IntroductionTop
Consumers’ interest, knowledge, and concern on sustainability issues have tremendously risen in the last decade. The integration of sustainability to all facets of consumption has never been this vital in almost all industries. The increasing demand for clean and healthy nutrition together with the increasing concern towards the environment and sustainability also has a reflection in the food industry. Food industry is moving towards producing in sustainable ways in accordance with expectations and global challenges (Santeramo et al., 2018; Cummins et al., 2019); thus, organic food studies are gaining ground.
In the present research, since health and environment are the most common motivators of organic food consumption, health consciousness and eco-friendly LOHAS (life style of health and sustainability; which means having a lifestyle that focuses on living in a sustainable and healthy way) tendency were examined as personality characteristics. Yadav (2016) asserts that environmental concern is an altruistic value while health concern is an egoistic value, so this research captures both dimensions. The relationships between eco-friendly LOHAS tendency, health consciousness, and perceived value of organic food were investigated in the study. Furthermore, how eco-friendly LOHAS tendency and health consciousness affect organic food purchase intention was investigated.
Perceived value of organic food construct is measured multidimensionally in this research. The utilized dimensions are defined as follows:
— Financial value is "the utility derived from the product due to the reduction of its perceived short term and long-term costs" (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Price is an indicator of quality and reflects consumers’ desire to buy something worthy (Seegebarth et al., 2016).
— Functional value is “the perceived utility acquired from an alternative's capacity for functional, utilitarian, or physical performance" (Sheth et al., 1991) and implies rational economic evaluations (Roig et al., 2006). Functional value is related to the expectation of excellent quality (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). In terms of food, perceived quality is customers’ evaluation of the guarantee or supremacy of food products (Wang, 2013).
— Emotional value is "the utility derived from the feelings or affective states that a product generates” (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Emotions include the strongest psychological reactions (Aertsens et al., 2009). In their study, Bauer et al. (2013) found that hedonism is one of the main reasons for purchasing organic food.
— Social value is "the utility derived from the product's ability to enhance social self-concept" (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Impression management theory indicates that consumers are motivated by the positive social image, which is an outcome of their purchases (Wiedmann et al., 2007).
This study aims to frame consumers' value perception of organic food with antecedents based on personality characteristics and consequence of behavioral intention.
Material and methodsTop
Organic food purchase intention
The concept of organic food arose at the end of the 19th century, but the concept drew the attention of the world of agriculture, society, and politics in the 1970s with the increasing awareness of environmental crisis (Vogt, 2007). Organic food is both a food production system and a philosophy (Stockdale & Watson, 2008). Organic food is defined as natural food that does not include chemicals and genetically modified organisms (Rana & Paul, 2017) whereas organic food production system is "agriculture which does not use artificial chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and animals reared in more natural conditions, without the routine use of drugs, antibiotics, and wormers" (Seyfang, 2006). Another distinctive feature of organic foods is that they provide both ecological and social benefits, together with added individual benefits. These benefits can be summarized as reducing soil, water, and air pollution, energy conservation, protecting the environment, biodiversity and animal welfare, as well as increasing the employment rate in rural areas (Cerjak et al., 2010).
Food-related learning can take many forms ranging from unconscious conditioning to cognitive learning. Since food choice is a learned behavior, it can change (Köster & Mojet, 2007). The primary aim of marketers is to increase the purchase intention of target consumers (Agarwal & Teas, 2001). This aim can be achieved by changing eating habits and purchase behavior respectively. The literature on organic food consumption emphasized certain factors that motivate consumers to buy organic food. The main reasons that motivate consumers to buy organic foods gathered around health and environment (Chen, 2009; Bryła, 2016; Singh & Verma, 2017; Hansen et al., 2018). Some studies focused on values in order to study the motives for buying organic food (Thøgersen et al., 2016; Yadav, 2016). Other studies tested organic food purchase intention and organic food purchase behavior based on the theory of planned behavior and theory of reasoned action (Arvola et al., 2008; Yazdanpanah & Forouzani, 2015; Basha & Lal, 2019).
Köster (2009) argued that rational decision-making theories are sufficient for technical purposes but inadequate for hedonic researches. Traditionally, studies that focused on cognitive values were based on the assumption that consumers shop rationally came into prominence. However, today, consumers are not only motivated by rational reasons. Fifita et al. (2019) proposed that organic food resembles luxury products. Thus, perceived value of organic food should not be considered only from the cognitive perspective. Furthermore, affective side of organic food consumption is neglected in the literature. Therefore, this research uses theory of consumption values, which has both cognitive and affective dimensions to explain organic food purchase intention.
Theory of consumption values
Theory of consumption values has been developed to help to explain and predict consumer behavior by Sheth et al. (1991) by utilizing sociology, psychology, consumer behavior, and economy. They suggest that values affect consumers' choice behavior. One of the most widely accepted definitions of perceived value is Zeithalm's (1988): "perceived value is the consumer's overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given." Perceived value is reviewed as the result of the evaluation of the rewards from the offered product and sacrifices to get the offered product in this perspective (McDougall & Levesque, 2000; Yang & Peterson, 2004; Carlson et al., 2015). This exchange explains why consumer value is traditionally considered as a function of quality and price (Gounaris et al., 2007). This perspective can be defined as cognitive or rational decision making (Sweeney et al., 1999; Sánchez-Fernández & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2009) and belongs to the uni-dimensional approach. From this perspective, perceived value is a single concept and it can be measured based on quality-price relationship (Sánchez-Fernández et al., 2009). However, consumer decision-making process is moving from cognitive aspects to more comprehensive researches that include intrinsic aspects (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001; Gounaris et al., 2007). Multidimensional approach to consumer value explains value by considering both cognitive and affective aspects (Sánchez et al., 2006).
On the other hand, perceived value of organic food is commonly measured with one dimension measures in the literature (e.g., Lee & Hwang, 2016; De Toni et al., 2018; Konuk, 2018). However, measuring organic food with one dimension is insufficient to reflect the perceived value of the organic food industry. By taking into account the features of organic food, the present study followed multidimensional approach and utilized financial value, functional value, social value and emotional value to explain perceived value of organic food. The cognitive dimension of perceived value is related to the comparison between "getting" (through perceived quality) and "giving" (through paying and making an effort). On the other hand, affective dimension of perceived value is related to feelings and the effects created on the social environment of consumers (Sánchez et al., 2006; Koller et al., 2011). Therefore, in our study, financial and functional value represent cognitive dimension while social and emotional value represent affective dimension.
Researchers suggest that perceived value in organic food industry affects consumer purchase intention (de Toni et al., 2018; Konuk, 2018; Le‐Anh & Nguyen‐To, 2020). Lee & Hwang (2016) proved that this effect is valid for heavy and light buyers. Therefore,
H1: Perceived value of organic food is positively related to organic food purchase intention.
H1a. Perceived financial value of organic food is positively related to organic food purchase intention.
H1b. Perceived functional value of organic food is positively related to organic food purchase intention.
H1c. Perceived emotional value of organic food is positively related to organic food purchase intention.
H1d. Perceived social value of organic food is positively related to organic food purchase intention.
Eco-friendly LOHAS tendency
Environmental, social and economic sustainability are at the center of organic farming (Stockdale & Watson, 2008). There is a huge literature on the relationship between environment and organic food consumption. Organic food itself represents a transition towards a more sustainable production (Seyfang, 2008). Environmentally and socially conscious consumers are assumed to buy more organic food because that is a sign of interest in natural farming procedures (Grunert & Juhl, 1995). Organic food consumption is considered as an environmentally friendly choice and included in green consumption (Gilg et al., 2005; de Magistris & Gracia, 2016; Vega-Zamora et al., 2019). Loureiro et al. (2001) proved that consumers who have strong environmental concerns prefer organic apples.
As the interest towards environmental and social consequences of consumption increases, LOHAS, which ref lects a conscious lifestyle, emerges (Sung & Woo, 2019). In line with this lifestyle, eco-friendly LOHAS tendency comprises of being aware of the environment, living in an environmental friendly way and using environmental friendly products (In-Sil, 2007). LOHAS consumers are regular organic food consumers (Kim et al., 2013; Higuchi & Dávalos, 2016) and they are interested in organic and local products that are produced sustainably (Bosona & Gebresenbet, 2018). Kristiansen et al. (2010) defined LOHAS consumers as the engine room of organic market.
Environmental consciousness positively affects perceived value of organic food (de Toni et al., 2018). In addition, ecological value is associated with both cognitive and affective value dimensions (Koller et al., 2011). Also, Lee & Yun (2015) found that the ecological welfare attribute of organic food is relevant for both cognitive and affective attitudes towards organic food.
H2: Eco-friendly LOHAS tendency is positively related to intention to purchase organic food.
H3. Eco-friendly LOHAS tendency is positively related to perceived value of organic food.
H3a. Eco-friendly LOHAS tendency is positively related to perceived financial value of organic food.
H3b. Eco-friendly LOHAS tendency is positively related to perceived functional value of organic food.
H3c. Eco-friendly LOHAS tendency is positively related to perceived emotional value of organic food.
H3d. Eco-friendly LOHAS tendency is positively related to perceived social value of organic food.
Health consciousness
Health is one of the significant motivating factors of organic food consumption (Oraman & Unakıtan, 2010; Fandos-Herrera, 2016). Organic food has various advantages for human health, but the fact that organic food consumers tend to have healthier lifestyles in general hinders making strict judgments (Mie, 2017). Furthermore, studies point that there is no direct evidence that organic and conventional foods differ in terms of nutritional value (Bourn & Prescott, 2002; Forman &Silverstein, 2012). Although health benefits asserted to organic food are often difficult to quantify (Shafie & Rennie, 2012) and there is no specific evidence that organic food is healthier than conventional foods, the fact that organic foods have fewer additives make consumers perceive organic foods to be healthier (Chen, 2007; Prada et al., 2017). Organic food consumers take more responsibility for their health and are more likely to take preventive health action (Schifferstein & Ophuist, 1998).
Health consciousness is “the degree to which health concerns are integrated into a person’s daily activities” (Jayanti & Burns, 1998). Since health consciousness causes healthy nutrition (Oraman, 2014; Shin & Mattila, 2019), health consciousness affects organic food purchase intention (Smith & Paladino, 2010; Hsu et al., 2016; Rong-Da Liang & Lim, 2020).
H4: Health consciousness is positively related to organic food purchase intention.
H5. Health consciousness is positively related to perceived value of organic food.
H5a. Health consciousness is positively related to perceived financial value of organic food.
H5b. Health consciousness is positively related to perceived functional value of organic food.
H5c. Health consciousness is positively related to perceived emotional value of organic food.
H5d.Health consciousness is positively related to perceived social value of organic food.
Based on the literature, Fig. 1 presents a proposed conceptual model of intention to purchase organic food.
Research method
The study uses a quantitative research design, and data were collected utilizing a structured questionnaire. There is an introduction to the questionnaire that defines organic food. Before conducting the field study, a pilot study was applied to consumers who answered the questions studiously and gave feedback. After that, some of the wordings were changed to make the questionnaire more coherent. The final questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part of the questionnaire includes questions to measure eco-friendly LOHAS tendency, health consciousness, perceived value of organic food, and organic food purchase intention variables. All items in the scales were measured using a 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Table 1 shows the sources of the measures. The second part of the questionnaire focused on questions related to the participants’ socio-demographic characteristics.
Data were collected from a non-student convenience sample of consumers in Istanbul, Turkey. According to FiBL survey (2019), Turkey is included in the top 20 list of the world’s organic agricultural land by country. In the data collection process, both online and physical channels were used. Four hundred fifty people answered the questionnaire. After eliminating the questionnaires with missing values, data from 443 questionnaires were used for further analysis. Table 2 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of participants. Male (45.8%) and female (54.2%) participants are equally distributed. According to the age, 38.6% of the participants are between the ages of 27-35 and 26.6% are between the ages of 18-26. In terms of education, 47.6% of the participants are graduated from university and 43.1% of the participants have post-graduate degree. In terms of marital status, 62.5% of the participants are married and 37.5% of the participants are single. Furthermore, 22.6% of the participants have a monthly household income above 10,000 TL[1] . Most of the participants (58%) have 3-4 people in their household. In addition, 61.6% of the participants do not have children.
The research model was analyzed by using the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) method. PLS-SEM is a components-based structural equation method which simultaneously models the structural paths and measurement paths (Chin et al., 2003). This method is mostly useful for explaining the causal relationships in communication and behavioral studies and chosen for its superiority in complex models in those areas (Lowry & Gaskin, 2014). PLS-SEM is suitable and chosen for food studies that specifically examine healthy food (Kim et al., 2013), agri-food markets (Salazar-Ordóñez et al., 2018; Salazar-Ordóñez & Rodríguez-Entrena, 2019), and organic food (Bravo et al., 2013; Chekima et al., 2019). As suggested by Anderson & Gerbing (1988), this study follows two-stage analytical procedures, which are assessing the measurement model and then assessing the structural model. To assess validity, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and discriminant validity were checked. AVE should be greater than 0.50 (Hair et al., 2016). In order to assess discriminant validity, Fornell-Larchker criterion (1981) and cross-loadings were used. All items’ loadings should exceed 0.70 (Chin, 2010). Furthermore, VIF values should be below the suggested critical level of 5 (Hair et al., 2011).
Figure 1. Conceptual model. Source: Authors’ elaboration
Table 1. Sources of the measures used in the research
Table 2. Socio-demographic profile of participants
TL: Turkish Lira (1 euro ≈ 10 TL).
Results Top
Assessment of the measurement model
In order to test the measurement model; compo-site reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity were examined. Cronbach alpha, rho_A, and composite reliability were checked, and as seen in Table 3, they were all above 0.70. Therefore, all measures of the research are deemed reliable. Table 3 also shows that AVE values were > 0.50. Furthermore, Table 3 demonstrates that all items’ loadings exceed 0.70. Table 4 shows correlation coefficients matrix and square roots of AVE’s. As seen in Table 4, square root of the AVE for each construct is greater than all of the correlations among the construct and other constructs used in the research. Cross loadings criterion was also examined to assess discriminant validity (Table S1 [suppl]). Each indicator had the highest loadings on the construct they belong to, indicating that cross-loadings criterion was fulfilled.
Table 3. Scale properties
AVE: average variance extracted. CR: composite reliability.
Assessment of the structural model
The structural model for intention to purchase organic food was assessed in the second part of the analysis. Collinearity statistics (VIF) should be checked before path analysis. Since all VIF values were below the suggested critical level of 5, there was not a problem related to collinearity statistics (VIF) (Table S2 [suppl]). Table 5 demonstrates the results of the structural model analysis. Affective dimension of the perceived value, which consists of perceived emotional value (β=0.282, p<0.01), perceived social value (β=0.099, p<0.05), and characteristics that include eco-friendly LOHAS tendency (β= 0.292, p<0.01), and health consciousness (β=0.140, p<0.05), were positively related to organic food purchase intention, supporting hypotheses H1c, H1d, H2 and H4. Nevertheless, financial value (β=0.056, p>0.05) and functional value (β=0.052, p>0.05) of organic food which belong to the cognitive dimension of perceived value, were not related to intention to purchase organic food. Therefore, H1a and H1b were not accepted.
In addition, eco-friendly LOHAS tendency was positively related to perceived financial value (β=0.265, p<0.01), perceived functional value (β=0.175, p<0.05), perceived emotional value (β=0.427, p<0.01), and perceived social value (β=0.159, p<0.05). These results confirm H3a, H3b, H3c and H3d.
The findings revealed that, health consciousness was positively related to perceived financial value (β=0.183, p<0.01), perceived functional value (β=0.313, p<0.01), perceived emotional value (β=0.278, p<0.01), and perceived social value (β=0.127, p<0.05). Therefore H5a, H5b, H5c, and H5d were supported.
The model explained 51% of the variance in organic food purchase intention, which was the primary purpose. Furthermore, the model explained 41.2% of the variance in perceived emotional value, 19.7% of the variance in perceived functional value, 16.3% of the variance in perceived financial value, and 6.4% of the variance in perceived social value.
Table 4. Results of Fornell-Larcker Criterion.
HC: health consciousness. EV: emotional value. ECOLOHAS: eco-friendly LOHAS tendency.
FINV: financial value. FUNCV: functional value. PI: purchase intention. SV: social value.
Discussion Top
This study presents several contributions to organic food literature and the organic food industry. First, it is one of the limited numbers of studies that measure perceived value of organic food multidimensionally. This study proposed a personality-perception-behavioral intention framework to explain organic food purchase intention in a developing country by utilizing the theory of perceived values. Second, this study also presented evidence that even the food category that may be primarily considered as a functional product can have affective side, which inf luences purchase intention. This study contributes to the literature by underlining the changing position of organic food, especially in developing countries.
This study showed that emotional value and social value, which are included in affective values, affect organic food purchase intention. On the other hand, financial value and functional value, which are classified as cognitive values, do not affect organic food purchase intention. This finding is noteworthy. Barauskaite et al. (2018) proved that hedonic and social motivation affect the purchase decision even for functional foods that offer specific health benefits beyond basic nutrition. Another study revealed that functional value of green products does not affect purchase intention in a develo-ping country, Pakistan (Khan & Mohsin, 2017). Also, a study conducted in Taiwan points out that psycholo-gical benefits affect consumers’ green product choice behavior, whereas functional benefits such as quality and price do not have any effect (Lin & Huang, 2012). That may be attributed to the fact that in case of green products, the desire to do something good for the envi-ronment dominates the price factor. The same principle applies to organic foods since organic food is included in green foods. Hence, these results are congruent with this research’s findings. Furthermore, the finding that there is no significant relationship between functional value and organic food purchase intention can be attri-buted to the fact that quality attributes of organic food cannot be directly observed as organic food is classi-fied as credence goods (McCluskey, 2000; Nuttavuthi-sit & Thøgersen, 2017).
The price of organic food is higher than conventio-nal alternatives and accordingly, buying organic food may require paying a premium price. According to the commodity theory, if something is unavailable, it be-comes more valuable; thus, scarcity increases value (Brock, 1968). Commodity theory is related to the psy-chological effects of scarcity (Lynn, 1991). The theory claims that the value of the commodity is not only de-pendent on internal and functional qualifications, but also supply and demand (Verhallen, 1982). Since the organic food market is still not matured in developing countries, the price premium is higher. Under these circumstances, organic food has become a premium pro-duct in the eye of consumers, especially in developing countries.
Another noteworthy finding of this study is that per-ceived social value of organic food positively influences organic food purchase intention because social value is of-ten considered to be important for products that have high visibility. However, this study proves that even the pro-ducts that are characterized as functional or utilitarian are often chosen for their social value as suggested by Sheth et al. (1991). Expressive value of food choice stems from the effect of food choice on group membership (Shin & Mattila, 2019).
Furthermore, the results of the study indicate that health consciousness and eco-friendly LOHAS tendency positively affect intention to purchase organic food. The-se findings are also supported by previous research (Gra-cia & de Magistris, 2007; de Magistris & Gracia, 2008; Ueasangkomsatea & Santiteerakul, 2016). Health-cons-cious and environmentally conscious consumers are both valuable segments for organic food marketers, but envi-ronmentally conscious consumers should be prioritized since eco-friendly LOHAS tendency has a bigger effect on purchase intention of organic food (β= 0.292, p<0.01). The finding that eco-friendly LOHAS tendency signifi-cantly increases perceived functional, economic, emotio-nal and social value is congruent with the study of Koller et al. (2011) which points that eco-friendly value affects functional, economic, emotional and social value. Based on the results, influencing environmentally conscious and health-conscious consumer segments can help expand the organic food market.
From a managerial perspective, this study consists of valuable insights for organic food marketers, retailers, and promoters. Lack of supply, limited distribution, and high prices have put organic food in a unique position in the market and organic food resembles luxury goods. The f indings of this study point out that organic food retailers should place more emphasis on affective value creation. Also, organic food retailers should use affective messages that stimulate emotions in their strategies. Although emotional value and social value were positively related to organic food purchase intention, emotional value had a bigger effect on organic food purchase intention (β=0.282, p<0.01). Therefore emotional value should be the first element of value-creating process of organic food companies. Also, the marketers of organic food should include health and environmental benefits of organic food products in their marketing strategy. However, altruistic value of organic food consumption should be prioritized in the communication mix since eco-friendly LOHAS tendency has bigger effect on purchase intention (β=0.292, p<0.01) as also proved by Bravo et al. (2013). Also, companies should emphasize emotional value of organic food (β=0.427, p<0.01) for consumers who have a high level of eco-friendly LOHAS tendency and functional value of organic food (β=0.313, p<0.01), for consumers who have a high level of health consciousness.
In spite of making several contributions to the literature, this study has some limitations. Although Istanbul is a heterogeneous city with diverse population, collecting data from a single city in Turkey from a convenience sampling is a limitation. Rana & Paul (2017) state that there is a need to investigate developing countries where the market size is smaller since there might be different reasons that affect the consumption of food. Comparing different countries which are at different stages of organic food market development in future studies can provide fruitful results. Besides, explained variance of perceived social value of organic food is low in the study since the model only included characteristics that are related to organic food purchase intention. Future studies may focus on a single value at a time and include the most relevant personality traits regarding that value dimension. This study investigated intention to consume organic food in general; it is recommended that future studies test the proposed model on specific organic food categories.
Table 5. Results of hypotheses testing
**p < 0.01, *p<0.05.
ReferencesTop
| ○ | Aertsens J, Verbeke W, Mondelaers K, Van Huylenbroeck G, 2009. Personal determinants of organic food consumption: a review. Brit Food J 111 (10): 1140-1167. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910992961 |
| ○ | Agarwal S, Teas RK, 2001. Perceived value: mediating role of perceived risk. J Market Theor Pract 9 (4): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2001.11501899 |
| ○ | Anderson JC, Gerbing DW, 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103 (3): 411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 |
| ○ | Arvola A, Vassallo M, Dean M, Lampila P, Saba A, Lähteenmäki L, Shepherd R, 2008. Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: The role of affective and moral attitudes in the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite 50 (2-3): 443-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.09.010 |
| ○ | Barauskaite D, Gineikiene J, Fennis BM, Auruskeviciene V, Yamaguchi M, Kondo N, 2018. Eating healthy to impress: How conspicuous consumption, perceived self-control motivation, and descriptive normative influence determine functional food choices. Appetite 131: 59-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.08.015 |
| ○ | Basha MB, Lal D, 2019. Indian consumers' attitudes towards purchasing organically produced foods: An empirical study. J Clean Prod 215: 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.098 |
| ○ | Bauer HH, Heinrich D, Schäfer DB, 2013. The effects of organic labels on global, local, and private brands: more hype than substance? J Bus Res 66 (8): 1035-1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.028 |
| ○ | Bosona T, Gebresenbet G, 2018. Swedish consumers' perception of food quality and sustainability in relation to organic food production. Foods 7 (4): 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods7040054 |
| ○ | Bourn D, Prescott J, 2002. A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 42 (1): 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408690290825439 |
| ○ | Bravo CP, Cordts A, Schulze B, Spiller A, 2013. Assessing determinants of organic food consumption using data from the German National Nutrition Survey II. Food Qual Prefer 28 (1): 60-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.08.010 |
| ○ | Brock TC, 1968. Implications of commodity theory for value change. In Psychological foundations of attitudes; Greenwald, AG, Brock TC, Ostrom TM (eds.). pp: 243-275. Academic, NY. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4832-3071-9.50016-7 |
| ○ | Bryła P, 2016. Organic food consumption in Poland: Motives and barriers. Appetite 105: 737-746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.012 |
| ○ | Carlson J, O'Cass A, Ahrholdt D, 2015. Assessing customers' perceived value of the online channel of multichannel retailers: A two country examination. J Retail Consum Serv 27: 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.07.008 |
| ○ | Cerjak M, Mesić Ž, Kopić M, Kovačić D, Markovina J, 2010. What motivates consumers to buy organic food: Comparison of Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, and Slovenia. J Food Prod Mark 16 (3): 278-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2010.484745 |
| ○ | Chekima B, Chekima K, Chekima K, 2019. Understanding factors underlying actual consumption of organic food: The moderating effect of future orientation. Food Qual Prefer 74: 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.12.010 |
| ○ | Chen MF, 2007. Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods in Taiwan: Moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Qual Prefer 18 (7): 1008-1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.04.004 |
| ○ | Chen MF, 2009. Attitude toward organic foods among Taiwanese as related to health consciousness, environmental attitudes, and the mediating effects of a healthy lifestyle. Brit Food J 111 (2): 165-178. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910931986 |
| ○ | Chin WW, 2010. How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of partial least squares pp: 655-690. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_29 |
| ○ | Chin WW, Marcolin BL, Newsted PR, 2003. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf Syst Res 14 (2): 189-217. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018 |
| ○ | Cummins E, Hospido A, Van Impe JF, 2019. Quantitative tools for sustainable food and energy in the food chain. Food Res Int 115: 126-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.08.026 |
| ○ | De Toni D, Eberle L, Larentis F, Milan GS, 2018. Antecedents of perceived value and repurchase intention of organic food. J Food Prod Mark 24 (4): 456-475. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2017.1314231 |
| ○ | De Magistris T, Gracia A, 2016. Consumers' willingness-to-pay for sustainable food products: the case of organically and locally grown almonds in Spain. J Clean Prod 118: 97-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.050 |
| ○ | Fandos-Herrera C, 2016. Exploring the mediating role of trust in food products with Protected Designation of Origin. The case of Jamón de Teruel. Span J Agric Res 14 (1): e0102. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2016141-7169 |
| ○ | FiBL & IFOAM, 2019. Organic International. The World of Organic Agriculture Statistics and Emerging Trends. https://www.organic-world.net/yearbook/yearbook-2019/pdf.html [03.04.2019]. |
| ○ | Fifita IM, Seo Y, Ko E, Conroy D, Hong D, 2019. Fashioning organics: Wellbeing, sustainability, and status consumption practices. J Bus Res 117: 664-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.005 |
| ○ | Forman J, Silverstein J, 2012. Organic foods: health and environmental advantages and disadvantages. Pediatrics 130 (5): e1406-e1415. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-2579 |
| ○ | Fornell C, Larcker, DF, 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18 (1): 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 |
| ○ | Gilg A, Barr S, Ford N, 2005. Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures 37 (6): 481-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2004.10.016 |
| ○ | Gounaris SP, Tzempelikos NA, Chatzipanagiotou K, 2007. The relationships of customer-perceived value, satisfaction, loyalty and behavioral intentions. J Relatsh Mark 6 (1): 63-87. https://doi.org/10.1300/J366v06n01_05 |
| ○ | Gracia A, de-Magistris T, 2007. Organic food product purchase behaviour: a pilot study for urban consumers in the South of Italy. Span J Agric Res 5 (4): 439-451. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2007054-5356 |
| ○ | Grunert SC, Juhl HJ, 1995. Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods. J Econ Psychol 16 (1): 39-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(94)00034-8 |
| ○ | Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, 2011. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract 19 (2): 139-152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202 |
| ○ | Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M, 2016. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.15358/9783800653614 |
| ○ | Hansen T, Sørensen MI, Eriksen MLR, 2018. How the interplay between consumer motivations and values influences organic food identity and behavior. Food Policy 74: 39-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.11.003 |
| ○ | Higuchi A, Dávalos J, 2016. Unveiling Peruvian organic consumers demand for organics: A latent class approach. Cienc Investig Agrar 43 (3): 408-417. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-16202016000300007 |
| ○ | Hsu SY, Chang CC, Lin TT, 2016. An analysis of purchase intentions toward organic food on health consciousness and food safety with/under structural equation modeling. Brit Food J 118 (1): 200-216. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-11-2014-0376 |
| ○ | In-Sil P, 2017. The relationships among eco-friendly LOHAS tendency, well-being tendency, health consciousness, and life-satisfaction of line dance participants of middle and old-aged women. Res Dance Phys Educ 1 (1): 53-70. https://doi.org/10.26584/RDPE.2017.1.1.53 |
| ○ | Jayanti RK, Burns AC, 1998. The antecedents of preventive health care behavior: An empirical study. Acad Mark Sci Rev 26 (1): 6-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070398261002 |
| ○ | Khan SN, Mohsin M, 2017. The power of emotional value: Exploring the effects of values on green product consumer choice behavior. J Clean Prod 150: 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.187 |
| ○ | Kim MJ, Lee CK, Gon Kim W, Kim JM, 2013. Relationships between lifestyle of health and sustainability and healthy food choices for seniors. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 25 (4): 558-576. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111311322925 |
| ○ | Koller M, Floh, A, Zauner, A, 2011. Further insights into perceived value and consumer loyalty: A "green" perspective. Psychol Mark 28 (12): 1154-1176. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20432 |
| ○ | Konuk FA, 2018. The role of store image, perceived quality, trust and perceived value in predicting consumers' purchase intentions towards organic private label food. J Retail Consum Serv 43: 304-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.04.011 |
| ○ | Köster EP, 2009. Diversity in the determinants of food choice: A psychological perspective. Food Qual Prefer 20 (2): 70-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.11.002 |
| ○ | Köster EP, Mojet J, 2007. Theories of food choice development. In: Understanding consumers of food products; Frewer L, Van Trijp HCM (eds.). pp: 93-124. Woodhead Publ, Abbington Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845692506.1.93 |
| ○ | Kristiansen P, Bez N, Mitchel, A, Monk A, 2010. BFA 2010 Australian Organic Market Report 2010, Biological Farmers of Australia, Brisbane, Australia. |
| ○ | Le‐Anh T, Nguyen‐To T, 2020. Consumer purchasing behaviour of organic food in an emerging market. Int J Consum Stud 44 (6): 563-573. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12588 |
| ○ | Lee HJ, Yun ZS, 2015. Consumers' perceptions of organic food attributes and cognitive and affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions toward organic food. Food Qual Prefer 39: 259-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.06.002 |
| ○ | Lee HJ, Hwang J, 2016. The driving role of consumers' perceived credence attributes in organic food purchase decisions: A comparison of two groups of consumers. Food Qual Prefer 54: 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.07.011 |
| ○ | Lin PC, Huang YH, 2012. The influence factors on choice behavior regarding green products based on the theory of consumption values. J Clean Prod 22 (1): 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.002 |
| ○ | Loureiro M, McCluskey JJ, Mittelhammer RC, 2001. Assessing consumer preferences for organic, eco-labeled, and regular apples. J Agr Econ 26 (2): 404-416. |
| ○ | Lowry PB, Gaskin J, 2014. Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 57 (2): 123-146. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2014.2312452 |
| ○ | Lynn M, 1991. Scarcity effects on value: A quantitative review of the commodity theory literature. Psychol Mark 8 (1): 43-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220080105 |
| ○ | McCluskey JJ, 2000. A game theoretic approach to organic foods: An analysis of asymmetric information and policy. Agric Econ Res Rev 29 (1): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500001386 |
| ○ | McDougall GH, Levesque T, 2000. Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived value into the equation. J Serv Mark 14 (5): 392-410. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040010340937 |
| ○ | Mie A, Andersen HR, Gunnarsson S, Kahl J, Kesse-Guyot E, Rembiałkowska E, Grandjean P, 2017. Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: a comprehensive review. J Environ Health 16 (1): 111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-017-0315-4 |
| ○ | Nasır AV, Karakaya F, 2014. Consumer segments in organic foods market. J Consum Mark 31 (4): 263-277. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-01-2014-0845 |
| ○ | Nuttavuthisit K, Thøgersen J, 2017. The importance of consumer trust for the emergence of a market for green products: The case of organic food. J Bus Ethics 140 (2): 323-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2690-5 |
| ○ | Oraman Y, 2014. An analytic study of organic food industry as part of healthy eating habit in Turkey: Market growth, challenges and prospects. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 150: 1030-1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.115 |
| ○ | Oraman Y, Unakitan G, 2010. Analysis of factors influencing organic fruit and vegetable purchasing in Istanbul, Turkey. Ecol Food Nutr 49 (6): 452-466. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2010.524105 |
| ○ | Prada M, Garrido MV, Rodrigues D, 2017. Lost in processing? Perceived healthfulness, taste and caloric content of whole and processed organic food. Appetite 114: 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.031 |
| ○ | Rana J, Paul J, 2017. Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food: A review and research agenda. J Retail Consum Serv 38: 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.06.004 |
| ○ | Roig JCF, Garcia JS, Tena MAM, Monzonis JL, 2006. Customer perceived value in banking services. Int J Bank Mark 24 (5): 266-283. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320610681729 |
| ○ | Rong-Da Liang A, Lim WM, 2020. Why do consumers buy organic food? Results from an S-O-R model. Asia Pac J Mark Logist 33 (2): 394-415. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2019-0171 |
| ○ | Salazar-Ordóñez M, Schuberth F, Cabrera ER, Arriaza M, Rodríguez-Entrena M, 2018. The effects of person-related and environmental factors on consumers' decision-making in agri-food markets: The case of olive oils. Food Res Int 112: 412-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.06.031 |
| ○ | Salazar-Ordóñez M, Rodríguez-Entrena M, 2019. Hybridizing consumer behavioural approaches on agrifood markets: Attitudes, judgements and choices. Span J Agric Res 17 (2): e0109. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2019172-14155 |
| ○ | Sánchez J, Callarisa L, Rodriguez RM, Moliner MA, 2006. Perceived value of the purchase of a tourism product. Tour Manag 27 (3): 394-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.11.007 |
| ○ | Sánchez-Fernández R, Iniesta-Bonillo MA, 2009. Efficiency and quality as economic dimensions of perceived value: Conceptualization, measurement, and effect on satisfaction. J Retail Consum Serv 16 (6): 425-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2009.06.003 |
| ○ | Sánchez-Fernández R, Iniesta-Bonillo MA, Holbrook MB, 2009. The conceptualisation and measurement of consumer value in services. Int J Mark Res 51 (1): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530905100108 |
| ○ | Santeramo FG, Carlucci D, De Devitiis B, Seccia A, Stasi A, Viscecchia R, Nardone G, 2018. Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry. Food Res Int 104: 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.10.039 |
| ○ | Schifferstein HN, Ophuis, PAO, 1998. Health-related determinants of organic food consumption in the Netherlands. Food Qual Prefer 9 (3): 119-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(97)00044-X |
| ○ | Seegebarth B, Behrens, SH, Klarmann C, Hennigs N, Scribner LL, 2016. Customer value perception of organic food: cultural differences and cross-national segments. Brit Food J 118 (2): 396-411. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2015-0235 |
| ○ | Seyfang G, 2006. Eco-friendly citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local organic food networks. J Rural Stud 22 (4): 383-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.01.003 |
| ○ | Seyfang G, 2008. Avoiding Asda? Exploring consumer motivations in local organic food networks. Local Environ 13 (3): 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830701669112 |
| ○ | Shafie FA, Rennie D, 2012. Consumer perceptions towards organic food. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 49: 360-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.07.034 |
| ○ | Sheth JN, Newman BI, Gross BL, 1991. Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. J Bus Res 22 (2): 159-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(91)90050-8 |
| ○ | Shin J, Mattila AS, 2019. When organic food choices shape subsequent food choices: The interplay of gender and health consciousness. Int J Hos Manag 76: 94-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.008 |
| ○ | Singh A, Verma P, 2017. Factors influencing Indian consumers' actual buying behaviour towards organic food products. J Clean Prod 167: 473-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.106 |
| ○ | Smith S, Paladino A, 2010. Eating clean and green? Investigating consumer motivations towards the purchase of organic food. Australas Mark J 18 (2): 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.01.001 |
| ○ | Stockdale E, Watson C, 2008. Organic farming and food systems: definitions and key characteristics. In: Health benefits of organic food: effects of the environment; Givens, DI et al. (eds.). pp: 1-18. CABI, Oxfordshire. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845934590.0001 |
| ○ | Sung J, Woo H, 2019. Investigating male consumers' lifestyle of health and sustainability (LOHAS) and perception toward slow fashion. J Retail Consum Serv 49: 120-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.018 |
| ○ | Sweeney JC, Soutar GN, 2001. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. J Retail 77 (2): 203-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0 |
| ○ | Sweeney JC, Soutar GN, Johnson LW, 1999. The role of perceived risk in the quality-value relationship: a study in a retail environment. J Retail 75 (1): 77-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80005-0 |
| ○ | Teng CC, Lu CH, 2016. Organic food consumption in Taiwan: Motives, involvement, and purchase intention under the moderating role of uncertainty. Appetite 105: 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.05.006 |
| ○ | Thøgersen J, Zhou Y, Huang G, 2016. How stable is the value basis for organic food consumption in China? J Clean Prod 134: 214-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.036 |
| ○ | Ueasangkomsate P, Santiteerakul S, 2016. A study of consumers' attitudes and intention to buy organic foods for sustainability. Procedia Environ Sci 34: 423-430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.04.037 |
| ○ | Vega-Zamora M, Torres-Ruiz FJ, Parras-Rosa M, 2019. Towards sustainable consumption: Keys to communication for improving trust in organic foods. J Clean Prod 216: 511-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.129 |
| ○ | Verhallen TM, 1982. Scarcity and consumer choice behavior. J Econ Psychol 2 (4): 299-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(82)90034-4 |
| ○ | Vigneron F, Johnson LW, 2004. Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. J Brand Manag 11 (6): 484-506. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540194 |
| ○ | Vogt G, 2007. The origins of organic farming. In: Organic farming: an international history; Lockeretz W (eds.), pp: 9-29. CABI, Oxfordshire, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851998336.0009 |
| ○ | Wang E, 2013. The influence of visual packaging design on perceived food product quality, value, and brand preference. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 41 (10): 805-816. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-12-2012-0113 |
| ○ | Wiedmann KP, Hennigs N, Siebels A, 2007. Measuring consumers' luxury value perception: a cross-cultural framework. Acad Mark Sci Rev, Vol 7. https://www.ams-web.org/page/OriginalAMSR/articles/wiedmann07-2007.pdf |
| ○ | Yadav R, 2016. Altruistic or egoistic: Which value promotes organic food consumption among young consumers? A study in the context of a developing nation. J Retail Consum Serv 33: 92-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.08.008 |
| ○ | Yang Z, Peterson RT, 2004. Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of switching costs. Psychol Mark 21 (10): 799-822. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20030 |
| ○ | Yazdanpanah M, Forouzani M, 2015. Application of the theory of planned behaviour to predict Iranian students' intention to purchase organic food. J Clean Prod 107: 342-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.071 |
| ○ | Zeithaml VA, 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J Mark 52: 2-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302 |