Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T11:15:33.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer decision-making for animal-friendly products: synthesis and implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

PTM Ingenbleek  and
VM Immink
PTM Ingenbleek
Affiliation:
Marketing and Consumer Behavior Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
VM Immink*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding how consumers’ concerns affect the consumer decision-making process is important for developing a market for animal-friendly products. This paper presents a synthesis of research on the role of animal welfare in consumer decision-making. Drawing on basic models and concepts from consumer behaviour literature, we present the findings along the lines of five phases of the consumer decision-making process: (i) need recognition; (ii) information search; (iii) information evaluation; (iv) purchase decision; and (v) post-purchase evaluation. Consumer decision-making about animal-based food products is routine, situational and sometimes irrational, instead of based on complete information. Consumers associate animal welfare with a higher quality perception and labels and high prices further increase the perception of quality. The findings have implications for stakeholders that aim to develop a market for animal-friendly products, like (coalitions of) governments, animal interest groups, retailers and brand manufacturers.

Keywords

animal-friendly brandsanimal-friendly productsanimal welfareconsumer concernsconsumer decision-makingmarketing
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 11 - 19
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aaker, DA 1991 Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. Free Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Aaker, DA 1996 Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review 38: 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acebòrn, LB and Dopico, DC 2000 The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to expected and experienced quality: an empirical application to beef. Food Quality and Preference 11: 229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, EW, Fornell, C and Rust, RT 1997 Customer satisfaction, productivity, and profitability: differences between goods and services. Marketing Science 2: 129–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anwander, P-HS and Fawaz, RB 2003 Swiss market for meat from animal-friendly production-responses of public and private actors in Switzerland. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16: 119–136Google Scholar
Beekman, V, Dagevos, H, van de Weele, C and de Greef, K 2003 Diergericht Ontwerpen, Consumentenwensen Rond Dierenwelzijn. ID Lelystad: Lelystad, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Animal-based design, consumer preferences about animal welfare]Google Scholar
Bennett, RM 1997 Farm animal welfare and food policy. Food Policy 22: 281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, RM, Anderson, J and Blaney, R 2002 Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15: 187–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, RM and Yee, W 2004 UK review of literature on consumer food animal welfare concerns and requirements for animal welfare and welfare friendly products. Welfare Quality WP1.1 Consumers Literature Review Country Report UK. www.welfarequality.netGoogle Scholar
Berens, G, van Riel, CBM and van Bruggen, GH 2005 Corporate associations and consumer product responses: the moderating role of corporate brand dominance. Journal of Marketing 69: 35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernués, A, Olaizolab, A and Corcoranc, K 2003 Extrinsic attributes of red meat as indicators of quality in Europe: an application for market segmentation. Food Quality and Preference 14: 265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijmolt, THA, van Heerde, HJ and Pieters, RGM 2005 New empirical generalizations on the determinants of price elasticity. Journal of Marketing Research 42: 141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, TJ and Dacin, PA 1997 The company and the product: corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing 61: 68–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunte, F, van Galen, M, Kuiper, E and Bakker, J 2007 Limits to growth in organic sales; price elasticity of consumer demand for organic food in Dutch supermarkets. Rapport 7.06.20. LEI: Den Haag, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Burrell, A and Vrieze, G 2003 Ethical motivation of Dutch egg consumers. Tijdschrift voor Sociaal Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek van de Landbouw 18: 30–42Google Scholar
Clarkson, KW and Miller, LR 1982 Industrial Organization, Theory, Evidence, and Public Policy. McGraw-Hill: Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Dagevos, H and Sterrenberg, L 2003 Burgers en Consumenten; Tussen Tweedeling en Twee-eenheid. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Citizens and consumers, between dichotomy and duality rule]Google Scholar
Engel, JF, Blackwell, RD and Miniard, PW 1995 Consumer Behavior, 8th Edition. Dryden Press: Forth Worth, USAGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2007 Attitudes of EU Citizens Towards Animal Welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270/Wave 66.1. European Commission: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Frewer, LJ, Risvik, E and Schifferstein, H 2001 Food, People and Society: A European Perspective of Consumers’ Food Choices. Springer: Berlin, GermanyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frewer, L, Kole, A, van de Kroon, S and de Lauwere, C 2005 Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 345–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grønhaug, HKL and Lines, R 2002 Exploring the impact of product category risk and consumer knowledge in brand extensions. Journal of Brand Management 9: 463–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, GC and Henson, SJ 2001 The Extent of Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare - The Comparative Representative Sample Survey. Centre for Food Economics Research, University of Reading: Reading, UKGoogle Scholar
Horne, PLM, van Harn, J, van Middelkoop, JH and Tacken, GML 2003 Perspectieven voor een Alternatieve Kuikenvleesketen, Marktkansen voor een Langzaamgroeiend Vleeskuiken. Rapport 2.03.20. LEI: Den Haag, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Perspectives for an alternative broiler chicken meat chain, market opportunities for a slow-growing broiler chicken]Google Scholar
Ingenbleek, PTM, Binnekamp, MM and Goddijn, S 2007 Setting standards for CSR: A comparative case study on criteria formulating organisations. Journal of Business Research 60: 539–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, KL 1993 Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 1: 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjærnes, U and Havik, R 2009 Opinions on animal welfare and food consumption in seven European countries. In: Kjærnes, U, Bock, BB, Roe, E and Roex, J (eds) Consumption, Distribution and Production of Farm Animal Welfare. Opinions and Practices within the Supply Chain. Welfare Quality® Reports No. 7. www.welfarequality.net/downloadattachment/42462/20185/WQR7.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kjørstad, I 2005 Consumer concerns for food animal welfare: literature reviews. In: Roex, J and Miele, M (eds) Farm Animal Welfare Concerns, Consumers, Retailers and Producers: Welfare Quality® Report No. 1 pp 3–52. Cardiff University Press: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Khan, D, Dhar, R and Whertenbroch, K 2005 A behavioral perspective on hedonic and utilitarean choice. In: Ratneshwar, S and Mich, DG (eds) Inside Consumption: Consumer Motives, Goals and Desires pp 144–165. Routledge: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Klein, J and Dawar, N 2004 Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product-harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing 21: 203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayfield, LE, Bennett, RM, Tranter, RB and Woolridge, MJ 2007 Consumption of welfare-friendly food products in Great-Britain, Italy and Sweden, and how it may be influenced by consumer attitudes to, and behaviour towards, animal welfare attributes. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15: 3Google Scholar
McEachern, MG and Schröder, JA 2002 The role of livestock production ethics in consumer values towards meat. Journal of Agricultural and Enviornmental Ethics 15: 221–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meulenberg, MTG 2003 ‘Consument en Burger’, betekenis voor de markt van landbouwproducten en voedingsmiddelen. Tijdschrift voor Sociaal Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek van de Landbouw 18: 43–54. [Title translation: ‘Consumer and citizen’ implications for the market of agricultural products and food]Google Scholar
Meuwissen, MPM, van der Lans, IA and Huirne, RBM 2007 A synthesis of consumer behavior and chain design. NJAS 54–3: 293–312Google Scholar
Miele, M, Ara, A and Vanni, F 2004 Welfare Quality WP1.1 Consumers Literature Review Coun-try Report, Italy. DAGA Pisa University: Pisa, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Monroe, KB 2003 Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions. McGraw-Hill: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Oliver, RL 1996 Satisfaction, A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. Irwin/McGraw-Hill: Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
Oude Ophuis, PAM 1994 Sensory evaluation of ‘free range’ and regular pork meat under different conditions of experience and awareness. Food Quality and Preference 5: 173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouédraogo, A 2003 Symbolic goods in the market place: public perception of farm animal breeding and reproduction in France and United Kingdom. In: Liinamo, AE and Neeteson, AM (eds) Sustainable European Farm Animal Breeding and Reproduction pp 36–46. 4 September 2003, Rome, Italy. http://www.sefabar.info (Publications)Google Scholar
Pettersson, L 2004 Swedish Consumers and Animal Welfare. Welfare Quality WP1.1 Consumers Literature Review Country Report, Sweden. Stockholm University, Department of Political Science: Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Poulain, J-P 2004 Welfare Quality WP1.1 Consumers Literature Review Country Report France. Erit/a University of Toulouse: Toulouse, FranceGoogle Scholar
Rao, AR and Ruekert, RW 1994 Brand alliances as signals of product quality. Sloan Management Review 36: 87–97Google Scholar
Rathenau Instituut 2003 Rathenau Special, Burgeroordelen over dierenwelzijn in de veehouderij. Rathenau Instituut: Den Haag, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Rathenau Special, Citizen perception about animal welfare in livestock farming]Google Scholar
Robertson, S and Kassarajian, HH 1991 Handbook of Consumer Behavior. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, USAGoogle Scholar
Roe, E and Murdoch, J 2009 UK market for animal welfare-friendly products. Market structure, survey of available products and quality assurance schemes. Welfare Quality Reports No. 3Google Scholar
Roest, H 1998 Service quality expectations; assessment & management. PhD Thesis, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Roozen, N and van der Hoff, F 2001 Fair Trade, The Story behind Max Havelaar-coffee, Oké-bananas en Kuyichi-jeans. Van Gennep: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Scholderer, J 2003 Quality of Free Range Pork: What Consumers Want. Presentation MAPP Conference. 8th October 2003, Middelfart, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Scholderer, J, Nielsen, NA, Bredahl, L, Claudi-Magnussen, C and Lindahl, G 2004 Organic in the head? Separating the effects of label information and actual meat type on consumer perceptions of pork quality. Food Congress 2004: Life Style Challenges to Food Science and Technology. 17-18th March 2004, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Sen, S and Bhattacharya, CB 2001 Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research 38: 225–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiller, A 2001 Preispolitik für ökologische Lebensmittel: Eine neoin-stitutionalistische analyse, Agrarwirtschaft 50: 451–55. [Title translation: Price policies for organic food: a neo-institutional analysis]Google Scholar
Steenkamp, J-BEM 1986 Kwaliteitsbeoordeling van Vleeswaren. PVE: Rijswijk, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Steenkamp, J-BEM 1997 Dynamics in consumer behavior with respect to agricultural and food products. In: Berend, W, van Tilburg, A, Grunert, K, Steenkamp, J-BEM and Wedel, M (eds) Agricultural Marketing and Consumer Behavior in a Changing World pp 140–185. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
Stern, LW and El-Ansary, AI 1992 The Consumer Behavior: An Information Processing Perspective. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, USAGoogle Scholar
Tellis, GJ 1988 The price elasticity of selective demand: A meta-analysis of econometric models of sales. Journal of Marketing Research 25: 331–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
te Velde, H, Aarts, N and van Woerkum, C 2002 Dealing with ambivalence: farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15: 203–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ter Hofstede, F 1999 Essays in international market segmentation. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Urban, GL 2005 Customer advocacy: A new era in marketing? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 24: 155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Heerde, HJ 2005 Ontmaskering van de kassakorting. Inaugural speech, University Tilburg, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Unmasking the cash desk discount]Google Scholar
van Trijp, HCM, Steenkamp, J-BEM and Candel, MJJM 1997 Quality labeling as instrument to create product equity: The case of 1KB in The Netherlands. In: Berend, W, van Tilburg, A, Grunert, K, Steenkamp, J-BEM and Wedel, M (eds) Agricultural Marketing and Consumer Behavior in a Changing World pp 201–215. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Vugt, M 2009 Averting the tragedy of the commons using social psychological science to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18: 169–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, WAJ and Vackier, I 2004 Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh meat. Meat Science 67: 159–168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verbeke, WAJ and Viaene, J 2000 Ethical challenges for livestock production: Meeting consumer concerns about meat safety and animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12: 141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoef, PC 2005 Explaining purchases of organic meat by Dutch consumers. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32: 245–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhue, D and Verzeijden, D 2003 Burgeroordelen over de Veehouderij, Uitkomsten Pu-blieksonderzoek. Onderzoeksrapport. Veldkamp: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Citizens’ perception of livestock farming, results from societal research]Google Scholar
Woodruff, RB 1997 Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25: 139–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeithaml, VA 1988 Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52: 2–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar