IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/irpnmk/v22y2025i2d10.1007_s12208-024-00427-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Antecedents of the intention to buy animal welfare certified products: A study with brazilian consumers

Author

Listed:
  • Sérgio Luís Castro Júnior

    (University of São Paulo (USP))

  • Eduardo Eugênio Spers

    (University of São Paulo (USP))

  • Hermes Moretti Ribeiro Silva

    (São Paulo State University (UNESP))

  • Iran José Oliveira Silva

    (University of São Paulo (USP))

Abstract

Animal welfare, often regarded as a singular and generic factor, necessitates explanatory models that reflect its multidimensional nature. This study addresses this complexity by investigating the purchasing behavior of consumers in developing countries, focusing on animal welfare-certified foods. To achieve this goal, a conceptual analytical model was developed, grounded in an extensive literature review and expert consultations. The model positions beliefs about animal welfare as the central component, with empathy for animals and knowledge of the production sector as antecedents. It also identifies beliefs about certified products, engagement, and perceived quality attributes as consequences. The methodology involved an online survey of 707 Brazilian consumers to test eight hypotheses derived from the model using structural equation modeling. The findings confirmed all hypotheses at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05, underscoring the cognitive, affective, and educational bases of consumer beliefs about animal welfare. These beliefs were shown to positively influence engagement with, and perceived quality attributes of, certified products, ultimately shaping purchase intentions. However, a negative relationship between beliefs about animal welfare and beliefs about certified products suggests skepticism among Brazilian consumers regarding certification systems. This study contributes to the literature by presenting a multidimensional model that offers both theoretical insights and practical implications for marketing strategies and certification systems, particularly in developing country contexts. This novel approach lays a foundation for future cross-cultural validations and product-specific investigations.

Suggested Citation

  • Sérgio Luís Castro Júnior & Eduardo Eugênio Spers & Hermes Moretti Ribeiro Silva & Iran José Oliveira Silva, 2025. "Antecedents of the intention to buy animal welfare certified products: A study with brazilian consumers," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 22(2), pages 295-325, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:irpnmk:v:22:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s12208-024-00427-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s12208-024-00427-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12208-024-00427-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12208-024-00427-4?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter C. Verhoef, 2005. "Explaining purchases of organic meat by Dutch consumers," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(2), pages 245-267, June.
    2. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2011. "Animal Welfare Economics," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 463-483.
    3. Celine Michaud & Daniel Llerena & Iragael Joly, 2013. "Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: a real choice experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(2), pages 313-329, March.
    4. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Azucena Gracia & Maria L. Loureiro & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2011. "Valuing an EU Animal Welfare Label using Experimental Auctions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(6), pages 669-677, November.
    6. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    7. Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 275-297.
    8. Vincenzina Caputo & Ellen J. Van Loo & Riccardo Scarpa & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Wim Verbeke, 2018. "Comparing Serial, and Choice Task Stated and Inferred Attribute Non†Attendance Methods in Food Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 35-57, February.
    9. Gellynck, Xavier & Verbeke, Wim, 2001. "Consumer Perception of Traceability in the Meat Chain," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 50(06), pages 1-7.
    10. Xiaolin You & Yibo Li & Min Zhang & Huoqi Yan & Ruqian Zhao, 2014. "A Survey of Chinese Citizens’ Perceptions on Farm Animal Welfare," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-10, October.
    11. Clark, Beth & Stewart, Gavin B. & Panzone, Luca A. & Kyriazakis, Ilias & Frewer, Lynn J., 2017. "Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 112-127.
    12. Baker, H. Kent & Hargrove, Michael B. & Haslem, John A., 1977. "An Empirical Analysis of the Risk-Return Preferences of Individual Investors," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 377-389, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199551163, Decembrie.
    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. 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.
    2. Läpple, Doris & Osawe, Osayanmon Wellington, 2022. "Animal Welfare, Altruism and Policy Support," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321212, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    3. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    4. 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.
    5. Brenna Ellison & Kathleen Brooks & Taro Mieno, 2017. "Which livestock production claims matter most to consumers?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 819-831, December.
    6. Espinosa, Romain & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Moderate vs. Radical NGOs," TSE Working Papers 20-1159, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    7. B. Clark & A. Proctor & A. Boaitey & N. Mahon & N. Hanley & L. Holloway, 2024. "Animal health and welfare as a public good: what do the public think?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(4), pages 1841-1856, December.
    8. Johanna Lena Dahlhausen & Cam Rungie & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "Value of labeling credence attributes—common structures and individual preferences," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 741-751, November.
    9. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    10. Klink, Jeanette & Nina, Langen, 2015. "Are animal welfare aspects of relevance in consumers’ purchase decision," 2015 International European Forum (144th EAAE Seminar), February 9-13, 2015, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 206246, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Ufer, Danielle, 2022. "State Policies for Farm Animal Welfare in Production Practices of U.S. Livestock and Poultry Industries: An Overview," USDA Miscellaneous 333544, United States Department of Agriculture.
    15. Monika Gebska & Barbara Golebiewska & Carmen Hubbard, 2019. "Polish farmer and consumer preference for product produced within standards respected animal welfare," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 21(3), pages 733-752.
    16. 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.
    17. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2021. "Moderate Versus Radical NGOs†," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1478-1501, August.
    18. Dusel, Sara & Wieck, Christine, 2024. "Animal Welfare In Non-Anthropocentric Cost-Benefit Analysis And Social Welfare Functions: A Critical Review To Guide Practical Application," Working Papers 347466, Universitaet Hohenheim, Institute of Agricultural Policy and Agricultural Markets.
    19. Patterson, Jacinta & Mugera, Amin & Burton, Michael, 2015. "Consumer Preferences for Welfare Friendly Production Methods: The Case of Chicken Production in Western Australia," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202567, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. Kitano, Shinichi & Mitsunari, Yuka & Yoshino, Akira, 2022. "The impact of information asymmetry on animal welfare-friendly consumption: Evidence from milk market in Japan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    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:spr:irpnmk:v:22:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s12208-024-00427-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.