Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Renewable Agriculture and
Food Systems
cambridge.org/raf
Research Paper
Cite this article: Stranieri S, Ricci EC, Stiletto
A, Trestini S (2023). How about choosing
environmentally friendly beef? Exploring
purchase intentions among Italian consumers.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170522000357
Received: 21 September 2021
Revised: 21 September 2022
Accepted: 17 October 2022
Key words:
Climate change; consumer preferences;
ecolabeling; environmentally friendly beef;
food; sustainable production and
consumption; trust
Author for correspondence:
Elena Claire Ricci,
E-mail: elenaclaire.ricci@univr.it
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by
Cambridge University Press. This is an Open
Access article, distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution licence
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution
and reproduction, provided the original article
is properly cited.
How about choosing environmentally friendly
beef? Exploring purchase intentions among
Italian consumers
Stefanella Stranieri1, Elena Claire Ricci2, Alice Stiletto3
and Samuele Trestini3
1
Department of Environmental Science and Policy, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano,
Italy;
2
Department of Business Administration, Università degli Studi di Verona, Via Cantarane 24, 37129 Verona,
Italy and
3
Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, Università degli Studi di Padova, Viale
dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
Abstract
The increasing global demand for livestock products and its large environmental impact ask
for urgent policy and managerial strategies. With regard to meat consumption, feasible actions
relate to its reduction and orienting consumers toward more sustainable meat choices. The
aim of the study is to investigate the determinants affecting meat consumers in their intention
to buy beef whose label clearly expresses environmentally friendly characteristics. To do so, we
hypothesized to apply an institutional system of ecological labeling on beef products. An
extended framework based on the Theory of Planned Behavior was applied to understand
the factors affecting the consumer decision-making process toward eco-labeled beef. A survey
was conducted with 1139 consumers in Italy. Data were analyzed by means of confirmatory
factor analysis and structural equation models. Results highlight that beef consumers are likely
to change their habits, in favor of more sustainable beef choices. The analysis highlights that,
together with consumer attitudes, social norms and perceived behavioral control, institutional
trust and food shopping habits play an important role in activating the consumer’s cognitive
decision-making process toward more sustainable beef. Results add to the literature on the
determinants of green food-choices and introduce new insights on the role of institutional
trust in the intention to buy beef labeled with a public standard. Findings highlight that par-
ticular attention should be devoted to build trust for public institutions in order to promote
sustainable food consumption behavior. Moreover, results validate previous studies on the
effectiveness of information-based policies in fostering more sustainable consumption choices.
Introduction
The expected increasing global demand for livestock products and the great environmental
impact induced by the activities conducted within the related supply chains ask for urgent pol-
icy and managerial adaptation strategies (EU, 2006; Herrero et al., 2016). Indeed, climate
change is one of the greatest challenges that human society is facing and mitigation measures
need to be identified in all sectors and at all levels (Chakravarty et al., 2009; Massetti and Ricci,
2013; IPCC, 2014). According to Rojas-Downing et al.(2017) and Hyland et al.(2017), the
demand for livestock products will double by 2050 and the contribution of the related sector
toward anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions counts for 14.5% of global emissions.
Also, Leach et al.(2016) highlight that livestock production has the largest carbon, nitrogen
and water footprints in the food sector. By looking at the livestock supply chain, such
emissions relate to most of the activities conducted within the chain, like for example, feed
production, animal rearing, processing methods and transportation of all the related raw
materials (Röös et al., 2013). The European Commission is putting much effort in identifying
reliable methodologies for assessing the environmental performance of products and
organizations as a mean to communicate trustworthy information to final consumers
(European Commission, 2019). More in detail, the goal is to develop by 2024 a voluntary
public standard in relation to food environmental sustainability (EC, 2020).
The negative environmental impact of livestock production can be reduced through;
technological innovations to increase nitrogen use efficiency; new lower environmental impact
breeding strategies; an improved management of land based on GHG mitigation strategies; and
through variations in consumption patterns (Smith et al., 2013). With regard to meat con-
sumption, possible feasible actions relate to a reduction of meat consumption in the western
world and to orienting consumers toward more sustainable meat choices (Röös et al., 2014).
Coherently with this, the European Commission launched in 2020 the Farm to Fork Strategy,
as part of the European Green Deal, to fully address the challenges of sustainable food systems.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170522000357 Published online by Cambridge University Press
This strategy pays particular attention to the livestock sector to
reduce its environmental impact and promote environmentally
friendly production and consumption patterns (EC, 2020).
Considerable literature has focused on ecolabeling of food pro-
ducts (Grunert, 2011; Grunert et al., 2014; Yadav and Pathak,
2017; Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2020), with some studies focusing
on meat consumption (de Barcellos et al., 2010; de Boer et al.,
2014; Caracciolo et al., 2016; Henchion et al., 2017; Hoeksma
et al., 2017). However, considering the many aspects that the
meat consumer has to take into consideration while shopping,
it is still not clear which are the determinants affecting consumer
decision to buy more environmentally friendly meat, i.e., meat
whose production characteristics reflect environmental protec-
tion. To fill this gap, the aim of the present study is to investigate
the determinants affecting meat consumers in their intention to
buy beef meat whose label clearly expresses to consumers its
greater environmentally friendly characteristics. The choice of
beef is related to the fact that it is considered as the type of
meat with the highest environmental impact (Bellarby et al.,
2013). To achieve our goal, in our study we hypothesized to
apply an institutional system of ecological labeling on beef pro-
ducts, the EU Ecolabel (Reg. 66/2010). The EU Ecolabel was
established in 1992 and it is a public certification scheme adopted
by agri-food firms on a voluntary basis (i.e., without any legal
obligation) to promote products which have a reduced environ-
mental impact during their entire lifecycle and to provide consu-
mers with accurate information on the environmental impact of
products within the European territory. To achieve such a goal
this certification scheme takes into consideration the European
ISO Type I Ecolabel, which clearly defines criteria on the basis
of the latest scientific and technological outcomes for products
(ISO 14024:2001, 2001). The European Commission is respon-
sible for the certified criteria and it assures that the EU Ecolabel
Regulation is implemented correctly.
The reason behind the choice of EU Ecolabel is twofold. First,
such label is widely recognized by the market as a purely green
label. Second, taking into consideration a non-existing product,
i.e., EU eco-labeled beef, we could exclude several factors influen-
cing consumer attitudes, such as past experience or accessibility
(Vermeir and Verbeke, 2008). To carry out the research question,
we implemented a survey based on the Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) to understand the factors affecting
the intention to buy eco-labeled beef products. Our survey was
conducted throughout a questionnaire to 1139 beef consumers
in Italy.
We choose Italy as case study for our analysis for different
reasons. First, from an economic point of view, the meat sector
has a relevant impact in terms of GDP and employment.
Indeed, in Italy the turnover of the meat industry is about
32 billion euros each year and it employs about 180,000 workers
(Golini et al., 2017), with beef being one of the dominant pro-
ducts. Second, at the EU level, the Italian cattle sector represents
about 10% of European production (Golini et al., 2017). However,
the livestock sector, especially beef production, in Italy has often
been criticized for its high environmental impact particularly
related to its generally intensive production systems. This has
led to a penalization of Italian farmers in terms of EU CAP sub-
sidies compared to those of other countries, like for example
France and Ireland (Cozzi and Ragno, 2003). Third, Italian beef
consumer preferences can be considered as a good example to
analyze consumer preferences of a mature market with an interest
and awareness toward meat labeled quality attributes like origin,
traceability, animal welfare and environmentally sustainable char-
acteristics (Merlino et al., 2018).
Given the importance of the sector in economic terms, the
relevance of its environmental impact and GHG-emission poten-
tial, and the existing room for improvement in the Italian system
from a supply and demand side (Bragaglio et al., 2018), it is
important to identify feasible strategies to promote more sustain-
able pathways. In this direction, this paper aims at investigating if
from the consumer side there is a potential appreciation for more
environmentally sustainable meat products.
The results add to the existing literature on the determinants
leading to green choices of beef and introduce new insights on
the role of institutional trust toward the intention to buy beef
labeled with a public standard.
The background on the existing research on environmentally
sustainable meat labels is presented in the next section. The the-
oretical framework upon which the paper is based is described in
section ‘Conceptual framework’. Methods and data collection are
described in section ‘Materials and methods’. Results and discus-
sion of findings are presented in section ‘Results’. The paper ends
with limitation of the study and future research directions in sec-
tion ‘Conclusions’.
Beef environmental-sustainability labeling
In order to promote more sustainable beef choices, consumers need
to be made aware of the differences in the impacts of choosing
between differently bred cattle. Thus, a system should be intro-
duced to signal to consumers the differences in the production pro-
cesses. With regard to this latter aspect, it should be considered that
environmental sustainability related to production processes repre-
sents a credence attribute for consumers (Nelson, 1970) and cannot
be verified either before or after consumption. Therefore, more sus-
tainable food choices need to be guided by a reliable labeling system
(i.e., ecological labeling or eco-labeling) able to fill the environmen-
tal information gap of consumers by communicating the environ-
mental impact of a single product (Mackey and Metz, 2009)and
reducing the related information costs (Teisl et al., 2002).
Consumer interest toward sustainability labels has strongly
increased in the last years due to a general increase in awareness
toward environmentally related food challenges and an increased
concern toward the negative effects of food production on climate
change (Napolitano et al., 2010; Banterle and Ricci, 2013).
Therefore, consumer choices of environmentally friendly labeled
meat products may play an important role in promoting more sus-
tainable consumption (Koos, 2011).
Despite the positive consumer attitudes toward green products,
the understanding of the factors leading consumers to make
environmentally sustainable choices is still controversial. The rea-
sons behind this difficulty in conceptualizing sustainable con-
sumer behavior in relation to environmentally friendly labeled
quality attributes are mostly due to the high variety of existing
labels on the market used to express the sustainability-related
food properties and the cognitive associations made by consumers
when they take into consideration a green label during food pur-
chases (Angulo and Gil, 2007; Van Loo et al., 2014).
For example, in Europe, the environmentally friendly charac-
teristics of beef products can be communicated both through a
variety of private standards set up both by food processors and
retailers and through the European public voluntary organic
label. Such labels differ in terms of type of certification, informa-
tion labeled, and features of logo presentation (Pouta et al., 2010;
2 Stefanella Stranieri et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170522000357 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Vanhonacker and Verbeke, 2014; Samant and Seo, 2016). For
example, for beef products most of the labels relate to private
or national initiatives and most of them certify the production
characteristics of products, for example animal welfare, carbon
footprint information, the avoidance of genetically modified
organism (GMO) use, and the origin of raw materials
(Apostolidis and McLeay, 2016).
Moreover, most of the existing sustainability labels investigated
by the literature are considered by consumers not exclusively for
their environmentally friendly characteristics (Schuldt and
Schwarz, 2010; Schuldt et al., 2012). Consumers often associate
such green labels with other sustainability-related concepts. For
example, animal welfare labels involve also ethical considerations
related to the protection of animal life and better health-related
characteristics may be perceived due to pro-environmental per-
ceived characteristics (Lazzarini et al., 2016; Richetin et al.,
2021). Also, the organic label is often perceived by consumers
not only as a tool to communicate environmentally sustainable
practices but it is considered as a logo also signaling products
with improved quality characteristics related to food safety,
health-related aspects, taste and the absence of GMOs in produc-
tion processes (Van Loo et al., 2011; Demartini et al., 2018). This
variety of aspects that can be associated with existing meat labels
represents a gap in the literature that needs to be addressed.
Conceptual framework
The theory of planned behavior
In our paper we referred to the TPB model because it has been con-
sidered as a suitable framework of analysis to study a wide range
consumer analysis related to environmentally friendly behavior
(Vermeir and Verbeke, 2008; Guillaumie et al.2010; Costanigro
et al., 2015;Chen,2016). According to Yazdanpanah and
Forouzani (2015), the TPB has been applied successfully to investi-
gate green food purchasing intention and it has been recently used
to predict consumer choices of meat with specific quality character-
istics (Hoeksma et al., 2017).
The TPB assumes that consumer decision-making processes
are determined by the assessment on the possible consequences
of a certain behavior, the expectation of reference individuals
and the potential resources or impediments related to that behav-
ior. According to the TPB model, these considerations lead to
independent determinants of consumer intention to perform a
certain behavior: attitude toward the behavior, subjective norms
and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1985).
Attitudes relate to the degree of consumer evaluation toward a
certain behavior. More precisely, it refers to the type of assessment
a consumer has with regard to a certain behavior. Such evaluation
can be both positive or negative. According to the TPB theory, the
more positive consumers assess a certain product, the higher is
the likelihood to buy it.
Subjective norms describe consumer perceived social pressure
to perform or not to perform the behavior. In other words, such
determinant aims at evaluating the importance of social influ-
ences on consumer decision-making process. Current literature
on consumer environmentally friendly behavior has acknowl-
edged the important role of this variable as a predictor of con-
sumer intention rather than a predictor of behavior (Honkanen
et al., 2005; Blanchard et al., 2009; de Bruijn, 2010). This
‘intention-behavior gap’is probably due to the social desirability
bias which affects sustainable food choices.
Finally, perceived behavioral control relates to consumer ability
to perform a certain behavior. More precisely, it relates to the per-
ceived level of difficulty in performing a certain behavior. With
regard to food-related literature, Sillani and Nassivera (2015)
highlight that such determinant is among the main factors
which help to explain the choice of environmentally friendly
food choices.
According to the TPB theory, the antecedent of behavior is the
intention to perform the behavior. In general, the stronger the
intention to engage in the behavior, the more likely should be
its implementation. In our analysis we did not consider the
behavioral outcome because our investigation relates to the ana-
lysis of a labeled information which has not been introduced in
the market yet. Indeed, in this case consumer behavior cannot
be measured.
An extended model for eco-labeled meat
Several authors have pointed out that the analysis of food con-
sumer behavior often calls for other variables in addition to
those used by the basic TPB theoretical framework, due to the
peculiarities surrounding food choices (Menozzi et al., 2015).
Indeed, the use of an extended TPB model could increase the
understanding of consumer decision-making process for food
products (Steg and Vlek, 2009).
For this reason, we propose an extended TPB framework by
considering the following variables which have been recognized
to significantly affect food pro-environmental behavior in the lit-
erature: consumer trust, food shopping habits, environmental
concern. We also control for consumer individual characteristics,
including socio-demographic variables and beef consumption fre-
quency (Fig. 1).
In the context of environmentally friendly products, trust is
conceptualized as consumer belief about the environmental out-
come of certain kind of green products (Chen and Chai, 2010).
According to Henchion et al.(2017), consumer trust in food
characteristics plays an important role to activate positive psycho-
logical consequences related to product consumption.
Food-related literature is discussing the role of trust in explaining
also green behavior. Giampietri et al.(2018) highlighted that trust
affects consumer propensity to choose short supply chains for the
purchase of food products. Ricci et al.(2018) investigated the role
of trust in the intention to buy a more environmentally sustain-
able salad.
Their findings revealed a significant role of trust on consumer
attitudes. Also, the findings from Yip and Janssen (2015) suggest
that the lack of trust in food producers is the main barrier for the
purchasing of organic food. Furthermore, Janssen and Hamm
(2014) discussed the positive influence of consumer confidence
toward certifications on consumer intention to buy green food
products. On the basis of the existing research highlighting the
primary role of trust in encouraging consumer environmental
behavior, we expect this variable to have an effect also on con-
sumer intention antecedents to buy meat with environmentally
friendly characteristics, in particular on attitudes and on shopping
habits.
Indeed, also shopping habits have been found to significantly
affect food choices because of the characteristics of such behavior.
First, food shopping is often performed on a daily basis or, at
least, frequently. This implies that food shopping refers to
repeated actions. In such conditions, past behavior and the way
consumers are used to make food choices plays an important
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 3
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170522000357 Published online by Cambridge University Press
role to guide consumer behavior in addition to their attitudes. For
example, Menozzi et al.(2015) found that habits of looking for
labeled information related to product’s origin and processes
were strong determinants of consumer intention to buy traced
chicken among French consumers. Moreover, Stranieri et al.
(2017) highlighted that food shopping habits significantly affected
consumer intention to buy pre-packed salad with environmen-
tally friendly characteristics. Also, Elseidi (2018) stressed how
the presence of a halal logo plays an important role to moderate
the halal purchasing intention. In general, the meta-analysis con-
ducted by Massey et al.(2018) points out that labeled product cre-
dence attributes play an important role in explaining green food
purchasing behavior.
Food-related literature has also stressed consumer environ-
mental concern as an important factor affecting the intention to
perform environmentally sustainable food choices. For example,
De Groot and Steg (2007) stressed that environmental concern
plays a significant role in explaining consumer intention to pur-
chase green products. Honkanen et al.(2006) also highlighted
that such factor can be considered among the determinants for
choosing organic food. Moreover, Dowd and Burke (2013) sug-
gested that environmental concern is an important predictor of
environmentally friendly food choices. Such factor seems to affect
mostly consumer choices in western countries. A recent analysis
of Yadav and Pathak (2016) highlighted that environmental con-
cern does not seem to impact purchasing intentions in developing
countries.
Although this is not always the case, consumer individual
characteristics may have an influence on the purchase of green
products. It has been suggested that people of female gender
and with a high income are more likely to purchase such products
(Gracia and De Magistris, 2008; Stranieri et al.,2017). Age has
also been shown to sometimes be a determinant of green product
choices, however, its effect is not always present or in the same
direction.
Materials and methods
Construction of the variables
On the basis of the conceptual framework highlighted in the pre-
vious section, a set of latent variables that could be relevant to the
research question were identified. Figure 1 highlights the variables
considered, their relations and the models analyzed in this study.
Indeed, we test both the basic TPB model and an extended frame-
work with additional variables that have been shown to be rele-
vant in the food domain.
A measurement model was then built identifying, for each of
the latent variables, a set of measures attempting to capture
such variables. An ad hoc questionnaire was built including a
question for each of the measures selected. Table 1 reports the
details of all the single questions included in the questionnaire
for each of the latent constructs and for the other stand-alone
variables tested in the models.
More in general, the focus is on the intention to purchase beef
characterized by the EU Ecolabel certification. Given that this type
of label is not already available on food products, we stop our ana-
lysis at intentions, as actual behavior cannot be measured yet. To
measure intentions, we included in the questionnaire six ques-
tions related to the intention to buy EU eco-labeled beef, meat
and food (variables i
1
to i
6
). Then, we collected data on consumer
attitudes toward such products (variables a
1
to a
9
), perceived
behavior control (variables c
1
to c
5
) and subjective norms (vari-
ables sn
1
to sn
4
). The questions related to such constructs were
built referring to the TPB questionnaire. The above variables
are those included in Model 1, that more closely resembles the
basic TPB model.
As highlighted in Figure 1, we also test an additional—
extended—model (Model 2) including the other variables dis-
cussed in section ‘Beef environmental-sustainability labeling’.
More in detail, food shopping habits questions (variables h
1
to h
6
)
were adapted from Grankvist and Biel (2001) and Menozzi
Fig. 1. Modelled variable relations.
4 Stefanella Stranieri et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170522000357 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Table 1. Variable description
Variable name
(short name) Scale Description of variables
Intention to buy meat with the EU Ecolabel (Intention)
INT
1
Scale (1–7) I would buy fresh beef with the EU Ecolabel if it was to become available
1
INT
2
Scale (1–7) I would buy fresh beef with the EU Ecolabel if it was available on the market
1
INT
3
Scale (1–7) It would be important for me to find the EU Ecolabel on fresh beef products
1
INT
4
Scale (1–7) It would be important for me to consume fresh beef products with the EU Ecolabel
1
INT
5
Scale (1–7) I would buy food products with the EU Ecolabel
1
INT
6
Scale (1–7) I would buy fresh beef products with the EU Ecolabel
1
Attitude toward meat with the EU Ecolabel (Attitude)
ATT
1
Scale (1–7) If fresh beef had the EU Ecolabel it would be healthier
1
ATT
2
Scale (1–7) If fresh beef had the EU Ecolabel it would be only a marketing move
1
ATT
3
Scale (1–7) If fresh beef had the EU Ecolabel it would be better
1
ATT
4
Scale (1–7) If fresh beef had the EU Ecolabel it would be more expensive
1
ATT
5
Scale (1–7) If fresh beef had the EU Ecolabel it would be of higher quality
1
ATT
6
Scale (1–7) If fresh beef had the EU Ecolabel it would be more controlled
1
ATT
7
Scale (1–7) If fresh beef had the EU Ecolabel it would create confusion among consumers
1
ATT
8
Scale (1–7) If fresh beef had the EU Ecolabel it’s production would be more environmentally sustainable
1
ATT
9
Scale (1–7) If fresh beef had the EU Ecolabel it would help consumers make more conscious choices
1
Perceived behavioral control (PBC)
PBC
1
Scale (1–7) Buying fresh beef with the EU ecolabel would be very expensive
1
PBC
2
Scale (1–7) Buying fresh beef with the EU ecolabel would not differ from buying organic beef
1
PBC
3
Scale (1–7) Fresh beef with the EU ecolabel would be available only in a few specialized shops
1
PBC
4
Scale (1–7) The use of the EU label would be a clear and effective way to identify ecolabeled beef
1
PBC
5
Scale (1–7) It will be easy to understand the information associated with the EU ecolabel on beef as it is already used
for other products
1
Subjective norms
SN
1
Scale (1–7) My friends would approve my purchase of beef with the EU Ecolabel
1
SN
2
Scale (1–7) My family would approve my purchase of beef with the EU Ecolabel
1
SN
3
Scale (1–7) My colleagues would approve my purchase of beef with the EU Ecolabel
1
SN
4
Scale (1–7) Doctors and nutritionists would approve my purchase of beef with the EU Ecolabel
1
Food shopping habits (Habits)
HAB
1
Scale (1–7) When selecting beef, I regularly check the brand of the products
1
HAB
2
Scale (1–7) When selecting beef, I regularly check the price of the products
1
HAB
3
Scale (1–7) When selecting beef, I regularly check the expiry date of the products
1
HAB
4
Scale (1–7) When selecting beef, I regularly check for animal welfare indications
1
HAB
5
Scale (1–7) When selecting beef, I regularly check the presence of the organic logo on products
1
HAB
6
Scale (1–7) When selecting beef, I regularly check traceability information
1
Environmental concern (Concern)
EC
1
Scale (1–7) Environmentally-friendly agricultural practices imply a benefit for human health
1
EC
2
Scale (1–7) Agricultural practices have a strong impact on water pollution
1
EC
3
Scale (1–7) Agricultural practices have a negative impact on human health
1
Institutional trust (Trust)
TR
1
Scale (1–7) Level of trust in firms operating in the beef sector
2
(Continued)
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 5
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170522000357 Published online by Cambridge University Press
et al.(2015). Environmental concern (variables ec
1
to ec
3
) ques-
tions were also adapted from previous literature (Govindasamy
et al., 2001; Cranfield and Magnusson, 2003; Koenig-Lewis
et al., 2014). Trust-related questions (variables t
1
to t
3
) concerned
institutional trust relating to the EU ecolabel. The last set of ques-
tions included in Model 2 refer to individual characteristics of the
respondents: gender, age, education, income, number of family
components and beef consumption frequency.
Data collection
Data were collected via an online platform. Sampling followed a
snowball technique by means of social media platforms. The
starting sampling group for the snowballing procedure was
made of students of a masterclass in environmental and food eco-
nomics. We asked such students to invite their social media con-
tacts to also share the link to the survey also among their own
contacts in order to try to diversify the respondent base and
reach a more heterogeneous population. Responses were collected
from 1240 respondents from Italy. A screening question was
included to identify meat-eating respondents. A final sample of
1139 respondents were included in the data set for the analysis.
Questions were mainly multiple-choice with a 1–7 Likert rat-
ing scale built following the indications by Ajzen (1991) and
Verbeke and Vackier (2005). A definition of the EU ecolabel
was provided to respondents in order to be sure that they could
give correct evaluations to the questionnaire items.
1
In order to
avoid social desirability bias, we tried to avoid any possible sen-
tence which could influence consumer judgments. To test ques-
tion comprehensibility and avoid issues of confusion or fatigue,
the questionnaire was firstly pretested on a group of 20 students
of the Faculty of Agriculture and Food Science of the University
of Milan and on 40 consumers of the Milan area. Such data
were excluded from the final data.
The final sample of respondents was made of: 45% of male
respondents and 55% female respondents; 30% of the respondents
were aged between 18 and 24 years, 37% between 25 and 40, 26%
between 41 and 59, 7% 60 or over. For what concerns the level of
education: 6% of the respondents had completed only compulsory
education, 28% had a high school diploma; 66% had a university
degree or a higher title. In relation to income, we asked respon-
dents to specify if their family income was below, about the
same or above the national monthly income: 22% of respondents
declared to have a lower income, 46% to be close to the average of
2500 €month
−1
, while 31% declared to have a higher monthly
income. Comparing the sample to the Italian population, the
sample was representative in terms of gender distribution and
family income. Referring to age, the sample is skewed downwards
compared to the average Italian population and suffer from an
over representation of respondents with a high level of education.
This could be related to the sampling method; however, we con-
trol for these variables in the regression analysis.
Data analysis
The data collected were filtered so that only meat-eaters were
included in the data set. This was firstly analyzed by means of
descriptive statistics of the single variables. Then two confirma-
tory factor analyses (CFAs) were performed to verify the validity
of the constructs included in the two measurement models of
Figure 1. The CFAs were firstly implemented including all the
items of the questionnaire associated to the single constructs
(Table 1). However, for the final models, items with factor load-
ings lower than 0.50 were excluded (Hair et al., 2010).
Standardized factor loadings of the single items of the latent con-
structs are reported in Table 2, as well as the factor’s Cronbach’s
α. All constructs show a Cronbach’sαabove 0.70 that is indicated
as a threshold to consider internal consistency as satisfactory
(Nunally and Bernstein, 1978).
Finally, data were analyzed by means of structural equation
models to study the effects of the variables included in our con-
ceptual framework on the intention to purchase beef with an eco-
label certification. The first model that we test is a basic TPB
model including attitudes, perceived behavior control and subject-
ive norms as antecedents of purchasing intention (Model 1). The
Table 1. (Continued.)
Variable name
(short name) Scale Description of variables
TR
2
Scale (1–7) Level of trust in institutions providing beef safety and quality assurance
2
TR
3
Scale (1–7) Environmentally-friendly certifications for beef imply a benefit for the environment
2
Individual characteristics
Purchase frequency Scale (0–5) Beef purchase frequency
3
Age Scale (18–80) Respondent’s age in years
Gender Dummy (0–1) Gender dummy
4
Education Scale (1–3) Level of completed education
5
Income Scale (1–3) This variable measure income, given an national monthly average of 2500 euro
6
Fam_comp Discrete (1+) Number of family components
Note: 1 (totally disagree = 0; totally agree = 7); 2 (1 = very low trust; 7 = very high trust); 3 (0 = none, I consumer other types of meat; 1 = less than once a week; 2 = once a week; 3 = twice a week;
4 = three times a week; 5 = more than three times a week); 4 (0 = male; 1 = female); 5 (1 = compulsory education; 2 = high school; 3 = university or above); 6 (1 = below average; 2 = about the
average; 3 = above average).
1
The sentence reported in the questionnaire was the following: ‘The EU Ecolabel is a
European Union certification that has already been applied to certain products (deter-
gents, textiles, paints, etc.) or services (campgrounds, hotels, services for tourist recre-
ation) signaling a better environmental performance (reduced environmental impact)
while maintaining the product’s other quality characteristics. Currently, it is not possible
to apply this label to food products, but the possibility to extend it in the future also to
food products is being considered’.
6 Stefanella Stranieri et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170522000357 Published online by Cambridge University Press
main model that we analyze is however an extended TPB model
that includes also other variables highlighted by the literature as
relevant predictors of food choice intentions (Model 2). More spe-
cifically, we include the constructs related to food shopping
habits, environmental concern and some control variables related
to individual characteristics. The latter include frequency of con-
sumption of beef and a set of socio-demographic variables,
namely gender, age, education level and the number of family
components. We also run the same model substituting education
with income, obtaining similar results and finding no statistically
significant evidence of a relationship between intention and the
income variable. According to previous literature, we also added
trust as a further antecedent of attitudes, perceived behavior con-
trol and food shopping habits.
Analyses were performed using the Lavaan package (Rosseel,
2012) of the R software (R Core Team, 2013).
Results
The results about the estimated relationships between the con-
structs included in the conceptual framework are reported in
Table 3. More in detail, we report the estimates and their signifi-
cance level for both models analyzed. However, the discussion
that follows will focus on the extended TPB model that provides
more interesting insights and better values for the fit indices. In
particular, in Model 2, the R
2
related to purchasing intention in
the structural equation model is 0.77. This highlights a satisfac-
tory ability to explain such intention (Sutton, 1998; Armitage
and Conner, 2001; Ajzen, 2011; Menozzi et al., 2015). This
value is higher than that for the basic TPB model, that still scores
a good value (0.70).
Focusing on the full model (Model 2), fit indices show a rea-
sonable fit. Indeed, the root mean square error of approximation
is 0.06, that is below 0.08, that is considered as the limit for a fair
fit (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; MacCallum et al., 1996; Perrini et al.,
2010; De Noni et al., 2014; Nassivera and Sillani, 2015). The stan-
dardized root mean square residual is 0.066, which is also an indi-
cator of good fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999). A sizeable improvement
of fit indices is achieved moving from Model 1 to Model 2. This is
also confirmed when looking at the Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) that reach higher values with the
full model.
Focusing on path analysis, our results suggest that the inten-
tion to purchase beef with an EU ecolabel certification can be pre-
dicted by the perceived behavioral outcomes, i.e., the attitudes
toward the behavior, as postulated in the TPB theoretical frame-
work. Indeed, both models show a positive and statistically signifi-
cant effect.
As predicted by the TPB theory, the purchasing intention is
also influenced by the perceived easiness to perform the behav-
ior (PBC) in a positive and statistically significant way.
Furthermore, also the presence of subjective norms is shown
to have a positive effect on purchasing intentions. Such results
are in line with the TPB theoretical framework, and they suggest
that such a theoretical model can be considered effective in
explaining the determinants of consumer intention to buy beef
certified with the EU ecolabel. Indeed, the greater the perception
of the benefits of performing the action, the greater the
perceived easiness of doing so and the approval by
important peers, the greater is the intention to purchase this
type of beef, that is more environmentally friendly than a
traditionally bred one.
Table 2. Cronbach’sαand factor loadings
Variable αFactor loading Variable αFactor loading
Intention 0.92 Subjective norms 0.92
INT
1
0.83 SN
1
0.91
INT
2
0.88 SN
2
0.90
INT
3
0.91 SN
3
0.88
INT
4
0.92 SN
4
0.76
INT
5
0.59
INT
6
0.65 Food shopping habits 0.78
HAB
4
0.84
Attitude 0.88 HAB
5
0.72
ATT
1
0.80 HAB
6
0.67
ATT
3
0.69 Environmental concern 0.75
ATT
5
0.79 EC
1
0.72
ATT
6
0.79 EC
2
0.73
ATT
8
0.66 EC
3
0.68
ATT
9
0.74
Trust 0.82
Perceived behavioral control 0.73 TR
1
0.73
PBC
4
0.81 TR
2
0.82
PBC
5
0.70 TR
3
0.79
Notes:αrefers to Cronbach’sα; factor loadings are standardized ones.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 7
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170522000357 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Moreover, we tested the relations between intentions and other
additional variables. Food shopping habits, that in our framework
relate to the use of food labels, have a positive and statistically sig-
nificant effect on purchasing intentions. This suggests that those
that are already prone to read food labels and to use them to
choose among food products would be more prone to select
beef with a public standard such as the EU ecolabel. This further
confirms the fact that consumers that choose more sustainable
options form their preferences using product information
reported on labels.
Our results suggest that intentions can be also predicted by the
individual’s environmental concern. Indeed, in our extended TPB
framework, the more concerned is the person, the higher is the
intention to purchase EU eco-labeled beef, as it would be
expected.
For what concerns the effects of trust, we find that it has a
positive and significant effect on attitudes toward eco-labeled
beef, as well as on food shopping habits related to food label
use, and on perceived behavioral control. This highlights how
trust in the EU institutions and, especially, in the ecolabel labeling
system can play an important role in favoring more sustainable
choices. This may be related to the fact that public standards
may provide a certain level of warranty for consumers, that feel
more assured that their purchase can be effective in achieving
their sustainability-related goals. This is particularly important
for sustainability attributes related to production processes that
are invisible to the final consumer, making such attributes ‘cre-
dence’in nature, i.e., requiring an act of faith by consumers.
Finally, for what concerns individual characteristics, our
results suggest that respondents that consume more beef are
more interested in this type of beef option. This may be connected
to the fact that consumers that have a higher level of meat intake,
often reluctant in reducing meat consumption (Macdiarmid et al.,
2016), are more interested in sustainable options for beef. This is
quite an interesting result as it suggests that large beef eaters
could, in some measure, potentially be part of the solution.
Given the reluctance of meat consumers to reduce their meat con-
sumption, a relatively quick way to, at least partly, reduce the
environmental impact of beef consumption seems to be the pro-
motion of more ecological technology supported by a public cer-
tification policy.
Results seem to also indicate that, ceteris paribus, older people
are more prone toward this type of products. Moreover, higher
educated people seem to also have a higher level of purchasing
intentions.
Conclusions
One of the most debated topics in the European Green Deal is the
reduction of the environmental impact of livestock farming. This
objective can be achieved with a reduction in per capita consump-
tion of meat and/or with a shift toward meat production/con-
sumption with a lower environmental impact. The reduction of
meat consumption requires a drastic change in consumer behav-
ior, which is quite difficult for regular meat-eaters and may take a
long time to implement. The present study analyses in depth the
determinants affecting consumer intention to buy beef produced
via more environmentally friendly processes and procedures.
Results highlight that beef consumers are quite likely to change
their habits, in favor of more sustainable beef choices if given
the option. Interestingly, among the results achieved in the ana-
lysis, institutional trust and food shopping habits play an import-
ant role to activate the consumer’s cognitive decision-making
process toward sustainable beef. These findings highlight that par-
ticular attention should be devoted to build trust for public insti-
tutions in order to promote sustainable food consumption
behavior. Moreover, results validate previous studies on the effect-
iveness of information-based policies in fostering consumers
toward sustainable consumption and give important policy sug-
gestions on the possible effectiveness of the introduction of an
institutional sustainability-related label for beef products and, in
general, for food.
The above discussed results need to be analyzed in the light of
a set of limitations of the research. Indeed, the data collected are
based on stated preferences and on a hypothetical application of
an existing label to beef products. The study may indeed suffer
from common method bias, given that all variables are collected
with the same response method, and we do not have measures
of actual behavior (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Chang et al., 2010).
Even if the use of stated preference data is in line with the theor-
etical framework of the TPB, such data could suffer from consist-
ency motif, social desirability and hypothetical bias. However, it is
Table 3. Structural equation model results
Model 1 Model 2
Variable Estimate Estimate
Effect on intention1
Attitude 0.329*** (0.03) 0.356*** (0.04)
PBC 0.162*** (0.04) 0.147*** (0.04)
Subjective norms 0.325*** (0.02) 0.295*** (0.02)
Habits 0.074*** (0.01)
Concern 0.047* (0.03)
Frequency of purchase 0.056*** (0.02)
Gender 0.068 (0.04)
Age 0.004** (0.00)
Education 0.069* (0.04)
Family members −0.012 (0.02)
Effect on attitude
Trust 1.226*** (0.05)
Effect on PBC
Trust 0.990*** (0.05)
Effect on habits
Trust 0.537*** (0.06)
Model fit indices
CFI 0.87 0.91
TLI 0.85 0.90
SRMR 0.07 0.07
RMSEA 0.12 0.06
CFI, Comparative Fit Index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis Index, also known as Non-normed Fit Index;
SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; RMSEA, root mean square error of
approximation.
Notes: Estimates refer to the unstandardized solution.
Significance levels: ***P< 0.01; **0.01 ⩽P< 0.05; *0.05 ⩽P< 0.1.
1For a more clear representation of the relations tested by the model please refer to
Figure 1.
8 Stefanella Stranieri et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170522000357 Published online by Cambridge University Press
particularly difficult to capture individual attitudes, concerns and
beliefs in a different way. We tried to mitigate this by interspers-
ing the order of the items related to different attitudes, and by
assuring and stressing respondent anonymity and by informing
respondents that there were no right or wrong answers. The
choice of a self-administered questionnaire can potentially also
reduce the effects of the social desirability related to a face-to-face
interviewer, even if it poses more cognitive burden on
respondents.
Research could also focus on the generalizability and robust-
ness of results by exploring consumer intention to buy other
kinds of food labeled with a European Ecolabel and test possible
rebound effects due to the lower environmental sustainability
impacts of this type of beef. Finally, future work could be also
devoted to assessing the determinants of consumer trust in
order to identify policies to foster more-sustainable meat
consumption.
Conflict of interest. The authors declare that they have no known compet-
ing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
References
Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In
Kuhl J and Beckmann J (eds), Action Control. Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 11–39. Available at http://www.springer-
link.com/index/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2.
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes 50, 179–211.
Ajzen I (2011) The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections.
Psychology & Health 26, 1113–1127.
Angulo AM and Gil JM (2007) Risk perception and consumer willingness to
pay for certified beef in Spain. Food Quality and Preference 18, 1106–1117.
Apostolidis C and McLeay F (2016) Should we stop meating like this?
Reducing meat consumption through substitution. Food Policy 65,74–89.
Armitage CJ and Conner M (2001) Efficacy of the theory of planned behav-
iour: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology 40,471–499.
Bagozzi RP and Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16,74–94.
Banterle A and Ricci EC (2013) Does the sustainability of food products influ-
ence consumer choices? The case of Italy. International Journal on Food
System Dynamics 4, 149–158.
Bellarby J, Tirado R, Leip A, Weiss F, Lesschen JP and Smith P (2013)
Livestock greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential in Europe.
Global Change Biology 19,3–18.
Blanchard CM, Fisher J, Sparling PB, Shanks TH, Nehl E, Rhodes RE,
Courneya KS and Baker F (2009) Understanding adherence to 5 servings
of fruits and vegetables per day: a theory of planned behavior perspective.
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 41,3–10.
Bragaglio A, Napolitano F, Pacelli C, Pirlo G, Sabia E, Serrapica F,
Serrapica M and Braghieri A (2018) Environmental impacts of Italian
beef production: a comparison between different systems. Journal of
Cleaner Production 172, 4033–4043.
Caracciolo F, Cicia G, Del Giudice T, Cembalo L, Krystallis A, Grunert KG
and Lombardi P (2016) Human values and preferences for cleaner livestock
production. Journal of Cleaner Production 112(Part 1), 121–130.
Chakravarty S, Chikkatur A, de Coninck H, Pacala S, Socolow R and Tavoni
M(2009) Sharing global CO2 emission reductions among one billion high
emitters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 11884–11888.
Chang S-J, van Witteloostuijn A and Eden L (2010) From the editors: com-
mon method variance in international business research. Journal of
International Business Studies 41, 178–184.
Chen M-F (2016) Extending the theory of planned behavior model to explain
people’s energy savings and carbon reduction behavioral intentions to miti-
gate climate change in Taiwan –moral obligation matters. Journal of
Cleaner Production 112, 1746–1753.
Chen TB and Chai LT (2010) Attitude towards the environment and green
products: consumers’perspective. Management Science and Engineering
4,27–39.
Costanigro M, Deselnicu O and Kroll S (2015) Food beliefs: elicitation, esti-
mation and implications for labeling policy. Journal of Agricultural
Economics 66, 108–128.
Cozzi G and Ragno E (2003) Meat production and market in Italy.
Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus (ACS) 68,71–77.
Cranfield JAL and Magnusson E (2003) Canadian consumer’s
willingness-to-pay for pesticide free food products: an ordered probit ana-
lysis. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 6,13–30.
de Barcellos MD, Kügler JO, Grunert KG, Van Wezemael L, Pérez-Cueto
FJA, Ueland Ø and Verbeke W (2010) European consumers’acceptance
of beef processing technologies: a focus group study. Innovative Food
Science & Emerging Technologies 11, 721–732.
de Boer J, Schösler H and Aiking H (2014) ‘Meatless days’or ‘less but better’?
Exploring strategies to adapt western meat consumption to health and sus-
tainability challenges. Appetite 76, 120–128.
de Bruijn G-J (2010) Understanding college students’fruit consumption.
Integrating habit strength in the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite 54,16–22.
De Groot J and Steg L (2007) General beliefs and the theory of planned
behavior: the role of environmental concerns in the TPB. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology 37, 1817–1836.
Demartini E, Ricci EC, Mattavelli S, Stranieri S, Gaviglio A, Banterle A,
Richetin J and Perugini M (2018) Exploring consumer biased evaluations:
halos effects of local food and of related attributes. International Journal on
Food System Dynamics 9, 375–389.
De Noni I, Orsi L and Zanderighi L (2014) Attributes of Milan influencing
city brand attractiveness. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management
3, 218–226.
Dowd K and Burke KJ (2013) The influence of ethical values and food choice
motivations on intentions to purchase sustainably sourced foods. Appetite
69, 137–144.
EC (2020) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. A Farm to Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy
and Environmentally-Friendly Food System. Brussels, 20.5.2020 COM
(2020) 381 final.
Elseidi RI (2018) Determinants of halal purchasing intentions: evidences from
UK. Journal of Islamic Marketing 9, 167–190.
Elsen M, van Giesen R, van den Akker K and Dunne A (2019) Consumer test-
ing of alternatives for communicating the Environmental Footprint profile of
products. Final report for the European Commission.
EU (2006) Environmental impact of products. Analysis of the Life Cycle
Environmental Impacts Related To the Final Consumption of the EU-25.
Technical Report EUR 22284 EN.
Giampietri E, Verneau F, Del Giudice T, Carfora V and Finco A (2018) A
theory of planned behaviour perspective for investigating the role of trust in
consumer purchasing decision related to short food supply chains. Food
Quality and Preference 64, 160–166.
Golini R, Moretto A, Caniato F, Caridi M and Kalchschmidt M (2017)
Developing sustainability in the Italian meat supply chain: an empirical
investigation. International Journal of Production Research 55, 1183–1209.
Govindasamy R, Italia J and Adelaja A (2001) Predicting willingness-to-pay a
premium for integrated pest management produce: a logistic approach.
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 30, 151–159.
Gracia A and De Magistris T (2008) The demand for organic foods in the
south of Italy: a discrete choice model. Food Policy 33, 386–396.
Grankvist G and Biel A (2001) The importance of beliefs and purchase cri-
teria in the choice of eco-labeled food products. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 21, 405–410.
Grunert KG (2011) Sustainability in the food sector: a consumer behaviour
perspective. International Journal on Food System Dynamics 2, 207–218.
Grunert KG, Hieke S and Wills J (2014) Sustainability labels on food
products: consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy 44
(Suppl. C), 177–189.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 9
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170522000357 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Guillaumie L, Godin G and Vézina-Im L-A (2010) Psychosocial determinants
of fruit and vegetable intake in adult population: a systematic review.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 7,12.
Hair JF Jr., Black WC, Babin BJ and Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate Data
Analysis, 7 edizione. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall College Div.
Available at https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Hair-
Multivariate-Data-Analysis-7th-Edition/PGM263675.html.
Henchion MM, McCarthy M and Resconi VC (2017) Beef quality attributes:
a systematic review of consumer perspectives. Meat Science 128,1–7.
Herrero M, Henderson B, Havlík P, Thornton PK, Conant RT, Smith P,
Wirsenius S, Hristov AN, Gerber P, Gill M, Butterbach-Bahl K, Valin
H, Garnett T and Stehfest E (2016) Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials
in the livestock sector. Nature Climate Change 6, 452–461.
Hoeksma DL, Gerritzen MA, Lokhorst AM and Marijn Poortvliet P (2017)
An extended theory of planned behavior to predict consumers’willingness
to buy mobile slaughter unit meat. Meat Science 128,15–23.
Honkanen P, Olsen SO and Verplanken B (2005) Intention to consume
seafood –the importance of habit. Appetite 45, 161–168.
Honkanen P, Verplanken B and Olsen SO (2006) Ethical values and
motives driving organic food choice. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 5,
420–430.
Hu L-T and Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6,1–55.
Hyland JJ, Henchion M, McCarthy M and McCarthy SN (2017) The role of
meat in strategiesto achieve a sustainable diet lower in greenhouse gas emis-
sions: a review. Meat Science 132, 189–195.
IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O.,
R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth,
A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen,
S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (Eds.)]. Cambridge,
UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Janssen M and Hamm U (2014) Governmental and private certification labels
for organic food: consumer attitudes and preferences in Germany. Food
Policy 49, 437–448.
Koenig-Lewis N, Palmer A, Dermody J and Urbye A (2014) Consumers’eva-
luations of ecological packaging–rational and emotional approaches.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 37,94–105.
Koos S (2011) Varieties of environmental labelling, market structures, and sus-
tainable consumption across Europe: a comparative analysis of organiza-
tional and market supply determinants of environmental-labelled goods.
Journal of Consumer Policy 34, 127–151.
Lazzarini GA, Zimmermann J, Visschers VHM and Siegrist M (2016) Does
environmental friendliness equal healthiness? Swiss consumers’perception
of protein products. Appetite 105, 663–673.
Leach AM, Emery KA, Gephart J, Davis KF, Erisman JW, Leip A, Pace ML,
D’Odorico P, Carr J and Noll LC (2016) Environmental impact food labels
combining carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints. Food Policy 61, 213–223.
MacCallum RC, Browne MW and Sugawara HM (1996) Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling.
Psychological Methods 1, 130.
Macdiarmid JI, Douglas F and Campbell J (2016) Eating like there’sno
tomorrow: public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluc-
tance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite 96, 487–493.
Mackey MA and Metz M (2009) Ease of reading of mandatory information on
Canadian food product labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies
33, 369–381.
Massetti E and Ricci EC (2013) An assessment of the optimal timing and size
of investments in concentrated solar power. Energy Economics 38, 186–203.
Massey M, O’Cass A and Otahal P (2018) A meta-analytic study of the factors
driving the purchase of organic food. Appetite 125, 418–427.
Menozzi D, Halawany-Darson R, Mora C and Giraud G (2015) Motives
towards traceable food choice: a comparison between French and Italian
consumers. Food Control 49,40–48.
Merlino VM, Borra D, Girgenti V, Dal Vecchio A and Massaglia S (2018)
Beef meat preferences of consumers from northwest Italy: analysis of choice
attributes. Meat Science 143, 119–128.
Napolitano F, Braghieri A, Piasentier E, Favotto S, Naspetti S and Zanoli R
(2010) Effect of information about organic production on beef liking and
consumer willingness to pay. Food Quality and Preference 21, 207–212.
Nassivera F and Sillani S (2015) Consumer perceptions and motivations in
choice of minimally processed vegetables: a case study in Italy. British
Food Journal 117, 970–986.
Nelson P (1970) Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political
Economy 78, 311–329.
Nunally JC and Bernstein IH (1978) Psychometric Theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Perrini F, Castaldo S, Misani N and Tencati A (2010) The impact of corpor-
ate social responsibility associations on trust in organic products marketed
by mainstream retailers: a study of Italian consumers. Business Strategy and
the Environment 19, 512–526.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y and Podsakoff NP (2003) Common
method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 879–903.
Pouta E, Heikkilä J, Forsman-Hugg S, Isoniemi M and Mäkelä J (2010)
Consumer choice of broiler meat: the effects of country of origin and pro-
duction methods. Food Quality and Preference 21, 539–546.
Prieto-Sandoval V, Mejía-Villa A, Ormazabal M and Jaca C (2020)
Challenges for ecolabeling growth: lessons from the EU ecolabel in Spain.
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 25, 856–867.
R Core Team (2013) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Available at http://www. R-project.org.
Ricci EC, Banterle A and Stranieri S (2018) Trust to go green: an exploration
of consumer intentions for eco-friendly convenience food. Ecological
Economics 148,54–65.
Richetin J, Demartini E, Gaviglio A, Ricci EC, Stranieri S, Banterle A and
Perugini M (2021) The biasing effect of evocative attributes at the implicit
and explicit level: the tradition halo and the industrial horn in food pro-
ducts evaluations. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61, 101890.
Rojas-Downing MM, Nejadhashemi AP, Harrigan T and Woznicki SA
(2017) Climate change and livestock: impacts, adaptation, and mitigation.
Climate Risk Management 16, 145–163.
Röös E, Sundberg C, Tidåker P, Strid I and Hansson P-A (2013) Can carbon
footprint serve as an indicator of the environmental impact of meat produc-
tion? Ecological Indicators 24, 573–581.
Röös E, Ekelund L and Tjärnemo H (2014) Communicating the environmen-
tal impact of meat production: challenges in the development of a Swedish
meat guide. Journal of Cleaner Production 73, 154–164.
Rosseel Y (2012) lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling.
Journal of Statistical Software 48,1–36.
Samant SS and Seo H-S (2016) Effects of label understanding level on consu-
mers’visual attention toward sustainability and process-related label claims
found on chicken meat products. Food Quality and Preference 50,48–56.
Schuldt JP and Schwarz N (2010) The ‘organic’path to obesity? Organic
claims influence calorie judgments and exercise recommendations.
Judgment and Decision Making 5, 144.
Schuldt JP, Muller D and Schwarz N (2012) The ‘fair trade’effect: health
halos from social ethics claims. Social Psychological and Personality
Science 3, 581–589.
Sillani S and Nassivera F (2015) Consumer behavior in choice of minimally
processed vegetables and implications for marketing strategies. Trends in
Food Science & Technology 46, 339–345.
Smith P, Haberl H, Popp A, Erb K-h, Lauk C, Harper R, Tubiello FN, Pinto
A, Jafari M, Sohi S, Masera O, Böttcher H, Ahammad H, Clark H, Dong
H, Elsiddig EA, Mbow C, Ravindranath NH, Rice CW, Abad CR,
Romanovskaya A, Sperling F, Herrero M, House JI and Rose S (2013)
How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without
compromising food security and environmental goals? Global Change
Biology 19, 2285–2302.
10 Stefanella Stranieri et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170522000357 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Steg L and Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an inte-
grative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29,
309–317.
Stranieri S, Ricci EC and Banterle A (2017) Convenience food with
environmentally-sustainable attributes: a consumer perspective. Appetite 116,11–20.
Sutton S (1998) Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: how well
are we doing? Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28, 1317–1338.
Teisl MF, Roe B and Hicks RL (2002) Can eco-labels tune a market? Evidence
from dolphin-safe labeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 43, 339–359.
Vanhonacker F and Verbeke W (2014) Public and consumer policies for
higher welfare food products: challenges and opportunities. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27, 153–171.
Van Loo EJ, Caputo V, Nayga RM Jr., Meullenet J-F and Ricke SC (2011)
Consumers’willingness to pay for organic chicken breast: evidence from
choice experiment. Food Quality and Preference 22, 603–613.
Van Loo EJ, Caputo V, Nayga RM and Verbeke W (2014) Consumers’
valuation of sustainability labels on meat. Food Policy 49, 137–150.
Verbeke W and Vackier I (2005) Individual determinants of fish
consumption: application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite
44,67–82.
Vermeir I and Verbeke W (2008) Sustainable food consumption among
young adults in Belgium: theory of planned behaviour and the role of con-
fidence and values. Ecological Economics 64, 542–553.
Yadav R and Pathak GS (2016) Young consumers’intention towards buying
green products in a developing nation: extending the theory of planned
behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production 135, 732–739.
Yadav R and Pathak GS (2017) Determinants of consumers’green purchase
behavior in a developing nation: applying and extending the theory of
planned behavior. Ecological Economics 134(Suppl. C), 114–122.
Yazdanpanah M and Forouzani M (2015) Application of the theory of
planned behaviour to predict Iranian students’intention to purchase
organic food. Journal of Cleaner Production 107, 342–352.
Yip L and Janssen M (2015) ‘How do consumers perceive organic food from
different geographic origins? Evidence from Hong Kong and Shanghai’,May.
Avai lable at https://kobra.uni-kassel.de/handle/123456789/2015011347164.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 11
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170522000357 Published online by Cambridge University Press
