2021-03-03 · Con­sumer be­hav­ior in food sector

Sus­tain­abil­i­ty matters

Sus­tain­abil­i­ty has long since ceased to be as­so­ci­at­ed sole­ly with do­ing with­out. It has moved in­to the con­scious­ness of the mass­es and has even de­vel­oped in­to a lifestyle. And so the ques­tion aris­es as to whether (and if so, how) the sus­tain­abil­i­ty of food and oth­er prod­ucts rep­re­sents a rel­e­vant pur­chase cri­te­ri­on for consumers. 

Sus­tain­abil­i­ty is the or­der of the day. A large pro­por­tion of green­house gas­es come from an­i­mal prod­ucts, es­pe­cial­ly meat pro­duc­tion. The ques­tion is whether con­sumers are aware of this and whether they re­act by re­duc­ing or aban­don­ing meat con­sump­tion ? Are or­gan­ic la­bels known to, and do they con­sti­tute a po­ten­tial­ly im­por­tant eval­u­a­tion cri­te­ri­on ? From these con­sid­er­a­tions, an im­por­tant re­search ques­tion aris­es : What is the rel­e­vance of sus­tain­abil­i­ty in the pur­chase of food (but al­so in oth­er prod­ucts that would need to pur­sue a sus­tain­able re­source strat­e­gy) and what cri­te­ria do con­sumers use to eval­u­ate their sustainability ?

In our in­ter­views and ob­ser­va­tions of 2954 in­di­vid­u­als, there are in­di­vid­u­als there is a broad mass (72 per­cent) whose this fact is aware and al­so im­por­tant, but al­so a mi­nor­i­ty of al­most every third per­son who ei­ther was not aware of this fact or is al­most in­dif­fer­ent to it. How­ev­er, we al­so found that sus­tain­abil­i­ty is in the fore­front of more and more in­di­vid­u­als’ minds. There are no dif­fer­ences what­so­ev­er be­tween gen­ders and age groups here – for men and women and young and old, this cru­cial is­sue is equal­ly important.

When con­sid­er­ing the rel­e­vance of in­di­vid­ual as­pects of food pur­chas­ing, sus­tain­abil­i­ty plays a sig­nif­i­cant role : our four as­pects stud­ied (re­gion­al­i­ty, sea­son­al­i­ty, sus­tain­abil­i­ty, and or­gan­ic prod­ucts) di­rect­ly fol­low fresh­ness, high qual­i­ty, and nu­tri­tion­al val­ues. They are more im­por­tant to con­sumers than sim­ple and quick prepa­ra­tion, low price, or brand. Of the cri­te­ria used to iden­ti­fy sus­tain­able food, pack­ag­ing ma­te­r­i­al and re­gion­al­i­ty in par­tic­u­lar take on a very im­por­tant part. More than 75 per­cent of all con­sumers pay at­ten­tion to this.

But sea­son­al­i­ty and or­gan­ic prod­ucts are al­so im­por­tant to con­sumers. How­ev­er, women and old­er peo­ple in par­tic­u­lar pay spe­cial at­ten­tion to re­gion­al­i­ty and sea­son­al­i­ty of prod­ucts. How­ev­er, it is al­so ev­i­dent that a large pro­por­tion of con­sumers find it dif­fi­cult to find out whether and to what ex­tent a food prod­uct (or even an in­dus­tri­al­ly man­u­fac­tured prod­uct) is harm­ful to the en­vi­ron­ment. That said, the fact is : Right now, a high de­gree of in­trin­sic mo­ti­va­tion is need­ed to an­swer this com­plex question. 

Con­sumers need eas­i­ly for­mu­lat­ed and re­triev­able in­for­ma­tion. This can in­crease the choice for sus­tain­able food. In ad­di­tion, in­creased avail­abil­i­ty of in­for­ma­tion can coun­ter­act the prob­lem of habit : Con­sumers are en­cour­aged to re­con­sid­er their pur­chas­es. The fact that con­sumers read­i­ly ac­cept read­i­ly avail­able in­for­ma­tion and use it for their own ben­e­fit is shown, for ex­am­ple, by the rel­e­vance of the pack­ag­ing ma­te­r­i­al. For ex­am­ple, it helps en­vi­ron­men­tal­ly con­scious con­sumers to de­cide to buy un­pack­aged fruit and veg­eta­bles in­stead of plas­tic pack­ag­ing. The ori­gin of fruit and veg­eta­bles is of­ten print­ed di­rect­ly with the price, so con­sumers al­so have eas­i­ly avail­able in­for­ma­tion and can opt for re­gion­al prod­ucts. In con­trast, on­ly a few con­sumers make the ef­fort to find out about the sus­tain­abil­i­ty of a brand in ad­vance. In­creas­ing the trans­paren­cy of the val­ue cre­ation process can strength­en con­sumers’ abil­i­ty to act. This is pos­si­ble, for ex­am­ple, through in­for­ma­tion that can be ac­cessed via an app when scan­ning the bar­code or through clear, con­sis­tent sus­tain­abil­i­ty com­mu­ni­ca­tion and its criteria.

All right ?

The prob­lem of in­for­ma­tion avail­abil­i­ty and com­pre­hen­si­bil­i­ty is al­so ev­i­dent when ask­ing about knowl­edge of the six best-known or­gan­ic la­bels. In ad­di­tion to these, we have freely in­vent­ed two oth­er seals in or­der to have a bet­ter dis­crim­i­na­tion of the cur­rent lev­el of knowl­edge of con­sumers. Re­sult : A re­spectable third of the con­sumers thought they knew the two in­vent­ed seals. Like­wise, the as­sess­ment of the trust­wor­thi­ness of or­gan­ic seals is rat­ed as dif­fi­cult, which means that more con­cise in­for­ma­tion needs to be ex­plained here by politi­cians and the me­dia. This will en­able con­sumers to bet­ter as­sess their im­pact and make an in­formed de­ci­sion for or against an or­gan­ic product.

The dif­fer­ences are par­tic­u­lar­ly strik­ing when it gets to meat con­sump­tion : Con­sumers are well aware of the im­pact on the en­vi­ron­ment. There is a sig­nif­i­cant cor­re­la­tion be­tween the age groups. Younger con­sumers are more like­ly to choose low­er-meat or meat sub­sti­tute prod­ucts. Many con­sumers are al­so pre­pared to do this. In con­trast, the will­ing­ness to switch to in­sects is much low­er. Such prod­ucts first have to es­tab­lish them­selves in the West­ern world, but then they can rep­re­sent an al­ter­na­tive. Meat can thus mu­tate in­to an in­dul­gence item that is con­sumed less fre­quent­ly and there­fore in su­pe­ri­or quality.

In terms of food waste re­duc­tion, con­sumers con­sid­er them­selves to be very mind­ful. How­ev­er, 75 kilo­grams of food waste per capi­ta per year in­di­cates oth­er­wise. Al­though con­sumers are aware of their pow­er to act, they al­so see politi­cians as hav­ing an oblig­a­tion. The fact that con­sumers are pre­pared to change their be­hav­ior in the in­ter­ests of en­vi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion is demon­strat­ed by the re­duced use of plas­tic pack­ag­ing. Ob­vi­ous­ly, con­sumers un­der­stand the term sus­tain­abil­i­ty to mean above all the re­duc­tion of waste and the use of sus­tain­able and re­cy­clable ma­te­ri­als. One in ten sees this in par­tic­u­lar as the re­duc­tion or avoid­ance of plastic.

Pol­i­tics has a duty

The suc­cess in re­duc­ing plas­tic pack­ag­ing shows that con­sumers em­brace op­por­tu­ni­ties to pro­tect the en­vi­ron­ment when they are pre­sent­ed with them. This means that, first, the mea­sures must show sim­ple so­lu­tion strate­gies to keep con­sumers away by be­ing too com­plex and too much feared ef­fort, but, sec­ond, they are not in a po­si­tion to ac­tive­ly strive for such sus­tain­able be­hav­ior. An im­por­tant as­pect would be, for ex­am­ple, to re­de­fine the best-be­fore date and to clear­ly com­mu­ni­cate dif­fer­ences to the use-by date. A glob­al cam­paign by politi­cians (at best by the Eu­ro­pean Com­mis­sion) could, for ex­am­ple, make clear how long dif­fer­ent foods are still ed­i­ble af­ter the best-be­fore date when stored cor­rect­ly and show sim­ple aids for rec­og­niz­ing foods that are still ed­i­ble (e.g., eye, smell and care­ful taste tests).

An im­por­tant chal­lenge would be to cre­ate greater ac­cep­tance of food that does not look its best. Here, stan­dards would first have to be re­vised ac­cord­ing to which fruits and veg­eta­bles are sort­ed out ac­cord­ing to non-uni­form size or shape. In the next step, it would then be con­sumers’ turn to de­vel­op ac­cep­tance al­so for those foods that are in op­ti­mal con­di­tion in terms of qual­i­ty and taste but have vi­su­al flaws (this is dif­fi­cult, how­ev­er, due to the fact that in­di­vid­u­als look for an aes­thet­ic shape and this is cog­ni­tive­ly al­most indispensable).

Sus­tain­abil­i­ty reverberates

Our re­sults clear­ly show that as­pects from the sus­tain­abil­i­ty sec­tor mat­ter to a large pro­por­tion of con­sumers when buy­ing food. There is al­so a high lev­el of aware­ness of the en­vi­ron­men­tal im­pact of dif­fer­ent prod­uct groups and the knowl­edge that meat prod­ucts have the great­est im­pact. Con­sumers show a high will­ing­ness for low­er-meat di­ets, with younger con­sumers be­ing par­tic­u­lar­ly present here. This sug­gests a trend to­ward few­er meat prod­ucts in the com­ing years and decades. It is al­so clear that par­tic­u­lar­ly eas­i­ly iden­ti­fi­able cri­te­ria should be used to choose sus­tain­able foods. The pack­ag­ing ma­te­r­i­al, which is rec­og­niz­able at first glance, is the most im­por­tant fac­tor, to­geth­er with re­gion­al­i­ty, which is ev­i­dent on the pack­ag­ing. Since there are of­ten al­ter­na­tive prod­ucts in the as­sort­ment for both as­pects, the will­ing­ness to im­ple­ment them is very high.

How­ev­er, it is al­so ev­i­dent that con­sumers ex­pe­ri­ence the as­sess­ment of the en­vi­ron­men­tal im­pact of in­di­vid­ual foods as dif­fi­cult. This sug­gests that con­sumers are will­ing to ad­just their be­hav­ior, but do not feel suf­fi­cient­ly in­formed to do so. Sus­tain­abil­i­ty as­pects must be more eas­i­ly rec­og­niz­able in or­der to sat­is­fy con­sumers’ need for in­for­ma­tion and to strength­en their com­pe­tence to act by means of sim­ple ac­tion pat­terns. The re­spec­tive gov­ern­ment (or the EU in its en­tire­ty) can sup­port this, for ex­am­ple with agree­ments to avoid plas­tic cut­lery in the cater­ing trade or the ban on the sale of plas­tic sacks by su­per­mar­kets. Fur­ther re­search can help here, specif­i­cal­ly in­ves­ti­gat­ing the ac­cep­tance and im­ple­men­ta­tion of such projects. This of­fers great po­ten­tial to fur­ther strength­en the rel­e­vance of sus­tain­abil­i­ty in food re­tail­ing and to make im­ple­men­ta­tion sim­ple and thus effective.

The latest NEws

How the ef­fects of au­dio ad­ver­tis­ing increase
Re­learn­ing the learning
What mat­ters in the new nor­mal communication ?