Is social sustainability relevant for food consumers? Evidence from Chile

Introduction

Sustainability is defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations and involves three dimensional aspects: economic, environmental, and social (Brundtland Commission, 1987Brundtland Commission, 1987. Our common future. Oxford; UK: Oxford University Press.). These dimensions are expressed in attributes commonly used in marketing and commercial practices that seek to generate greater differentiation among products because of market orientation (Nurse Rainbolt et al., 2012Nurse Rainbolt G, Onozaka Y, Mcfadden DT, 2012. Consumer motivations and buying behavior: The case of the local food system movement. J Food Prod Market 18(5): 385-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2012.685031; Claro et al., 2013Claro DP, Laban Neto SA, De Oliveira Claro PB, 2013. Sustainability drivers in food retail. J Retail Consum Serv 20(3): 365-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.02.003; Fernqvist & Ekelund, 2014Fernqvist F, Ekelund L, 2014. Credence and the effect on consumer liking of food - A review. Food Qual Prefer 32: 340-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.10.005). Although most studies have focused on the environmental dimension, social sustainability (SS) has received special attention in recent years (Bangsa & Schlegelmilch, 2020Bangsa AB, Schlegelmilch BB, 2020. Linking sustainable product attributes and consumer decision-making: Insights from a systematic review. J Clean Prod 245: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118902; Waheed et al., 2020Waheed A, Zhang Q, Rashid Y, Zaman Khan S, 2020. The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying tendencies from the perspective of stakeholder theory and practices. Corp Soc Resp Environ Manag 27(3): 1307-1315. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1885). From a commercial point of view, SS has been analyzed from two sides: the actions of companies that market sustainable products, and the consumers’ behavior who buy products that highlight ethical or socially sustainable attributes (De Magistris et al., 2015De Magistris T, Del Giudice T, Verneau F, 2015. The effect of information on willingness to pay for canned tuna fish with different corporate social responsibility (CSR) certification: A pilot study. J Consum Affairs 49(2): 457-471. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12046; Del Giudice et al., 2018Del Giudice T, Stranieri S, Caracciolo F, Ricci EC, Cembalo L, Banterle A, et al, 2018. Corporate social responsibility certifications influence consumer preferences and seafood market price. J Clean Prod 178: 526-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.276).

The predominant concept of SS used by companies is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which can be understood and studied under the international guidelines of ISO 26000 (ISO-OECD, 2017ISO-OECD, 2017. ISO 26000 and OECD guidelines practical overview of the linkages. https://www.iso.org/publication/PUB100418.html.). At a global level, the UN’s 2030 agenda includes the promotion of sustainable development goals, which also considers a sustainable production and consumption goal (goal number 12), that encourages companies value environmental and social aspects as a key factor for competitiveness (Garcia Navarro & Granda Revilla, 2020García Navarro V, Granda Revilla G, 2020. La incorporación de los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible como factor de competitividad empresarial. ICE Sostenibilidad para la Competividad 912: 75-86. https://doi.org/10.32796/ice.2020.912.6963). Social sustainability is therefore a broad concept that affects all stakeholders of the organization, including customers, suppliers, workers and the entire community (Carroll, 1999Carroll AB, 1999. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Busin Soc 38(3): 268-295. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303; Grunert et al., 2014Grunert KG, Hieke S, Wills J, 2014. Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy 44: 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001), and is also very important for the food industry due to the complexity of its value chain (Fernqvist & Ekelund, 2014Fernqvist F, Ekelund L, 2014. Credence and the effect on consumer liking of food - A review. Food Qual Prefer 32: 340-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.10.005; Grunert et al., 2014Grunert KG, Hieke S, Wills J, 2014. Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy 44: 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001; Vecchio & Annunziata, 2015Vecchio R, Annunziata A, 2015. Willingness-to-pay for sustainability-labelled chocolate: an experimental auction approach. J Clean Prod 86: 335-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.006; Wei et al., 2018Wei W, Kim G, Miao L, Behnke C, Almanza B, 2018. Consumer inferences of corporate social responsibility (CSR) claims on packaged foods. J Bus Res 83: 186-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.046).

From the consumer’s point of view, SS is related to their purchasing behavior. The extrinsic aspects of food are increasingly valued, carrying out consumption practices that consider attributes that exceed the use value of the product, which is known as practicing ethical consumption (Sacchi, 2018Sacchi G, 2018. The ethics and politics of food purchasing choices in Italian consumers’ collective action. J Agr Environ Ethics 31(1): 73-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9710-2). Following the definition of Long & Murray (2012Long M, Murray D, 2012. Ethical consumption, values convergence/divergence and community development. J Agr Environ Ethics 26: 351-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9384-0), this is “the act of purchasing products that have additional attributes (e.g., social, environmental, political, health, etc.) in addition to their immediate use value, to signify commitment to their values and/or to support changes to unjust market practices.”

These additional attributes can be presented on food products as labels that refer to SS and that constitute credence attributes in the consumer’s purchase decision (Onozaka & McFadden, 2011Onozaka Y, Mcfadden DT, 2011. Does local labeling complement or compete with other sustainable labels? A conjoint analysis of direct and joint values for fresh produce claim. Am J Agr Econ 93(3): 689-702. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aar005; Vecchio & Annunziata, 2015Vecchio R, Annunziata A, 2015. Willingness-to-pay for sustainability-labelled chocolate: an experimental auction approach. J Clean Prod 86: 335-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.006; Wirth et al., 2016Wirth FF, Stanton JL, Wiley JB, 2016. The relative importance of search versus credence product attributes: Organic and locally grown. Agr Resour Econ Rev 40(1): 48-62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500004512; Aoki et al., 2017Aoki K, Akai K, Ujiie K, 2017. A choice experiment to compare preferences for rice in Thailand and Japan: The impact of origin, sustainability, and taste. Food Qual Prefer 56: 274-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.001; Tait et al., 2018Tait P, Rutherford P, Driver T, Li X, Saunders C, Dalziel P, 2018. Consumer insights and willingness to pay for attributes New Zealand yogurt products in Shanghai, China. Research report, Lincoln University, Canterbury, N.Z., Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit no. 347. http://natlib.govt.nz/records/40660832). Credibility attributes are used to assess consumers’ preferences about the sustainability characteristics of food, so they cannot be assessed through consumption, but mainly through the labels of the products that certify them (Wirth et al., 2016Wirth FF, Stanton JL, Wiley JB, 2016. The relative importance of search versus credence product attributes: Organic and locally grown. Agr Resour Econ Rev 40(1): 48-62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500004512). SS attributes conveyed through labels make it possible to reduce information asymmetry between consumers and producers and also to achieve more sustainable consumption (Asioli et al., 2020Asioli D, Aschemann-Witzel J, Nayga RM, Jr, 2020. Sustainability-related food labels. Ann Rev Resour Econ 12: 171-185. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-094103; Bastounis et al., 2021Bastounis A, Buckell J, Hartmann-Boyce J, Cook B, King S, Potter C, et al, 2021. The impact of environmental sustainability labels on willingness-to-pay for foods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of discrete choice experiments. Nutrients 13(8): 2677. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13082677). In general, the use of labels with social and environmental sustainability attributes generates among consumers a positive opinion and attitude towards these foods (Tobi et al., 2019Tobi R, Harris F, Rana R, Brown KA, Quaife M, Green R, 2019. Sustainable diet dimensions. Comparing consumer preference for nutrition, environmental and social responsibility food labelling: A systematic review. Sustainability 11(23): 6575. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236575). SS has been related to health, nutrition, organic production, and origin of the product (Fernqvist & Ekelund, 2014Fernqvist F, Ekelund L, 2014. Credence and the effect on consumer liking of food - A review. Food Qual Prefer 32: 340-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.10.005), and several studies have reported that consumers consider it positively in their food purchase decision (Pomarici & Vecchio, 2014Pomarici E, Vecchio R, 2014. Millennial generation attitudes to sustainable wine: an exploratory study on Italian consumers. J Clean Prod 66: 537-545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.058; Vecchio & Annunziata, 2015Vecchio R, Annunziata A, 2015. Willingness-to-pay for sustainability-labelled chocolate: an experimental auction approach. J Clean Prod 86: 335-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.006; Ghvanidze et al., 2017Ghvanidze S, Velikova N, Dodd T, Oldewage-Theron W, 2017. A discrete choice experiment of the impact of consumers’ environmental values, ethical concerns, and health consciousness on food choices. Brit Food J 119(4): 863-881. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2016-0342). Specifically, there is a wide variety of labels applied in the market to distinguish SS attributes. These include those related to aspects of local production, fair trade and other credibility attributes (Ghvanidze et al., 2017Ghvanidze S, Velikova N, Dodd T, Oldewage-Theron W, 2017. A discrete choice experiment of the impact of consumers’ environmental values, ethical concerns, and health consciousness on food choices. Brit Food J 119(4): 863-881. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2016-0342; Tebbe & von Blanckenburg, 2018Tebbe E, von Blanckenburg K, 2018. Does willingness to pay increase with the number and strictness of sustainability labels? Agr Econ 49(1): 41-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12394; Tait et al., 2019Tait P, Saunders C, Dalziel P, Rutherford P, Driver T, Guenther M, 2019. Estimating wine consumer preferences for sustainability attributes: A discrete choice experiment of Californian Sauvignon Blanc purchasers. J Clean Prod 233: 412-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.076).

In the specific case of cheese, labels are also used to highlight attributes, including sustainability attributes, so research has begun to be conducted in this regard (Kos et al., 2018Kos Skubic M, Erjavec K, Klopčič M, 2018. Consumer preferences regarding national and EU quality labels for cheese, ham and honey: The case of Slovenia. Brit Food J 120(3): 650-664. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2017-0236; Echeverría et al., 2022Echeverría R, Montenegro AB, Albarrán ES, Charry L, 2022. Consumer willingness to pay for cheese with a social sustainability attribute. Ciência Rural 52(5): e20210281. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20210281; Mazzocchi & Sali, 2022Mazzocchi C, Sali G, 2022. Supporting mountain agriculture through ‘Mountain Product’ label: A choice experiment approach. Environ Dev Sust 24: 701-723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01464-3). The price attribute is often included to assess consumer preferences in market situations, as well as a way to assess willingness to pay (WTP) for each attribute (Echeverría et al., 2022Echeverría R, Montenegro AB, Albarrán ES, Charry L, 2022. Consumer willingness to pay for cheese with a social sustainability attribute. Ciência Rural 52(5): e20210281. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20210281; Mazzocchi & Sali, 2022Mazzocchi C, Sali G, 2022. Supporting mountain agriculture through ‘Mountain Product’ label: A choice experiment approach. Environ Dev Sust 24: 701-723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01464-3). Price has been found to be the most important factor in consumer preferences for cheese (Kos et al., 2018Kos Skubic M, Erjavec K, Klopčič M, 2018. Consumer preferences regarding national and EU quality labels for cheese, ham and honey: The case of Slovenia. Brit Food J 120(3): 650-664. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2017-0236; Menozzi et al., 2022Menozzi D, Yeh CH, Cozzi E, Arfini F, 2022. Consumer preferences for cheese products with quality labels: The case of Parmigiano Reggiano and Comté. Animals 12(10): 1299. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12101299). In the case of SS, Mazzocchi & Sali (2022)Mazzocchi C, Sali G, 2022. Supporting mountain agriculture through ‘Mountain Product’ label: A choice experiment approach. Environ Dev Sust 24: 701-723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01464-3 studied the ‘mountain product label’ (which includes SS aspects) promoted by the European Union. They found that cheeses with this attribute have a higher price. According to another study related to this concept, consumers are willing to pay more for organic and mountain cheese (Stiletto & Trestini, 2022bStiletto A, Trestini S, 2022b. When less isn’t more and more isn’t less: is there an overlap between “protected designation of origin”, “mountain product” and “organic” in Italy? Brit Food J 125(13): 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2022-0107). Regarding other attributes, studies have found that nutritional aspects of cheese are positively perceived by consumers (Stiletto & Trestini, 2022aStiletto A, Trestini S, 2022a. Is it really a piece of cake to label Geographical Indications with the Nutri-Score? Consumers’ behaviour and policy implications. PLoS ONE 17(11): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277048), as well as characteristics that account for cheese quality (Menozzi et al., 2022Menozzi D, Yeh CH, Cozzi E, Arfini F, 2022. Consumer preferences for cheese products with quality labels: The case of Parmigiano Reggiano and Comté. Animals 12(10): 1299. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12101299).

Studies on SS food consumption have been mainly conducted in developed countries, predominating studies in Europe and the United States, where there is a high consumer preference for SS products (Miller et al., 2017Miller S, Tait P, Saunders C, Dalziel P, Rutherford P, Abell W, 2017. Estimation of consumer willingness-to-pay for social responsibility in fruit and vegetable products: A cross-country comparison using a choice experiment. J Consum Behav 16(6): e13-e25. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1650; Schäufele & Hamm, 2017Schäufele I, Hamm U, 2017. Consumers’ perceptions, preferences and willingness-to-pay for wine with sustainability characteristics: A review. J Clean Prod 147: 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.118). As the trend to consume SS foods spreads around the world, a deeper understanding of consumer responses to these products needs to be extended to emerging markets (Schäufele & Hamm, 2017Schäufele I, Hamm U, 2017. Consumers’ perceptions, preferences and willingness-to-pay for wine with sustainability characteristics: A review. J Clean Prod 147: 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.118; Bangsa & Schlegelmilch, 2020Bangsa AB, Schlegelmilch BB, 2020. Linking sustainable product attributes and consumer decision-making: Insights from a systematic review. J Clean Prod 245: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118902). Given that its income has increased by 46% (from 10,200 to 14,900 US$ per capita) over the past ten years, Chile is a good example of a rising nation that merits more research (World-Bank, 2019World-Bank, 2019. World Bank national accounts data, and OECD National Accounts data files. World Bank. https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicador/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=CL).

The cheese market in Chile has an industry that strongly concentrates the reception of milk (as of 2022, 75.2% was received by only 4 companies), which translates into a dominant purchasing power of these companies (Peña-Torres & Dosque, 2019Peña-Torres J, Dosque P, 2019. La industria lechera en Chile: Análisis de temas de libre competencia. Documento de trabajo N°3. Centro Latinoamericano de Políticas Económicas y Sociales - CLAPES UC. Santiago, Chile.; Peralta & Fuentes, 2023Peralta G, Fuentes O, 2023. Mercado nacional de la leche y productos lácteos. Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias - ODEPA. Santiago, Chile.). On the other hand, among the main dairy products produced by these companies are cheeses (about 119,000 tons representing about 90% of the national total); the difference is produced by smaller companies (Fernandez & Farías, 2019Fernández G, Farías G, 2019. Descripción de la cadena láctea en Chile. Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias - ODEPA. Santiago, Chile.). Additionally, 55,000 tons of cheeses were imported in 2022, which are mostly marketed by these large companies (Peña-Torres & Dosque, 2019Peña-Torres J, Dosque P, 2019. La industria lechera en Chile: Análisis de temas de libre competencia. Documento de trabajo N°3. Centro Latinoamericano de Políticas Económicas y Sociales - CLAPES UC. Santiago, Chile.; ODEPA, 2023ODEPA, 2023. Estadísticas productivas. Cifras lácteas. https://www.odepa.gob.cl/estadisticas-del-sector/estadisticas-productivas.; Peralta & Fuentes, 2023Peralta G, Fuentes O, 2023. Mercado nacional de la leche y productos lácteos. Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias - ODEPA. Santiago, Chile.). This means that the cheese market is dominated by a few large companies, so it is important to create competitive strategies so that smaller companies can succeed in the market. In this sense, sustainability, and in particular SS, can be an option for these smaller companies to have an advantage in the cheese consumption market.

Among food products, cheese has been widely studied for the opportunity to create differentiation through several attributes such as origin type of milk, type of cheese and packaging, among others (Pilone et al., 2015Pilone V, De Lucia C, Del Nobile MA, Contó F, 2015. Policy developments of consumer’s acceptance of traditional products innovation: The case of environmental sustainability and shelf life extension of a PGI Italian cheese. Trends Food Sci Technol 41(1): 83-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.09.005; Imami et al., 2016Imami D, Skreli E, Zhllima E, Canavari M, Chan C, Cela A, 2016. Analysis of consumers’ preferences for typical local cheese in Albania applying conjoint analysis. New Medit 15(3): 49-55. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2017153-9889; O’Callaghan & Kerry, 2016O’Callaghan KA, Kerry JP, 2016. Consumer attitudes towards the application of smart packaging technologies to cheese products. Food Pack Shelf Life 9: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2016.05.001), but despite its market importance at a world level, there are no studies that have evaluated the SS attribute. In this regard, the study’s objective was to examine consumers’ preferences for cheese that emphasizes SS characteristics in Chile, representing a growing market. Furthermore, this study is the first to examine the SS trait in the context of the Chilean food sector.

Material and methods

Conditional logit model (CLM)

 ⌅

A CLM was chosen because it is flexible in the specification of the conditional utility function. This allows modelling nonlinear and complex relationships between attributes and choice probabilities. The estimated coefficients have simple interpretations in terms of choice probabilities, which facilitates the interpretation of the individual’s preferences.

Following Aoki et al. (2017)Aoki K, Akai K, Ujiie K, 2017. A choice experiment to compare preferences for rice in Thailand and Japan: The impact of origin, sustainability, and taste. Food Qual Prefer 56: 274-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.001, the conditional probability that individual q chooses alternative i can be expressed as:

$\begin{array}{cc}Piqt& \left(\beta ´q\right)\end{array}=\frac{exp \left(\beta ´q Xiqt\right)}{{\sum }_{j=1}^J\exp \left(\beta ´q X jqt\right)}$  (1)

where β is a vector of parameters; X _jqt is the matrix of alternatives j=1…J that individual q must choose among t choice sets.

The CLM of equation (1) evaluates 3 attributes with 3 levels each, which provides a full factorial design of 3³, (j=1...27). To facilitate the choice process, through a randomized process the 27 alternatives were reduced to 9 (Louviere et al., 2010Louviere J, Flynn TN, Carson RT, 2010. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J Choice Model 3(3): 57-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70014-9). As a result, three choice sets, each including three possibilities, were made and presented to each person in turn (Fig. 1 illustrates a choice set). As each person had to select 1 alternative (i) from each choice set (t), 1836 observations were generated (3 alternatives that 204 individuals choose 3 times). The Krinsky and Robb method (Haab & McConnell, 2002Haab, T, McConnell, K, 2002. Valuing environmental and natural resources. the econometric of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781840647044.00014) was used to estimate the confidence intervals for willingness to pay. The statistical program STATA IC version 14 was used. Specifically, IBM SPSS Statistics software version 23 was used for designing the CE.

Figure 1.  Example of choice set

Results

Discussion

The results obtained in this study are similar to those of Ghvanidze et al. (2017)Ghvanidze S, Velikova N, Dodd T, Oldewage-Theron W, 2017. A discrete choice experiment of the impact of consumers’ environmental values, ethical concerns, and health consciousness on food choices. Brit Food J 119(4): 863-881. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2016-0342, who found that conscious consumers prefer SS products. On the other hand, Miller et al. (2017)Miller S, Tait P, Saunders C, Dalziel P, Rutherford P, Abell W, 2017. Estimation of consumer willingness-to-pay for social responsibility in fruit and vegetable products: A cross-country comparison using a choice experiment. J Consum Behav 16(6): e13-e25. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1650 found that there is a clear trend in consumers’ choice of food with SS, although this trend is stronger in people from developing countries (India and Indonesia). According to Tobi (2019)Tobi R, Harris F, Rana R, Brown KA, Quaife M, Green R, 2019. Sustainable diet dimensions. Comparing consumer preference for nutrition, environmental and social responsibility food labelling: A systematic review. Sustainability 11(23): 6575. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236575, the information delivered to consumers creates in them a positive attitude towards social and environmental sustainability attributes. This positive attitude ultimately translates into consumers choosing or valuing these products, as for example in the case of cheese with a “mountain product label”, where consumers express their WTP more for these attributes (Echeverría et al., 2022Echeverría R, Montenegro AB, Albarrán ES, Charry L, 2022. Consumer willingness to pay for cheese with a social sustainability attribute. Ciência Rural 52(5): e20210281. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20210281; Mazzocchi & Sali, 2022Mazzocchi C, Sali G, 2022. Supporting mountain agriculture through ‘Mountain Product’ label: A choice experiment approach. Environ Dev Sust 24: 701-723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01464-3; Stiletto & Trestini, 2022bStiletto A, Trestini S, 2022b. When less isn’t more and more isn’t less: is there an overlap between “protected designation of origin”, “mountain product” and “organic” in Italy? Brit Food J 125(13): 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2022-0107).

This study has also shown that the consumer always chooses a combination of attributes in which at least one of them has a higher level of preference (individually). In addition, consumers gave priority to attribute combinations that have the largest number of attributes with the highest preference levels (in this case, three attributes, then two, then one attribute). Besides, consumer choice was given in the following order: price first (lowest was most preferred), SS (fully complies was most preferred) and finally type of cheese (Chanco was most preferred).

The role of price was clear: it is the most important attribute in consumer choice. Lower cheese prices lead the choice. This is in line with other studies that have evaluated aspects of SS in cheese (Kos et al., 2018Kos Skubic M, Erjavec K, Klopčič M, 2018. Consumer preferences regarding national and EU quality labels for cheese, ham and honey: The case of Slovenia. Brit Food J 120(3): 650-664. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2017-0236; Menozzi et al., 2022Menozzi D, Yeh CH, Cozzi E, Arfini F, 2022. Consumer preferences for cheese products with quality labels: The case of Parmigiano Reggiano and Comté. Animals 12(10): 1299. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12101299). In the same vein, but in a study on consumer preference for wine, Tait et al. (2019)Tait P, Saunders C, Dalziel P, Rutherford P, Driver T, Guenther M, 2019. Estimating wine consumer preferences for sustainability attributes: A discrete choice experiment of Californian Sauvignon Blanc purchasers. J Clean Prod 233: 412-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.076 found a negative relationship between consumer choice of SS products and high prices. These results are also consistent with those found by Ghvanidze et al. (2017)Ghvanidze S, Velikova N, Dodd T, Oldewage-Theron W, 2017. A discrete choice experiment of the impact of consumers’ environmental values, ethical concerns, and health consciousness on food choices. Brit Food J 119(4): 863-881. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2016-0342, who showed that price influences consumers’ food choice more than information about producers’ social responsibility or the ecological impact of production. Although the importance of price in the selection of attributes, including SS, is to be expected, the importance of including SS in the choice is important to give weight to this attribute (Toussaint et al., 2020Toussaint M, Cabanelas P, Blanco-González A, 2020. Social sustainability in the food value chain: An integrative approach beyond corporate social responsibility. Corp Soc Resp Environ Manag 28: 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2035). Furthermore, Ross & Milne (2021)Ross S, Milne G, 2021. Price? Quality? Or Sustainability? Segmenting by disposition toward self-other tradeoffs predicts consumers’ sustainable decision-making. J Bus Ethics 172(5): 361-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04478-5 found that consumers who are more focused on maximizing their own utility value price over sustainability, and that consumers with a higher social orientation prefer sustainable products over price. This analysis of consumer choice included the attributes of quality, price, and sustainability.

The joint evaluation of cheese type with the SS attribute presented in this study indicates that, in a context of low prices, the SS attribute is more relevant to consumers than cheese type. Other studies that have included other aspects such as quality or nutritional aspects indicate that these are well valued by consumers (Menozzi et al., 2022Menozzi D, Yeh CH, Cozzi E, Arfini F, 2022. Consumer preferences for cheese products with quality labels: The case of Parmigiano Reggiano and Comté. Animals 12(10): 1299. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12101299; Stiletto & Trestini, 2022aStiletto A, Trestini S, 2022a. Is it really a piece of cake to label Geographical Indications with the Nutri-Score? Consumers’ behaviour and policy implications. PLoS ONE 17(11): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277048). In particular, Ross & Milne (2021)Ross S, Milne G, 2021. Price? Quality? Or Sustainability? Segmenting by disposition toward self-other tradeoffs predicts consumers’ sustainable decision-making. J Bus Ethics 172(5): 361-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04478-5 found that quality (which could be equated to cheese type) ranks third in terms of consumer choice, which would be consistent with what was found in the present research.

With respect to consumer characteristics, the results of this research differ from those reported by other studies, which identify gender as an important characteristic of individuals who value sustainable attributes (Toppinen et al, 2013Toppinen A, Toivonen R, Valkeapää A, Rämö A, 2013. Consumer perceptions of environmental and social sustainability of wood products in the Finnish market. Scand J Forest Res 28(8): 775-783. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2013.824021; Grankvist et al, 2019Grankvist G, Johnsen SÅK, Hanss D, 2019. Values and willingness-to-pay for sustainability-certified mobile phones. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 26(7): 657-664. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1652212; Piracci et al, 2022Piracci G, Boncinelli F, Casini L, 2022. Wine consumers’ demand for social sustainability labeling: Evidence for the fair labor claim. Appl Econ Persp Policy 44(4): 1742-1761. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13260). Finally, elderly and low-income people choose the third-choice option, which rewards a particular type of cheese over SS. It can then be concluded that it is possible to segment consumers who will reward SS through the variables age and education.

One of the study’s conclusions and consequences is that Chilean customers, who represent an emerging market, value SS in cheese. Although the most important attribute in consumer decision-making is price (the lowest price always dominates the choice), SS is the second most valued attribute, even more than the type of cheese, which could be considered the closest to the quality attribute. In addition, consumers who value SS are older and more educated. The results obtained in this study have valuable practical implications. Producing and marketing a SS cheese could enable companies to make their products preferred by consumers, even if they do not produce the preferred type of cheese. Therefore, cheese factories or other companies in other agri-food sectors have a market opportunity if they incorporate and declare SS attributes in their products.

Future research should include other aspects of SS considered in ISO 26000, analyze other products, include more attributes and consider a methodology that can capture the ordered process identified here and the complexity of consumer choice. It is important to note that studies that contribute to understanding the situation in other countries are essential for companies to develop marketing strategies that explore the social side of sustainability. In summary, future research could benefit from incorporating a diverse set of attributes to capture a more complete picture of consumer perceptions and preferences in the context of sustainability.