussion surrounding sustainable agriculture and consumption, organic production plays a key role. Especially in terms of high animal welfare standards, organic animal farming takes a pioneering role. To support market-driven transformation to a more sustainable consumption, an understanding of consumers’ attitudes, perspectives, and trust regarding these production systems is essential. Thus, this study identifies trust levels along the production chain of organic animal products and gives insights into the characteristics of different consumer groups regarding their trust in organic husbandry. Three clusters could be identified, with the first two clusters showing moderate to high trust levels along the production chain and a positive attitude towards organic husbandry. We identified scandals, poor product quality, a high expectation–reality gap and, especially for the second and third clusters, too emotional and uncritical reporting about organic husbandry as possible trust barriers. We provide recommendations for increasing trust in a particular animal welfare-friendly husbandry system based on this study.

Suggested Citation

  • Elisa Bayer & Sarah Kühl, 2024. "To trust or not to trust? Trust landscape of organic animal husbandry: Mapping consumer attitudes and information demands in Germany," PLOS Sustainability and Transformation, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(2), pages 1-23, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pstr00:0000102
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pstr.0000102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/sustainabilitytransformation/article?id=10.1371/journal.pstr.0000102
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/sustainabilitytransformation/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pstr.0000102&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000102?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jessica Aschemann-Witzel & Stephan Zielke, 2017. "Can't Buy Me Green? A Review of Consumer Perceptions of and Behavior Toward the Price of Organic Food," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 211-251, March.
    2. Macready, Anna L. & Hieke, Sophie & Klimczuk-Kochańska, Magdalena & Szumiał, Szymon & Vranken, Liesbet & Grunert, Klaus G., 2020. "Consumer trust in the food value chain and its impact on consumer confidence: A model for assessing consumer trust and evidence from a 5-country study in Europe," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    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. Dimitris Skalkos & Ioanna S. Kosma & Areti Vasiliou & Raquel P. F. Guine, 2021. "Consumers’ Trust in Greek Traditional Foods in the Post COVID-19 Era," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Rao Yuan & Shaosheng Jin & Wen Lin, 2025. "Could trust narrow the intention‐behavior gap in eco‐friendly food consumption? Evidence from China," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(1), pages 260-288, January.
    3. Morais, Ana Catarina & Ishida, Akira & Matsuda, Ruriko, 2024. "Ethical food consumption drivers in Japan. A S–O-R framework application using PLS-SEM with a MGA assessment based on clustering," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    4. Giovanna Piracci & Emilia Lamonaca & Fabio Gaetano Santeramo & Fabio Boncinelli & Leonardo Casini, 2024. "On the willingness to pay for food sustainability labelling: A meta‐analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 55(2), pages 329-345, March.
    5. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    6. Xavier Simon & Damián Copena & David Pérez-Neira, 2023. "Assessment of the diet-environment-health-cost quadrilemma in public school canteens. an LCA case study in Galicia (Spain)," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(11), pages 12543-12567, November.
    7. Matthias Staudigel & Aleksej Trubnikov, 2022. "High price premiums as barriers to organic meat demand? A hedonic analysis considering species, cut and retail outlet," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 309-334, April.
    8. Henry Schwartz & Tomi Solakivi & Magnus Gustafsson, 2022. "Is There Business Potential for Sustainable Shipping? Price Premiums Needed to Cover Decarbonized Transportation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-20, May.
    9. Tiziano Tempesta & Daniel Vecchiato, 2019. "Analysis of the Factors that Influence Olive Oil Demand in the Veneto Region (Italy)," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-17, July.
    10. Nesar Ahmed & Shirley Thompson & Giovanni M. Turchini, 2020. "Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food security: insights from organic agriculture," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(6), pages 1253-1267, December.
    11. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    12. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F., 2007. "Genetically modified food labeling: The impacts of message and messenger on consumer perceptions of labels and products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 49-66, February.
    13. Brownlie, Julie & Howson, Alexandra, 2006. "'Between the demands of truth and government': Health practitioners, trust and immunisation work," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 433-443, January.
    14. repec:plo:pone00:0110614 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Verburg, René W. & Verberne, Emma & Negro, Simona O., 2022. "Accelerating the transition towards sustainable agriculture: The case of organic dairy farming in the Netherlands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    16. Brindusa Mariana BEJAN & Ciprian-Marcel POP, 2024. "Taxonomy In Retail. How Did The Companies Comply With The Legislation?," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 33(1), pages 479-487, July.
    17. Hernando Barreto Riaño & John Willmer Escobar & Rodrigo Linfati & Virna Ortiz-Araya, 2022. "Disciplinary Categorization of the Cattle Supply Chain—A Review and Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-44, November.
    18. Busch, Gesa & Spiller, Achim, 2020. "Warum wir eine Tierschutzsteuer brauchen: Die Bürger-Konsumenten-Lücke," DARE Discussion Papers 2001, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    19. Peter Modin & Sven Hansson, 2011. "Moral and Instrumental Norms in Food Risk Communication," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 313-324, June.
    20. Chen, Lijun & Parcell, Joe L & Chen, Chao & James, Harvey S. Jr & Xu, Danning, 2016. "Consumer preference for supermarket food sampling in China," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236043, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    21. Branden B. Johnson & Mathew P. White, 2010. "The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1099-1115, July.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pstr00:0000102. 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: sustaintransform (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/sustainabilitytransformation/ .

    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.