PDF

Published

2024-04-08

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 7 (2024): Published

Section

Research Articles

License

The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.

Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.

Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.

This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.

By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:

  • Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
  • Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
  • Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
  • Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

 

Copyright Statement

1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.

2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.

3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.

About Licence

Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.

This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.

Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.

How to Cite

Kim, R. B., & Li, J. (2024). Consumer preference for sustainability labels in the context of China. Environment and Social Psychology, 9(7). https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v9i7.2070

Consumer preference for sustainability labels in the context of China

Renee B. Kim

School of Business, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Korea

Jiayi Li

School of Business, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Korea


DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v9i7.2070


Keywords: sustainability label, stated preference method, organic foods, electric vehicle, consumer preference, sustainable consumption

Abstract

Sustainability Label (SL) have emerged as an important product attribute in recent decades, and have evolved into various types as products with social, environmental, and economic benefits have become more prevalent in the marketplace. With the information of SL in products, consumers are encouraged to embrace environmental sustainability principles and to make environmentally sustainable choices and actions. SL helps alignment between consumers and the industry by enhancing consumers’  nderstanding of company’s act, and serve as an effective marketing message. However, there is limited research on consumer preferences for different types of sustainable labels or benefits. This study addresses this knowledge gap by applying choice experiment method to assess consumers’ choice behavior for products associated with various SL. Choice experiment designs are separately developed for two most relevant sustainable products (i.e. soymilk and EV) in China. A stated preference method (SPM) consumer survey was conducted in 2022 across six major cities in China, namely Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chengdu, and Xi’an, and a total of 840 valid responses were collected for assessing multinomial logit (MNL) model. Findings show that Chinese consumers prefer SL with environmental benefits, foreign COO/Brand in consuming soymilk, and prefer SL with employee friendliness, domestic COO/Brand for Electric Vehicle (EV). These findings provide insights for marketers and researchers Chinese consumers’ preference for specific SL and brand for two selected product categories.

References

[1]. Desa U. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations; 2016.

[2]. Degli Esposti P, Mortara A, Roberti G. Sharing and Sustainable Consumption in the Era of COVID-19. Sustainability. 2021; 13(4): 1903.

[3]. Sigurdsson V, Larsen NM, Folwarczny M, et al. The importance of relative customer-based label equity when signaling sustainability and health with certifications and tags. Journal of Business Research. 2023; 154: 113338. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113338

[4]. Liu R, Gao Z, Snell HA, et al. Food safety concerns and consumer preferences for food safety attributes: Evidence from China. Food Control. 2020; 112: 107157. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107157

[5]. Wang C, Ghadimi P, Lim MK, et al. A literature review of sustainable consumption and production: A comparative analysis in developed and developing economies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019; 206: 741-754. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.172

[6]. Coderoni S, Perito MA. Sustainable consumption in the circular economy. An analysis of consumers’ purchase intentions for waste-to-value food. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020; 252: 119870.

[7]. Bhattacharyya J, Balaji M, Jiang Y. Causal complexity of sustainable consumption: Unveiling the equifinal causes of purchase intentions of plant-based meat alternatives. Journal of Business Research,2023, 156: 113511.

[8]. Park HJ, Lin LM. Exploring attitude–behavior gap in sustainable consumption: comparison of recycled and upcycled fashion products. Journal of Business Research. 2020; 117: 623-628. doi:0.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.025

[9]. Castka P, Corbett CJ. Governance of eco-labels: Expert opinion and media coverage. Journal of Business Ethics. 2016; 135: 309-326.

[10]. Gutierrez AMJ, Chiu ASF, Seva R. A Proposed Framework on the Affective Design of Eco-Product Labels. Sustainability. 2020; 12(8): 3234. doi: 10.3390/su12083234

[11]. Song L, Lim Y, Chang P, et al. Ecolabel’s role in informing sustainable consumption: A naturalistic decision making study using eye tracking glasses. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019; 218: 685-695. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.283

[12]. De Canio F, Martinelli E. EU quality label vs organic food products: A multigroup structural equation modeling to assess consumers’ intention to buy in light of sustainable motives. Food Research International. 2021; 139:109846.

[13]. Gatti N, Gomez MI, Bennett RE, et al. Eco-labels matter: Coffee consumers value agrochemical-free attributes over biodiversity conservation. Food Quality and Preference. 2022; 98: 104509. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104509

[14]. Sonntag W, Lemken D, Spiller A, et al. Welcome to the (label) jungle? Analyzing how consumers deal with intra sustainability label trade-offs on food. Food Quality and Preference. 2023; 104: 104746. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104746

[15]. Chirilli C, Molino M, Torri L. Consumers’ Awareness, Behavior and Expectations for Food Packaging Environmental Sustainability: Influence of Socio-Demographic Characteristics. Foods. 2022; 11(16): 2388.

[16]. Schiano AN, Harwood WS, Gerard PD, et al. Consumer perception of the sustainability of dairy products and plant-based dairy alternatives. Journal of Dairy Science. 2020; 103(12): 11228-11243. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-18406

[17]. Annunziata A, Mariani A, Vecchio R. Effectiveness of sustainability labels in guiding food choices: Analysis of visibility and understanding among young adults. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 2019; 17: 108-115. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2018.09.005

[18]. Gao Z, Li C, Bai J, et al. Chinese consumer quality perception and preference of sustainable milk. China Economic Review. 2020; 59: 100939. doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2016.05.004

[19]. Liu R, Gao Z, Nayga RM, et al. Consumers’ valuation for food traceability in China: Does trust matter? Food Policy. 2019; 88: 101768. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.101768

[20]. Herbes C, Beuthner C, Ramme I. How green is your packaging—A comparative international study of cues consumers use to recognize environmentally friendly packaging. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2020; 44(3): 258-271.

[21]. Murphy B, Martini M, Fedi A, et al. Consumer trust in organic food and organic certifications in four European countries. Food Control. 2022; 133: 108484. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108484

[22]. Janßen D, Langen N. The bunch of sustainability labels–Do consumers differentiate? Journal of cleaner production. 2017; 143: 1233-1245.

[23]. Cho YN, Baskin E. It’s a match when green meets healthy in sustainability labeling. Journal of Business Research. 2018; 86: 119-129.

[24]. Cho YN, Berry C. Understanding the effects of retailer-and manufacturer-provided sustainability labels on product evaluations and purchase-related outcomes. Journal of Business Research. 2019; 100: 73-85.

[25]. Ding Y, Veeman MM. Chinese consumers’ preferences for quality signals on fresh milk: Brand versus certification. Agribusiness. 2019; 35(4): 593-609. doi: 10.1002/agr.21604

[26]. Chen J, Lai J, Chen X, Gao Z. Effects of shared characteristics between eco‐labels: A case for organic and local food. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2022.

[27]. Aprile MC, Punzo G. How environmental sustainability labels affect food choices: Assessing consumer preferences in southern Italy. Journal of cleaner production. 2022; 332: 130046.

[28]. Siraj A, Taneja S, Zhu Y, et al. Hey, did you see that label? It’s sustainable!: Understanding the role of sustainable labelling in shaping sustainable purchase behaviour for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2022; 31(7): 2820-2838. doi: 10.1002/bse.3049

[29]. Singh P, Sahadev S, Wei X, et al. Modelling the antecedents of consumers’ willingness to pay for eco‐labelled food products. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2023; 47(4): 1256-1272. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12900

[30]. Bangsa AB, Schlegelmilch BB. Linking sustainable product attributes and consumer decision-making: Insights from a systematic review. Journal of cleaner production. 2020; 245: 118902.

[31]. Elliott GR, Cameron RC. Consumer perception of product quality and the country-of-origin effect. Journal of international Marketing. 1994; 2(2): 49-62.

[32]. Lampert SI, Jaffe ED. A dynamic approach to country‐of‐origin effect. European Journal of Marketing. 1998; 32(1/2): 61-78. doi: 10.1108/03090569810197471

[33]. Hong ST, Wyer, Jr. RS. Effects of Country-of-Origin and Product-Attribute Information on Product Evaluation: An Information Processing Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research. 1989; 16(2): 175. doi: 10.1086/209206

[34]. Xu X, Comello MLG, Lee S, et al. Exploring Country-of-Origin Perceptions and Ethnocentrism: The Case of U.S. Dairy Marketing in China. Journal of Food Products Marketing. 2020; 26(2): 79-102. doi:10.1080/10454446.2020.1722778

[35]. Fazli-Salehi R, Torres IM, Madadi R, Zúniga MÁ. The Role of Self-Construal and Competitiveness in Consumers’ Self-Brand Connection with Domestic vs. Foreign Brands. Journal of International Consumer Marketing. 2021; 33(3): 319-337.

[36]. Hien NN, Phuong NN, Tran TV, et al. The effect of country-of-origin image on purchase intention: The mediating role of brand image and brand evaluation. Management Science Letters. Published online 2020: 1205-1212. doi:10.5267/j.msl.2019.11.038

[37]. Han CM. Country image: Halo or summary construct? Journal of Marketing Research. 1989; 26(2): 222-229.

[38]. Kim MY, Moon S, Iacobucci D. The Influence of Global Brand Distribution on Brand Popularity on Social Media. Journal of International Marketing. 2019; 27(4): 22-38. doi: 10.1177/1069031x19863307

[39]. Srivastava A, Dey DK, M.S. B. Drivers of brand credibility in consumer evaluation of global brands and domestic brands in an emerging market context. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 2020; 29(7): 849-861. doi: 10.1108/jpbm-03-2018-1782

[40]. Macall DM, Williams C, Gleim S, et al. Canadian consumer opinions regarding food purchase decisions. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research. 2021; 3: 100098. doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2020.100098

[41]. Tascioglu M, Eastman J, Bock D, et al. The impact of retailers’ sustainability and price on consumers’ responses in different cultural contexts. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research. 2019; 29(4): 430-455. doi: 0.1080/09593969.2019.1611619

[42]. Wang J, Pham TL, Dang VT. Environmental Consciousness and Organic Food Purchase Intention: A Moderated Mediation Model of Perceived Food Quality and Price Sensitivity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(3): 850. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17030850

[43]. Malik C, Singhal N, Tiwari S. Antecedents of consumer environmental attitude and intention to purchase green products: moderating role of perceived product necessity. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management. 2017; 20(5/6): 259. doi: 10.1504/ijetm.2017.091290

[44]. Kaczorowska J, Rejman K, Halicka E, et al. Impact of food sustainability labels on the perceived product value and price expectations of urban consumers. Sustainability. 2019; 11(24): 7240.

[45]. Hsu CL, Chang CY, Yansritakul C. Exploring purchase intention of green skincare products using the theory of planned behavior: Testing the moderating effects of country of origin and price sensitivity. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2017; 34: 145-152. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.10.006

[46]. Louviere JJ, Timmermans HJP. Testing the external validity of hierarchical conjoint analysis models of recreational destination choice. Leisure Sciences. 1992; 14(3): 179-194. doi: 10.1080/01490409209513167

[47]. Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy. 1996; 74(2): 132-157.

[48]. McFadden D. The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of public economics. 1974; 3(4): 303-328.

[49]. Bazzani C, Caputo V, Nayga Jr RM, Canavari M. Revisiting consumers’ valuation for local versus organic food using a non-hypothetical choice experiment: Does personality matter? Food Quality and Preference. 2017; 62: 144-154.

[50]. Wang J, Tao J, Chu M. Behind the label: Chinese consumers’ trust in food certification and the effect of perceived quality on purchase intention. Food Control. 2020; 108: 106825.doi:0.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106825

[51]. Cui, Y., Lissillour, R., Chebeň, J., Lančarič, D., & Duan, C. (2022). The position of financial prudence, social influence, and environmental satisfaction in the sustainable consumption behavioural model: Cross‐market intergenerational investigation during the Covid‐19 pandemic. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(4), 996-1020.

[52]. Hasan A, Zhiyu W, Mahani AS. Fast estimation of multinomial logit models: R package mnlogit. arXiv. 2014; arXiv:1404.3177.

[53]. Hao Y, Liu H, Chen H, et al. What affect consumers’ willingness to pay for green packaging? Evidence from China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2019; 141: 21-29. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.001

[54]. Xu H, Liu B, Qiu L, et al. Does the new energy demonstration cities construction reduce CO2 emission? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2022; 29(33): 50408-50426. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-19436-z

[55]. Liu Y, Sun W, Liu J. Greenhouse gas emissions from different municipal solid waste management scenarios in China: Based on carbon and energy flow analysis. Waste Management. 2017; 68: 653-661.doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.020

[56]. Man Y, Han Y, Li J, et al. Life cycle energy consumption analysis and green manufacture evolution for the papermaking industry in China. Green Chemistry. 2019; 21(5): 1011-1020. doi:10.1039/c8gc03604g

[57]. Herbes C, Rilling B, Macdonald S, et al. Are voluntary markets effective in replacing state-led support for the expansion of renewables?–A comparative analysis of voluntary green electricity markets in the UK, Germany, France and Italy[J].Energy Policy,2020, 141: 111473.

[58]. Guido G, Prete MI, Peluso AM, et al. The role of ethics and product personality in the intention to purchase organic food products: a structural equation modeling approach. International Review of Economics. 2009; 57(1): 79-102. doi: 10.1007/s12232-009-0086-5

[59]. Gulseven O, Wohlgenant M. What are the factors affecting the consumers’ milk choices? Agricultural Economics. 2017; 63(6): 271-282. doi: 10.17221/335/2015-agricecon

[60]. Thøgersen J.Promoting green consumer behavior with eco-labels[J].New tools for environmental protection,2002: 83-104.

[61]. Bekele GE, Zhou D, Kidane A, Haimanot AB. Analysis of organic and green food production and consumption trends in China. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Business. 2017; 3(4): 64-70.

[62]. Wang HH, Zhang X, Ortega DL, et al. Information on food safety, consumer preference and behavior: The case of seafood in the US. Food Control. 2013; 33(1): 293-300. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.02.033

[63]. Wang HH, Zhang RW, Ortega DL. Chinese food safety situation in a globalized world market. Journal of Chinese Economics. 2013; 1(1).

[64]. Macleod C. China’s organic farms rooted in food-safety concerns. USA Today; 2011.

[65]. Wu L, Yin S, Xu Y, et al. Effectiveness of China’s Organic Food Certification Policy: Consumer Preferences for Infant Milk Formula with Different Organic Certification Labels. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d’agroeconomie. 2014; 62(4): 545-568. doi: 10.1111/cjag.12050

[66]. Sharma S, Rou Z. China’s dairy dilemma. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Washington, DC; 2014.

[67]. Sin LYM, Ho S, So SLM. Research on advertising in mainland China: a review and assessment. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 2000; 12(1): 37-65. doi: 10.1108/13555850010764631

[68]. Zhou L, Hui MK. Symbolic Value of Foreign Products in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of International Marketing. 2003; 11(2): 36-58. doi: 10.1509/jimk.11.2.36.20163

[69]. Bartikowski B, Fastoso F, Gierl H. Luxury cars Made-in-China: Consequences for brand positioning. Journal of Business Research. 2019; 102: 288-297.

[70]. Zhou L, Yang Z, Hui MK. Non-local or local brands? A multi-level investigation into confidence in brand origin identification and its strategic implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2009; 38(2): 202-218. doi: 10.1007/s11747-009-0153-1

[71]. Baan W, Luan L, Poh F. Double-clicking on the Chinese consumer. McKinsey & Company; 2017.

[72]. Li D, Wang Z, Yang C. A Controversial Working System in China: The 996 Working Hour System. In: Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Arts, Law and Social Sciences (ALSS 2021).



21 Woodlands Close #02-10 Primz Bizhub Singapore 737854

Email:editorial_office@as-pub.com