Consumers' willingness to buy and willingness to pay for fair trade food: The influence of consciousness for fair consumption, environmental concern, trust and innovativeness

Food Research International 120 (2019) 141–147

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Research International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodres

Consumers' willingness to buy and willingness to pay for fair trade food: The influence of consciousness for fair consumption, environmental concern, trust and innovativeness Faruk Anıl Konuk

T

⁎

Department of Business Administration, Sakarya Business School, Sakarya University, Esentepe Campus, 54187 Serdivan, Sakarya, Turkey

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Consciousness for fair consumption Environmental concern Trust in fair trade label Consumer innovativeness Willingness to buy Willingness to pay

The emerging trend of fair trade (FT) production has gained increasing attention in the food industry due to the growing amount of socially sensitive consumers. In this respect, the purpose of this study is to comprehend how consciousness for fair consumption (CFC), environmental concern (EC), trust in FT label and consumer innovativeness (CI) impact consumers' willingness to buy (WTB) and willingness to pay (WTP) for FT food. For this reason, data were obtained through written survey instrument from consumers. The influence of factors on consumers' behavioral intentions was analyzed with maximum likelihood estimation. The results revealed that CFC, EC, trust in FT Label, CI are positively correlated to WTB and WTP for FT food. In addition, among the antecedents, CFC was found to have the greatest impact on consumers' behavioral intentions. Some contributions were also drawn based on the research findings.

1. Introduction The emerging trend of sustainability has lead companies to reconsider their production and marketing strategies. The significance of corporate social responsibility has increased in recent years linked to the ethical consumerism (Bradu, Orquin, & Thøgersen, 2014, p. 283). Ethical values such as working conditions during production, human rights and animal welfare influence on a growing number of consumers' purchase decisions and their consumption (Annunziata, Ianuario, & Pascale, 2011, p. 521). In this regard, as a part of a sustainable marketing strategy, FT production is one of the most important issues that are used to support producers' social marketing image. Despite the importance of this trend, FT is still relatively unknown. Moreover, a limited number of FT products are sold in the marketplace in emerging economies. Therefore, it is vital to understand consumers' purchase motivations and its effect on behavioral intentions towards FT products for both producers and marketers. Social responsibility, economic development, and environmental protection are the fundamental aspects of FT (Fairtrade International, 2018). FT has its roots on social responsibility and economic development related to work environment standards and fair wages to alleviate poverty. Increase in socially-conscious consumers enables companies to promote FT production. Hence, consumer's social consciousness is crucial for the success of this trend., FT production also emphasizes ⁎

environmental protection in the process of production. Therefore, the other aspect of FT is linked to the concept of environmentalism. In general, these two issues determine the growth of the concept of FT production. Therefore, it is noteworthy to examine how social and environmental factors influence consumers' WTB and WTP for FT food. Likewise, organic food products, FT label which is used on the packages to sign the product is produced under the FT standards. The trustworthiness of this label is crucial for the success of FT. Consumers may not trust the FT claims and hesitate to pay a premium for these relatively new products which have distinctive claims. In this regard, it is imperative to investigate how trust in FT Label contributes to consumers' WTB and pay for FT food. FT products are relatively new and unknown in the marketplace. These products have unique social and environmental claims. Therefore, these products are expected to attract innovative consumers and these consumers may make an effort to try FT food products. In addition, their WTP for these products should be higher than other consumers. Hence, it is useful to understand how innovativeness impacts consumers' behavioral intentions towards FT food products. FT products are mostly priced higher than traditional ones due to the fair wages, working standards, and environmental protection costs. Previous research found that price is a significant obstacle to FT consumption (De Pelsmacker, Janssens, Sterckx, & Mielants, 2006). Therefore, identifying factors which may influence consumers' WTP is

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.02.018 Received 21 December 2018; Received in revised form 6 February 2019; Accepted 8 February 2019 Available online 15 February 2019 0963-9969/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Food Research International 120 (2019) 141–147

F.A. Konuk

also useful for both producers, marketers and as well as researchers. From consumers' perspective, previous studies focusing on FT consumption have examined purchase intentions (Balderjahn, Peyer, & Paulssen, 2013; Jin Ma, Littrell, & Niehm, 2012; Kim, Lee, & Park, 2010; Kim, Littrell, & Paff Ogle, 1999; Kimura et al., 2012) and behavior (Andorfer & Liebe, 2015; Cranfield, Henson, Northey, & Masakure, 2010; De Pelsmacker & Janssens, 2007) towards FT products. Despite a growing number of research studies dealing with consumers' WTP for FT products (Castaldo, Perrini, Misani, & Tencati, 2009; De Pelsmacker, Driesen, & Rayp, 2005; Didier & Lucie, 2008; Mahé, 2010; Rashid & Byun, 2018; Rousseau, 2015; Trudel & Cotte, 2009), it is not clear how CFC and EC influence their WTP to for these products. In addition, none of these research models have considered consumer innovativeness as antecedents of WTB and pay for FT food. Hence, the present study aims at filling this research void by examining the role of CFC, EC, trust in FT label, and CI on consumers' WTB and pay for FT food. The results of this study may contribute to the development of strategies and marketing plans related to FT production in the food industry. This may further increase and motivate consumers to purchase FT food products. With regard to the aims of this study, clear definitions for CFC, EC, trust in FT label and consumer innovativeness were obtained from the literature. The research model is also formulated based on past empirical evidence. Secondly, employed research methodology is explained. Thirdly, analysis and results are presented. The last part of the paper is concluded with theoretical and managerial implications and highlighted the recommendations of future research.

producers to increase their social image in a long-term while emphasizing on the importance of moral issues and protecting labor rights (Lee, Jackson, Miller-Spillman, & Ferrell, 2015, p. 92). Besides buying organic food products, purchasing FT food is one of the other ethical consumption activity that consumers engage with to help workers in less developed countries (Witkowski & Reddy, 2010, p. 10). FT labels are placed on the packages of the products to reveal socially sustainable production (e.g, paying a fair price to local farmers, improving their working conditions) in poor countries (Verhoef & Van Doorn, 2016, p. 21). The international FT certification which was introduced in 2002 is the most well-known mark to sign the product is approved in terms of FT standards (Sarti, Darnall, & Testa, 2018, p. 274). Worldwide, 1411 FT certified organizations of which 52% were from Latin America and the Caribbean, produce FT products (Fairtrade International, 2018, p. 17). Coffee was the first FT product and still today, it is the most well-known product in the marketplace (Fairtrade International, 2018, p. 51). Moreover, consumers come across with other FT labeled products such as fruits, teas, fruit juices, chocolates, and apparels which are produced in developing countries. 2.2. Consciousness for fair consumption The main aim of the FT concept is to provide social justice during production in developing countries (Andorfer & Liebe, 2015, p. 333). Expansion of the FT markets is related to the consumption motives based on social responsibility (Jin Ma et al., 2012, p. 42). There is a growing amount of consumers in affluent communities interested in social aspects of production conditions in developing countries, hence, resulting in an important ethical criterion in their purchasing decisions (Andorfer & Liebe, 2012, p. 416). Ethical consumption involves environmental protection and social issues in the production process (De Pelsmacker et al., 2005, p. 363). Related to the ethical consumption, CFC refers to “a latent disposition of consumers to prefer products that are produced and traded in compliance with fair labour and business practices” (Balderjahn et al., 2013, p. 546). Interviews conducted by De Ferran and Grunert (2007) indicated that equality between humans and in human relationships through participation in the alternative economy is one of the emphasized motives of FT coffee consumption. Helping others in developing countries as a moral norm can motivate consumers to purchase FT products (Andorfer & Liebe, 2015, p. 333). Kim et al. (2010) reported that ethical consumption values positively influence FT brand loyalty mediated through FT product beliefs and FT company evaluations. In addition, Kim et al. (1999) revealed that socially responsible attitudes have a positive impact on consumers' WTB for FT apparel products. De Pelsmacker et al. (2006) also concluded that giving an acceptable price to the farmers and producers in emerging economies is the most important motive for consumers to buy FT products. Past research found that CFC is positively related to the intention to buy and purchase of FT products (Balderjahn et al., 2013). In addition, according to the research conducted by Zander and Hamm (2010), a large majority of organic food consumers was willing to pay for these products with additional ethical attributes. They also reported that animal welfare, local production and fair price payment to farmers were found as the most important ethical attributes related to organic food products. In this study, the concept of CFC is used as an important antecedent of consumers' WTB and pay for FT food. Based on the past evidence, it was predicted that consumers who have higher CFC are more likely to buy and pay for FT food products. Therefore, the following hypotheses were formulated:

2. Literature review and research model The proposed causal model (Fig. 1) examines the role of CFC, EC, trust in FT label, CI on consumers' WTB and WTP for FT products. 2.1. The concept of fair trade FT has become an important area of study with the increasing labor and workplace scandals in poor countries. This emerging trend also enables companies to increase their social image and consequently differentiate themselves from their rivals. FT refers to “a trading partnership which aims for the sustainable development of excluded and disadvantaged producers.” (Kimura et al., 2012, p. 204). In general, the objective of FT is to improve the working and living standards (safe and clean environment) of small-scale producers and workers in emerging economies (Andorfer & Liebe, 2015, p. 330). In addition, another purpose of FT is to achieve environmental sustainability (Raynolds & Bennett, 2015, p. 3). Therefore, this trend enables

Consciousness for fair consumption

H1

H2

H3

Environmental concern

Willingness to buy

H4 H5 Trust in Fair Trade Label H6

Willingness to pay

H7 Consumer Innovativeness

H1. CFC has a positive influence on WTB FT food.

H8

H2. CFC has a positive influence on WTP for FT food.

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework. 142

Food Research International 120 (2019) 141–147

F.A. Konuk

2.3. Environmental concern

Flynn, & Goldsmith, 2003, p. 56). In this study, domain-specific innovativeness was utilized as an antecedent of consumers' WTB and WTP for FT food. This type of innovativeness refers to “the predisposition to learn about and adopt to learn new products in a specific domain of consumer behavior” (Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991, p. 291). Despite the emerging trend of fair trade, still, a limited number of food brands used this strategy in the marketplace. In this sense, innovativeness aspects of these food products with fair trade labels may motivate highly innovative consumers to try these products for the first time. Similarly, Lee et al. (2015, p. 92) argued that for some consumers, FT consumption is a new trend. Empirical studies also revealed a positive impact of consumer innovativeness on their purchase intent (Cowart, Fo, & Wilson, 2008; Hoonsopon, 2016) and behavior (Bartels & Reinders, 2010). In addition, Frank, Enkawa, Schvaneveldt, and Herbas Torrico (2015) found a positive relationship between CI and WTP. Specifically, past empirical research verified a positive impact of CI on both WTB and WTP for organic food (Konuk, 2018). Regarding this previous discussion, it is anticipated that consumers who have high innovativeness are more willing to buy and pay for FT food. Therefore, the following hypotheses were posited.

Air, soil and water pollution caused by industrial production has increased consumers' concern regarding environmental protection. EC refers to “the degree to which people are aware of problems regarding the environment and support efforts to solve them or indicate the willingness to contribute personally to their solution” (Dunlap & Jones, 2002, p. 482). This concern leads companies to produce environmentally safe products to attract environmental sensitive consumers. In this context, firms use eco-labels to convince consumers that their products help to protect the environment. Previous research indicated that consumers' EC influences their purchase behavior. A notable number of previous studies reported a positive role of EC on consumers' WTB (Konuk, 2018; Paul, Modi, & Patel, 2016; Prakash & Pathak, 2017) and WTP for sustainable products (Konuk, 2018; Laroche, Bergeron, & Barbaro-Forleo, 2001). Different from traditionally produced food products, besides social standards, FT also includes environmentally sensitive production as beneficial product characteristic (Andorfer & Liebe, 2015, p. 332). The results of the quantitative research revealed that to protect oneself and the environment is one of the mentioned motives of purchasers of FT coffee (De Ferran & Grunert, 2007). Previous empirical research also found support for the positive link between EC and intention to buy FT products (Balderjahn et al., 2013). In the same vein, consumers who are worried about environmental problems are expected to purchase and pay for FT food. Therefore, the subsequent hypotheses are proposed.

H7. Consumer innovativeness has a positive influence on WTB FT food. H8. Consumer innovativeness has a positive influence on WTP for FT food. 3. Methodology

H3. EC has a positive influence on WTB FT food.

3.1. Sampling procedure and data collection

H4. EC has a positive influence on WTP for FT food.

A cross-sectional data was obtained from respondents using a convenience sampling approach with the help of self-administered questionnaires in different districts of Istanbul, Turkey. The concept of FT is relatively new and unknown and limited products sold under this label in the marketplace in Turkey. Therefore, before collecting the data, this concept and the FT label were explained to the respondents to ensure their understandability of the questionnaire. After, respondents who accepted to join the survey study were requested to fill in the written questionnaires. In the main study, 550 surveys were administered to the consumers between September and October 2018. The 517 returned questionnaires were checked in terms of completeness and 39 invalid surveys were removed. In the end, 478 valid surveys were retained for the analysis. The descriptive statistics of the sample revealed that respondents were predominantly (74%) female and more than half of them (56%) were married. All the respondents were above the age of 18 and nearly 43% were between the age of 26 and 35 and 32% were between the age of 36 and 45. Nearly 68% of the participants were obtained a university degree. In addition, regarding the monthly household income, 34% of the consumers had 4001–6000 TL and 52% had 6001–8000 TL.

2.4. Trust in fair trade food label The concept of trust is one of the fundamental factors to predict consumer behavior in the theoretical models. Trust is defined as “the perception of confidence in the exchange partner's reliability and integrity” (Morgan & Hunt, 1994, p. 23). Based on this definition, in this study, trust in FT label refers to consumers' perceptions about integrity and honesty related to the FT label. Specifically, as an important social claim, the trustworthiness of FT labels is crucial for the consumers' decisions to purchase these products. The importance of trust in FT claims are supported by the previous research studies. A qualitative study conducted by Sirieix, Delanchy, Remaud, Zepeda, and Gurviez (2013) found that despite positive attitudes towards organic and FT food products, consumers were skeptical about climate-friendly claims of these labels. In another study, it was also revealed that trust in FT influence self-reported and observed purchase behavior of FT products (Andorfer & Liebe, 2015). Additionally, De Pelsmacker and Janssens (2007), found a negative influence of skepticism on consumers' buying behavior of FT products. Similarly, Castaldo et al. (2009) reported that trustworthiness towards FT positively influences trust in private label FT products which in turn enhance brand loyalty and WTP a premium price. Furthermore, it was also reported that confidence plays an important role in consumers' WTP a premium for FT (Mahé, 2010). In this regard, if consumers trust in the FT food label, they are more tend to buy and pay for these products. Based on this previous argument, the next two hypotheses were expected.

3.2. Measures The measurement items used in the survey instrument were adapted from previously validated relevant scales. The items for measuring CFC were taken from Balderjahn et al. (2013). EC was measured with five items from Kim and Choi (2005). For trust in FT label, three items were derived from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). Three items for WTB were adapted from the studies of Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal (1991) and Sweeney, Soutar, and Johnson (1999). Three items for WTP were cited from Lee, Hsu, Han, and Kim (2010) and Netemeyer et al. (2004). Answers were given on five-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The written survey instrument was pilot-tested with 20 participants to increase the understandability of the items. Then, some slight

H5. Trust in FT label has a positive influence on WTB the FT food label. H6. Trust in FT label has a positive influence on WTP for FT food label. 2.5. Consumer innovativeness In a competitive marketplace, food companies struggle to produce new products to attract the attention of potential innovative consumers. These consumers are interested in purchasing new products (Goldsmith, 143

Food Research International 120 (2019) 141–147

F.A. Konuk

Table 1 Scale items, convergent validity, and reliability. Constructs

AVE

CR

α

Consciousness for fair consumption CFC1. It is important that the workers' rights were adhered to in companies CFC2. It is important that in companies no worker was subjected to forced labor CFC3. It is important that in companies no illegal child labor was involved CFC4. It is important that in companies workers were not discriminated against CFC5. It is important that the working conditions complied with the international labor standards in companies CFC6. It is important that in companies the workers were treated fairly or were fairly compensated

0.75

0.95

0.95

Environmental concern EC.1. I am extremely worried about the state of the world's environment and what it will mean for my future EC2. Mankind is severely abusing the environment EC3. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences EC4. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset EC5. Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive

0.77

0.94

0.95

Trust in fair trade label BT1: I trust FT label BT2: I rely on this label BT3: FT label is honest

0.73

0.89

0.88

Customer innovativeness CI1. Compared to my friends, I purchase more new food products CI2. In general, I am first in my circle of friends to know the new food products C13. In general, I am among the first in my circle of friends to buy a new food product when it appears C14. If I heard that new food products are available in shops, I would be interested enough to buy them C15. I will buy new food products, even if I haven't experienced them yet CI6. I buy new food products before other people do

0.76

0.95

0.95

0.90

0.96

0.96

0.91

0.97

0.97

Willingness to buy WTB1. I consider buying FT food WTB2. I will purchase a FT food WTB3.There is a strong likelihood that I will buy a FT food Willingness to pay WTP1. I am willing to spend extra in order to buy FT food WTP2. It is acceptable to pay a premium to purchase FT food WTP3. I am willing to pay more for FT food

Loadings 0.83 0.91 0.84 0.92 0.84 0.83 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.86 0.77 0.75 0.92 0.88 0.82 0.89 0.95 0.93 0.83 0.80 0.89 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.96 0.95

Measurement model fit indexes χ2/df = 2.4; CFI: 0.97; NFI: 0.96; TLI: 0.97; IFI: 0.97; RMSEA: 0.05

α = Cronbac.h's α. CR = (∑ standardized loadings)2/(∑ standardized loadings)2 + (∑ indicator measurement error). AVE = (∑ squared standardized loadings)/(∑ squared standardized loadings) + (∑ indicator measurement error). df = degrees of freedom. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; NFI=Normed Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index. IFI = Incremental Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

changes were made based on the feedback of the consumers. Table 1 presents all scale items.

Table 2 Correlations of the constructs.

4. Data analysis and results

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Following the procedure advocated by Anderson and Gerbing (1998), first, the structural validity and reliability of the six constructs with 26 items were verified via confirmatory factor analysis. After, hypotheses were tested using structural equations modeling.

Consciousness for fair consumption Environmental concern Trust in fair trade label Customer innovativeness Willingness to buy Willingness to pay

1

2

3

4

5

6

0.87 0.34 0.33 0.37 0.56 0.43

0.88 0.29 0.36 0.44 0.36

0.85 0.40 0.52 0.40

0.87 0.51 0.42

0.95 0.59

0.95

The diagonal represents the squared root of AVEs for each construct.

4.1. Validity and reliability

of AVE's are higher than the correlations between the constructs, which confirms the discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Both α and CR indicators related to each factor were above the minimum suggested value of 0.70, which confirmed the internal consistency of the constructs (Hair et al., 2010).

First, to evaluate the fit of the model to the observed data, goodness of fit indices was used. The indices which are presented in Table 1 are acceptable (Arbuckle, 2006). Standardized factor loadings of each variable were above the threshold of 0.50 and significant, which proves that all constructs in this study have adequate convergent validity (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). In addition, average variance extracted of each scale is above the recommended value of 0.50. This also indicates that all scales have sufficient convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The maximum correlation between the factors is 0.59, which is under 0.85, supporting discriminant validity (Kline, 1998, p. 60). Furthermore, with respect to the Table 1 and Table 2, all the squared roots

4.2. Test of hypothesis After validity and reliability were supported, the research hypotheses were tested with structural equations modeling. The standardized estimates of the model are depicted in Fig. 2. The fit indices of the model were acceptable (χ2/df = 3.5, CFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.94, 144

Food Research International 120 (2019) 141–147

F.A. Konuk

Consciousness for fair consumption

behavior literature related to FT with introducing a holistic framework which highlights the role of CFC, EC, Trust in FT label, CI on consumers' WTB and WTP for FT food products. Second, past research has neglected the role of CI in consumers' FT buying decisions. Therefore, this study also aimed at filling this gap analyzing the role of innovativeness in consumers' WTB and WTB a premium for FT food products. Third, this study also examined the influence of CFC on the WTP which has not been empirically examined previously. Forth, previous research studies ignored the role of EC on consumers' WTP in the context of FT consumption. Therefore, this research adds additional knowledge to the body of research related to green consumption. The findings of this study revealed that CFC positively related to consumers' WTB in line with the results of Balderjahn et al. (2013). In addition, the positive role of CFC on the WTP was also supported. These results imply that consumers who have given high importance in acceptable wages, working environment standards and environmental protection are more likely to buy and pay for FT food products. Furthermore, among the other predictors, CFC exerts the highest influence on both consumers' WTB and pay. Therefore, it can be concluded that CFC is an important determinant for consumers' WTB and WTP a premium for FT food products. Empirical findings also revealed that EC had a positive influence on consumers' WTB for FT food which also confirmed to previous research (Balderjahn et al., 2013). Similarly, the impact of EC on the WTP was also verified. Therefore, the EC can be evaluated as a useful predictive construct in the context of consumers' FT WTB and WTP a premium. The results of the hypothesis tests also indicated that trust in FT food label predicted consumers' WTB in accordance with Castaldo et al. (2009). The results also revealed the positive impact of trust in FT on the WTP a premium. This finding is similar to Castaldo et al. (2009) and Mahé (2010). Hence, this implies that trust is relevant when comprehending the predictors of FT consumption. In addition, when consumers are convinced that fair prices are paid to the workers and standard and safe working conditions are fulfilled they will be more willing to buy and pay for FT food. The findings of this study also highlighted the important role of CI on consumers' WTB FT food products. Therefore, it can be concluded that innovative consumers are more likely to buy and pay for FT food products.

H1

H2

H3

Environmental concern

Willingness to buy

H4 H5 Trust in Fair Trade Label H6

Willingness to pay

H7 Consumer Innovativeness H8

Consciousness for fair consumption

0.34* 0.25*

Environmental concern

0.17* Willingness to buy 0.15*

Trust in Fair Trade Label

0.27*

0.21*

Willingness to pay

0.23* Consumer innovativeness 0.20*

*p < 0.001 Fig. 2. Parameter estimates of the structural model.

5.2. Managerial implications

TLI = 0.94, IFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.07). The findings of the model revealed that CFC has a positive influence on WTB (β = 0.34; p < .001) and WTP (β = 0.25; ρ < 0.001), accepting H1 and H2 respectively. As predicted in H3, a positive impact of EC on the WTB, is also confirmed (β = 0.17; p < .001). It was also observed a positive relationship between EC and WTP, verifying H4 (β = 0.15; p < .001). The empirical findings also suggest a positive impact of trust in FT label on both WTP and WTB. Therefore, H5 (β = 0.27; p < .001) and H6 (β = 0.21; p < .001 were verified. As expected in H7, CI is positively related to the WTB, is also accepted (β = 0.23; p < .001). In addition, a positive role of CI on WTB is also confirmed, suggesting a support for H8 (β = 0.20; p < .001). As mentioned previously, CFC has the greatest impact on both WTB and WTP. In addition, the structural equations model explained 53% of the variance in consumers' WTB and 34% variance in WTP respectively.

The empirical findings also provide some managerial implications. In this regard, providing useful information emphasizing the benefits for workers in poor countries and the environments about FT may also trigger consumers' CFC. Especially, for young consumers, social media platforms may also improve CFC. In retail stores, attractive product display stands should also be used to give consumers' opportunity to distinguish FT food products among the other ones. This may also increase their awareness towards FT concept. As it was noted that still, limited food producers are involved in FT program, there is potential for companies which plan to enter this market. Hence, producing different products under the FT label may provide a competitive advantage for companies to reach new consumers. In addition, for food retailers, selling FT food products can be an opportunity to attract specifically socially-conscious consumers. From this research, it is also evident that supplying credible information about FT production directly motivates consumers' intent to buy and WTP for FT food products. In this regard, food companies should benefit reference groups such as celebrity endorsers and experts in the advertisements to increase trust in FT products. Websites and social media may also serve an important channel for companies to deliver detail information to convince consumers about FT production. In addition, sponsoring social events may also improve the trustworthiness of FT food producers and increase the awareness of FT consumption.

5. Conclusion and discussion 5.1. Theoretical contributions The aim of the present research was to investigate the factors influencing consumers' WTB and WTP for FT food. Four theoretical contributions derived from this empirical research. First, unlike past researches, this study adds knowledge to current academic consumer 145

Food Research International 120 (2019) 141–147

F.A. Konuk

FT also includes environmentally sensitive production. Considering consumers' lack of knowledge on this aspect, they should be educated that buying fair products would support environmental protection. Therefore, this strategy can be a good opportunity for companies to attract environmentally sensitive consumers. Consequently, environmentally sensitive consumers may be more willing to pay for FT food products. Providing convenience in a retail store is also important for FT products. In this context, FT products should be placed on individual shelves and can be easily seen in the store to decrease consumers' nonmonetary costs such as time, energy and effort. Moreover, internet shopping can be an alternative channel for companies to increase their market share by providing shopping convenience for consumers. Despite consumers' WTB for FT food products, high prices may be a barrier for them to purchase these products. Therefore, the price premiums of these products should be perceived as fair, acceptable and reasonable. The reasons behind high price should be explained to convince consumers to buy these products. The role of CI on both consumers' WTB and WTP and more for FT food products was supported with the empirical research results. This implies that innovative consumers are more likely to buy and pay more for FT labeled food products. Therefore, food companies should plan to produce different and new food products with the FT label. In addition, product packages should be unique, creative and distinctive to motivate primarily innovative consumer segment. The overall results of this study indicated a potential of FT food consumption and therefore, food companies in emerging economies should plan to invest in new products with FT labels to increase their social image and market share.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos 7.0 user's guide. PA: Spring House: Amos Development Corporation. Balderjahn, I., Peyer, M., & Paulssen, M. (2013). Consciousness for fair consumption: Conceptualization, scale development and empirical validation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(5), 546–555. Bartels, J., & Reinders, M. J. (2010). Social identification, social representations, and consumer innovativeness in an organic food context: A cross-national comparison. Food Quality and Preference, 21(4), 347–352. Bradu, C., Orquin, J. L., & Thøgersen, J. (2014). The mediated influence of a traceability label on consumer's willingness to buy the labelled product. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 283–295. Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2009). The missing link between corporate social responsibility and consumer trust: The case of fair trade products. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 1–15. Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–94. Cowart, K. O., Fo, G. L., & Wilson, A. E. (2008). A structural look at consumer innovativeness and self-congruence in new product purchases. Pschology & Marketing, 25(12), 1111–1130. Cranfield, J., Henson, S., Northey, J., & Masakure, O. (2010). An assessment of consumer preference for fair trade coffee in Toronto and Vancouver. Agribusiness, 26(2), 307–325. De Ferran, F., & Grunert, K. (2007). French fair trade coffee buyers_ purchasing motives: An exploratory study using means-end chains analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 18(2), 218–229. De Pelsmacker, D., Janssens, W., Sterckx, E., & Mielants, C. (2006). Fair-trade beliefs, attitudes and buying behaviour of Belgian consumers. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(2), 25–138. De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 363–385. De Pelsmacker, P., & Janssens, W. (2007). A model for fair trade buying behaviour: The role of perceived quantity and quality of information and of product-specific attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4), 361–380. Didier, T., & Lucie, S. (2008). Measuring consumer's willingness to pay for organic and FT products. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32, 479–490. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319. Dunlap, R. E., & Jones, R. (2002). Environmental concern: Conceptual & measurement issues. In Dunlap, and Michelson (Ed.). Handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 482– 542). London: Greenwood Press. Fairtrade International (2018). Monitoring scope and benefits of fairtrade. (9th edition). Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. Frank, B., Enkawa, T., Schvaneveldt, S. J., & Herbas Torrico, B. H. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of innate willingness to pay for innovations: Understanding motivations and consumer preferences of prospective early adopters. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 99, 252–266. Goldsmith, R. E., Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, E. B. (2003). Innovative consumers and market mavens. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11(4), 54–65. Goldsmith, R. E., & Hofacker, C. F. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(3), 209–221. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall. Hoonsopon, D. (2016). Accelerating adoption of new products of Thai consumers: The moderating roles of self-brand concept and reference group. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 17(2), 151–172. Jin Ma, Y., Littrell, M. A., & Niehm, L. (2012). Young female consumers' intentions toward fair trade consumption. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40(1), 41–63. Kim, G.-S., Lee, G. Y., & Park, K. (2010). A cross-national investigation on how ethical consumers build loyalty toward fair trade brands. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(4), 589–611. Kim, S., Littrell, M. A., & Paff Ogle, J. L. (1999). The relative importance of social responsibility as a predictor of purchase intentions for clothing. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 3(3), 207–218. Kim, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2005). Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An examination of collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 592–599. Kimura, A., Mukawa, N., Yamamoto, M., Masuda, T., Yuasa, M., Goto, S.-I., ... Wada, Y. (2012). The influence of reputational concerns on purchase intention of fair-trade foods among young Japanese adults. Food Quality and Preference, 26(2), 204–210. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. NJ: The Gilford Press. Konuk, F. A. (2018). Antecedents of pregnant women's purchase intentions and willingness to pay a premium for organic food. British Food Journal, 120(7), 1561–1573. Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503–520. Lee, J.-S., Hsu, L.-T.(. J.)., Han, H., & Kim, Y. (2010). Understanding how consumers view green hotels: How a hotel's green image can influence behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(7), 901–914. Lee, M. Y., Jackson, V., Miller-Spillman, K. A., & Ferrell, E. (2015). Female consumers' intention to be involved in fair-trade product consumption in the US: The role of

5.3. Limitations and future research Despite the contributions of this study, it has also some limitations. First, due to the objective of this study, empirical data were obtained from respondents using convenience sampling. Therefore, future research should be conducted in a more diverse and larger sample from different cities to increase the generalizability of the results. In addition, cross-cultural studies would also be helpful to compare the results of the different countries. The current study has not focused on specific FT food products. In future research, it would be useful to compare different FT food products to deepen the knowledge about consumers' behavioral intentions towards FT food. In addition, it would be helpful for future studies to identify factors and their influences on non-food products such as apparel and furniture. Knowing more about the factors that may influence consumers' behavioral intentions would also offer important information to FT product producers. Although the present study encompassed a broad range of possible predictors of consumers' behavioral intentions, future research may also investigate the additional factors that may determine consumers' WTB and pay for FT food products. In the future, it would be also fruitful to make longitudinal studies to deepen the understanding of the consumers' FT purchase behavior. In addition, experimental research design would also provide additional knowledge and insights regarding FT consumption. References Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1998). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. Andorfer, V. A., & Liebe, U. (2015). Do information, price, or morals influence ethical consumption? A natural field experiment and customer survey on the purchase of fair trade coffee. Social Science Research, 52, 330–350. Andorfer, V. A., & Liebe, U. (2012). Research on Fair Trade Consumption—A Review. J. Bus. Eth. 106, 415–435. Annunziata, A., Ianuario, S., & Pascale, P. (2011). Consumers' attitudes toward labelling of ethical products: The case of organic and fair trade products. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 17(5), 518–535.

146

Food Research International 120 (2019) 141–147

F.A. Konuk previous experience, product features, and perceived benefits. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 23, 91–98. Mahé, T. (2010). Are stated preferences confirmed by purchasing behaviours? The case of fair trade-certified bananas in Switzerland. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(2), 301–315. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., & Wirth, F. (2004). Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 209–224. Paul, J., Modi, A., & Patel, J. (2016). Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 29, 123–134. Prakash, G., & Pathak, P. (2017). Intention to buy eco-friendly packaged products among young consumers of India: A study on developing nation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 385–393. Rashid, M. S., & Byun, S. E. (2018). Are consumers willing to go the extra mile for fair trade products made in a developing country? A comparison with made in USA products at different prices. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 41, 201–210. Raynolds, L. T., & Bennett, E. (2015). Introduction to research on fair trade. In L. T. Raynolds, & E. Bennett (Eds.). Handbook of research on fair trade (pp. 3–23). London: Edward Elgar.

Rousseau, S. (2015). The role of organic and fair trade labels when choosing chocolate. Food Quality and Preference, 44, 92–100. Sarti, S., Darnall, N., & Testa, F. (2018). Market segmentation of consumers based on their actual sustainability and health-related purchases. Journal of Cleaner Production, 192, 270–280. Sirieix, L., Delanchy, M., Remaud, H., Zepeda, L., & Gurviez, P. (2013). Consumers' perceptions of individual and combined sustainable food labels: A UK pilot investigation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(2), 143–151. Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). The role of perceived risk in the quality-value relationship: A study in a retail environment. Journal of Retailing, 75(1), 77–105. Trudel, R., & Cotte, J. (2009). Does it pay to be good? MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(2), 61–68. Verhoef, P. C., & Van Doorn, J. (2016). Segmenting consumers according to their purchase of products with organic, fair-trade, and health labels. Journal of Marketing Behavior, 2(1), 19–37. Witkowski, T. H., & Reddy, S. (2010). Antecedents of ethical consumption activities in Germany and the United States. Australasian Marketing Journal, 18(1), 8–14. Zander, K., & Hamm, U. (2010). Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic food. Food Quality and Preference, 21(5), 495–503.

147