bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423

Consumers’ willingness to buy products with environmental

and ethical claims: the roles of social representations and
social identity
Jos Bartels1 and Marleen C. Onwezen2
1
VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2
Wageningen University and Research Center, Agricultural Economics Research Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands

Keywords Abstract
Social representations, social identity,
environment, ethics, willingness to buy. This study investigates how social representations and consumers’ identification with
organic food consumers affects intentions to buy products that make environmental and
Correspondence ethical claims. For the purposes of the study, an online panel study was conducted on a
Jos Bartels, VU University Amsterdam, De representative sample of consumers (n = 1006) in the United Kingdom. The results dem-
Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, onstrate that consumers who are adherent to natural foods or technology and do not
The Netherlands. perceive food as a necessity are more willing to buy environmentally friendly and ethical
E-mail: j.bartels@vu.nl products. There seems to be no relationship between perceptions of food as a source of
enjoyment and intentions to buy sustainable products. Finally, social identification with the
doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12067 organic consumer is positively related with the intentions to buy products that make
environmental and ethical claims. The current research demonstrates that both individual
perceptions of food and consumers’ perceptions of the social environment play an impor-
tant role in promoting environmentally friendly and ethical behaviour.

that the number of facings and price differences with leading

Introduction
Faced with environmental problems such as global warming and
air and water pollution, general concerns about the environment
have become increasingly pressing public issues (Saba and
Messina, 2003), and awareness of environmental issues seems to
be growing (Laroche et al., 2001; Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006).
Additionally, ethical awareness, including concerns about the fair
distribution of wealth and the use of child labour, seems to have
become more salient (Carrigan et al., 2004; Carrington et al.,
2010).
In response to the growing consumer awareness of ethical con-
cerns related to the environment and society, different streams of
the literature are increasingly focusing on sustainable consumer
behaviour (Grunert and Juhl, 1995; Thøgersen, 1999; Lockie
et al., 2002; Raynolds, 2002; Banerjee et al., 2003; Loureiro and
Lotade, 2005; De Barcellos et al., 2011; Pedregal and Ozcaglar-
Toulouse, 2011; Prothero et al., 2011; Ma and Lee, 2012).
However, most of the research on sustainability seems to focus
on a single issue in a specific context rather than on a variety
of sustainable behaviours (Thøgersen and Ölander, 2003;
Papaoikonomou, 2013). Only a few recent studies have investi-
gated both environmental and social ethical behaviour (Van
Herpen et al., 2012; Zander and Hamm, 2012; Sirieix et al., 2013).
Van Herpen et al. (2012) focused on explaining the market shares
of sustainable products according to shelf layout factors, price
levels, price promotions and consumer demographics. They found
brands was positively related with the market shares of fair trade
brands, but not organic brands. Moreover, they found that older
consumers and those with higher educational levels consumed
sustainable products more often. Moreover, Zander and Hamm
(2012) found that informational search patterns depend partly on
gender, age and, to a lesser extent, attitudes regarding the environ-
mental and social aspects of food production. Although they
examined both environmental and social attitudes, they focused
only on the consumption of organic products as the dependent
variable. Finally, Sirieix et al. (2013) combined both organic and
fair trade products in a qualitative study regarding sustainable food
labels. They found that consumers perceive organic and fair trade
labels positively, but tend to be sceptical about claims such as that
certain products are ‘climate friendly’. Although the results were
of interest, this study examined only two highly educated focus
groups. In general, McDonald et al. (2012) concluded that a more
holistic conceptualization of sustainable consumption is needed
and that insights into distinct behaviours with regard to sustain-
ability could help better explain why consumers buy sustainable
(food) products.
Therefore, the current study focuses on consumers’ willingness
to buy food products that make environmental and ethical claims.
More specifically, the study aimed to reveal whether differences in
general consumers’ views about food and the ways in which
individuals perceive themselves in relation to their social environ-
ments can explain differences in their willingness to purchase

82 International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 82–89

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
J. Bartels and M.C. Onwezen Social representations and social identity

products that make environmental and ethical claims. The current
study tries to extend previous studies in two ways. First, we focus
on consumers’ willingness to engage in distinct sustainability-
related behaviours. Second, we combine the views of individual
consumers regarding food with their perceptions of being part of
social environments, following Hauser et al. (2006) who, in an
innovation adoption context, suggested that future research should
include both individual’s characteristics and the relationships of
individuals with social networks.
Our explanation of the views of individual consumers with
regard to food in general is based on social representations theory
(Moscovici, 1981). To explain the relationship between an indi-
vidual and his or her social environment, we focus on social
identity theory (SIT; Tajfel, 1972, 1978; Tajfel and Turner, 1979).
Both theories have been demonstrated to be important concepts in
describing human behaviour and will be explained in detail in the
following paragraphs.
image in organizational contexts (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000;
Feather and Rauter, 2004), marketing contexts (Bhattacharya and
Sen, 2003; Ahearne et al., 2005; Homburg et al., 2009), and more
recently, in the context of sustainability (Bartels and Reinders,
2010; Bartels and Hoogendam, 2011). More specifically, the
studies by Bartels and Reinders (2010) and Bartels and
Hoogendam (2011) demonstrate that social identification with
organic consumer groups has a strong and direct effect on con-
sumers’ spending on organic food. Because social identification
has been demonstrated to be important in explaining choices, we
expect that identification with the organic consumer will also
influence consumers’ willingness to buy products that make
certain environmental and ethical claims.
In the remainder of this paper, we first describe the employed
methodology. Subsequently, we present the results. Finally, we
discuss our findings and implications and propose directions for
future research.

Primary concepts
Methods
Social representations
Study design and respondents
Consumers experience food in different manners (e.g. Ares and
We conducted an online panel study of consumers in the United
Gámbaro, 2007). For example, some consumers regard food
Kingdom (n = 1006). We instructed the market research company
merely as a necessity, whereas others consider it to be a highlight
(Research Now) that our study sample should be representative
of their day. In this respect, social representations can enable
in terms of age, gender, education and income. All participants
consumers to give meaning to new food products and, conse-
completed an online questionnaire to determine their social
quently, to make different food choices. Social representations
representation dimensions, social identification with organic food
theory was originally developed by Moscovici (1981) and refers
consumers and intentions to buy products that make environmen-
to a system of values, ideas, beliefs and practices that are shared
tal and ethical claims. The following demographic variables were
among members of groups and communities (Moscovici, 2001).
incorporated into the study: gender, age, education and income.
The social representation dimensions have also been applied in
Table 1 presents the demographics of the respondents.
the context of food. Bäckström et al. (2003) developed five differ-
ent social representation dimensions – suspicion of novelties,
adherence to technology, adherence to natural food, eating for
enjoyment and eating for necessity – to predict the willingness of Table 1 Demographics
consumers to try novel foods. These social representation dimen-
sions of food have been identified as important predictors of the n (#) n (%)
adoption of multiple new food products (Bäckström et al., 2004;
Age (years)
Huotilainen and Tuorila, 2005; Huotilainen et al., 2006a,b; 16–24 146 15
Onwezen and Bartels, 2013). Because these dimensions have 25–34 172 17
been demonstrated to be important in explaining consumers’ food 35–44 193 19
choices, we explore whether social representation dimensions 45–54 163 16
could also influence consumer willingness to buy products that 55–64 144 17
make certain environmental and ethical claims. 65+ 192 16
Gender
Male 495 49
Social identification
Female 515 51
In addition to food consumption being an individual behavioural Educational background
choice, the consumer’s social environment can have an important Primary education 32 3
influence on consumption patterns. Social identity theory can Secondary education 256 25
explain how people define themselves in terms of certain group Further education 348 35
memberships (Mael and Ashforth, 1992; Bhattacharya et al., University degree and higher 355 35
1995). Tajfel (1972, p. 31) defined this social identity as ‘the Other 19 2
individual’s knowledge that he (or she) belongs to certain groups Income
Low (under £20 000) 272 27
together with some emotional and value significance to him (or
Medium (£20 000–49 999) 403 40
her) of the group membership’. Social identification has been
High (over £50 000) 146 14
demonstrated to be a strong predictor of positive attitudes, spend-
Would rather not say 189 19
ing behaviours and willingness to propagate a positive group

International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 82–89 83

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Social representations and social identity
Measurement
To examine social representation dimensions, we used items from
Bäckström et al. (2004) who developed a 5-factor solution that
reflects five different components: adherence to natural foods,
food as a source of enjoyment, food as a necessity, adherence to
technology and resistance to novelty. Because resistance to
novelty is primarily related to innovations (Bäckström et al., 2004)
and the dependent variables in our study are not necessarily inno-
vative, we only used the first four dimensions. We conducted a
confirmatory factor analysis in IBM Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS) Amos 16.0 (Amos Development Corpo-
ration, Meadville, PA, USA) to test the four-dimensional model.
We used the following fit statistics: chi-square estimate with
degrees of freedom (χ2/d.f.), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–
Lewis index (TLI) and the root mean squared error of approxima-
tion (RMSEA). The χ2/d.f. is an appropriate fit index because it
might be less sensitive to sample size (Holbert and Stephenson,
2002). The criteria for acceptance of this index vary across
researchers, ranging from less than 2 (Ullman, 2001) to less than
5 (Bentler, 1989; Schumacker and Lomax, 2004). Hu and Bentler
(1999) recommend using a cut-off value over 0.90 or 0.95 for CFI
and TLI in combination with a cut-off value less than 0.08 for the
RMSEA.
The four-dimensional model of the social representation dimen-
sions provided a much better fit [χ2(59) = 281.25; χ2/d.f. = 4.77;
CFI = 0.944; TLI = 0.926; RMSEA = 0.061] than the one-
dimensional model [χ2(65) = 2287.70; χ2/d.f. = 35.20; CFI =
0.437; TLI = 0.324; RMSEA = 0.184]. The following alpha values
for all four dimensions were acceptable: adherence to natural
foods (α = 0.75), food as a source of enjoyment (α = 0.81), food
as a necessity (α = 0.66) and adherence to technology (α = 0.76).
Sample items for each dimension included the following: ‘I feel
good when I eat clean and natural food’, ‘Eating is a highlight of
my day’, ‘I do not care how my food is produced’ and ‘I believe in
the potential of new food technology’. We used a 5-point Likert
scale to measure the social representation dimensions, with values
ranging from (1) ‘completely disagree’ to (5) ‘completely agree’.
Because the study focuses on sustainability behaviour, we
measured social identification with the organic consumer (e.g.
Bartels and Reinders, 2010). We used a 5-item scale based on
Ellemers et al. (1999). The alpha value for the scale was high
(α = 0.94). Sample items included ‘I identify with organic food
consumers’ and ‘Organic food consumers are a reflection of who I
Table 2 Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among study variables (n = 1006)
M SD 1 2
1 Buying intention: environment 3.53 0.90 –
2 Buying intention: ethics 3.47 0.91 0.80**
3 Adherence to natural 3.52 0.71 0.55**
4 Food as enjoyment 3.53 0.81 0.25**
5 Food as necessity 2.46 0.78 −0.25**
6 Adherence to technology 2.90 0.69 0.02
7 Social identification 2.49 0.93 0.39**
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.
SD, standard deviation.
84
J. Bartels and M.C. Onwezen
am’. We used a 5-point Likert scale to measure social identifica-
tion, with values ranging from (1) ‘completely disagree’ to (5)
‘completely agree’.
For the dependent variables, we used two three-item measures
of intentions to buy products that make environmental and ethical
claims. Because no validated scales were available, we developed
the dependent variables based on the results of earlier studies on
organic (e.g. Chryssohoidis and Krystallis, 2005; Arvola et al.,
2008) and fair trade (De Pelsmacker and Janssen, 2007) con-
sumption. Again, we used IBM SPSS Amos 16.0 to compare the
two-dimensional model with a one-dimensional model. The two-
dimensional model provided a better fit [χ2(8) = 57.36; χ2/d.f. =
7.16; CFI = 0.990; TLI = 0.981; RMSEA = 0.078] than the one-
dimensional model [χ2(9) = 341.72; χ2/d.f. = 37.97; CFI = 0.933;
TLI = 0.888; RMSEA = 0.191]. Every questionnaire item began
with the following statement: ‘I am more inclined to buy certain
products when I know that they support . . .’. For environmental
benefits, we used ‘the prevention of CO2 emissions’, ‘natural con-
servation’ and ‘the prevention of climate change’ (α = 0.90). For
ethical benefits, we used ‘the fair distribution of wealth’, ‘the
education and training of farmers in developing countries’ and
‘fair trade’ (α = 0.91). We used a 5-point Likert scale to measure
purchase intentions, with responses ranging from (1) ‘completely
disagree’ to (5) ‘completely agree’.
Data analyses
Exploratory multiple regression analyses were conducted to inves-
tigate the different impacts of the social representation dimensions
and social identification with organic food consumers on willing-
ness to purchase products that make environmental and ethical
claims.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Intentions to buy both products that make environmental and
ethical claims were positive. t-Tests revealed no significant differ-
ences in buying intentions for these products. With regard to the
social representation dimensions, adherence to natural foods and
food as a source of enjoyment received scores in the top half of the
scale. Food as a necessity and adherence to technology received
scores below the centre of the scale. Finally, social identification
3 4 5 6 7
–
0.51** –
0.23** 0.36** –
−0.22** −0.34** −0.07* –
0.07* −0.08** 0.17* 0.38** –
0.41** 0.53** 0.21** −0.13** 0.03 –
International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 82–89
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
J. Bartels and M.C. Onwezen Social representations and social identity

Table 3 Regression for impact on buying inten-

Environment Ethics
tion regarding products with environmental and
ethical benefits β t β t

Age 0.12 4.48** 0.15 5.34**

Gender 0.05 1.71 0.02 0.66
Education 0.01 0.44 0.02 0.68
Income −0.02 −0.92 0.01 0.29
Adherence to natural 0.40 11.86** 0.34 10.03**
Food as enjoyment 0.05 1.61 0.03 1.10
Food as necessity −0.10 −3.24** −0.10 −3.24**
Adherence to technology 0.08 2.96** 0.13 4.65**
Social identification 0.16 5.14** 0.22 7.02**
R(R2) 0.59 (0.34) 0.58 (33)
F 57.67** 54.55**
d.f. 9996 9996

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.

d.f., degrees of freedom.

with organic consumers was low. Table 2 shows the means, stand- research (Krystallis and Chryssohoidis, 2005; Huotilainen et al.,
ard deviations and correlations between the variables. 2006a). The relationship between adherence to natural foods and
willingness to buy products that make ethical claims seemed to be
Regression analysis less obvious. In this context, Van Herpen et al. (2012) recently
argued that consumers have different motivations for buying
Table 3 presents the results of the regression analysis on intentions
organic or fair trade products. However, the relationship between
to buy products that make environmental and ethical claims. The
adherence to natural foods and willingness to buy products that
determinants explained a moderate proportion of the variance in
make ethical claims could be explained by the fact that not only do
both product categories (R2environment = 0.33 and R2ethics = 0.34). With
ethical attributes seem to be linked to the consumption of organic
regard to demographics, age was positively related to intentions to
food (Zander and Hamm, 2012), but environmental attributes
buy both products that make environmental and ethical claims.
might also influence ethical behaviour.
Older respondents were more inclined to buy products that make
Second, consumers who experience food as a source of enjoy-
specific claims than younger respondents. Gender, income and
ment are not willing to buy products that claim to have environ-
education were not significantly related to willingness to buy
mental or social benefits more often. This result could be expected
products that make either of the two claims.
because the perception of food as a source of enjoyment refers
The results further show that the social representation dimen-
to hedonistic notions of food and eating (Bäckström et al., 2003,
sions of adherence to natural foods was the strongest predictor of
2004); hedonic concerns, which entail a desire for affectively
both intentions. Adherence to technology was also positively
pleasant arousal, seem to be less relevant to interest in socially
related to intentions to buy products that make environmental and
relevant or environmental issues (Grunert, 1993; Grunert and Juhl,
ethical claims, whereas the dimension of food as a necessity was
1995).
negatively related to willingness to buy such products. The food as
Third, the perception of food as a necessity is negatively
a source of enjoyment social representation dimension did not
related to intentions to buy products that make environmental and
seem to have an effect on intentions to buy products that make
ethical claims. The social representation dimension of food as a
environmental and ethical benefits. Finally, social identification
necessity refers to the perception that food is used primarily as
with organic consumers was positively related to intentions to buy
fuel for the body, which, according to Bäckström et al. (2004),
both products that make environmental and ethical claims.
can be a way to devalue the importance of food. Because con-
sumers with these perceptions seem to be less involved in their
Discussion food choices, they may be less concerned with food-related
issues (Bäckström et al., 2004), such as the environmentally or
The current study investigated which consumers are more prone to
socially ethical implications of certain products. In this context,
buy products that have environmental and ethical benefits. Spe-
multiple studies have connected involvement with ethical or sus-
cifically, the primary objective of the current study was to examine
tainable behaviour (Grunert and Juhl, 1995; Vermeir and
the influence of social representation dimensions and social iden-
Verbeke, 2006; Chen, 2007; Tarkiainen and Sundqvist, 2009). In
tification on consumer willingness to buy products that make
general, these studies indicate that higher involvement leads to
claims related to the previously mentioned factors. Several con-
more sustainable behaviour.
clusions may be drawn from this study.
Fourth, adherence to technology generates more willingness to
buy products that make environmental and ethical claims. This
Social representation dimensions and
finding could be explained by the idea that advanced food tech-
product claims
nologies could maximize production while minimizing environ-
First, adherence to natural foods was associated with both product mental impact (O’Brien and Mullins, 2009), reducing the use
categories. This association was in accordance with earlier of pesticides (Phipps and Park, 2002) and improving human

International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 82–89 85

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Social representations and social identity
well-being in developing countries (e.g. Anderson and Jackson,
2005; Bett et al., 2010). These results could thus imply that the use
of technology in food production is connected to consumer aware-
ness of the environment and fair trade.
Social identification and product claims
The final conclusion of this study concerns the role of social
identification in intentions to buy products that make environmen-
tal and ethical claims. The current study revealed that individuals
who identify with organic consumers are more willing to buy
products that have environmental and ethical benefits. The current
findings seem to extend a recent study by Salazar et al. (2013),
who found that social influence is important in explaining one’s
decision to buy sustainable products. More specifically, previous
research demonstrated that environmental issues are one of the
primary motivations for buying organic food (Lockie et al., 2002;
Magnusson et al., 2003; Krystallis and Chryssohoidis, 2005),
which could further explain the relationship between social iden-
tification with organic consumers and willingness to buy products
that make environmental claims. With regard to ethical behaviour,
the current study seems to be the first to link social identification
with organic consumers to willingness to buy products that make
ethical claims. Although environmental and ethical behaviours
seem to have different motivations (Van Herpen et al., 2012), it is
possible that consumers attribute the characteristics of organic
consumers to their ethical behaviour (Zander and Hamm, 2012).
Policy recommendations
Based on the results, we formulate policy recommendations for
organizations that sell products that make sustainability-related
claims.
First, emphasizing product naturalness might be a relevant strat-
egy to promote products that make environmental and ethical
claims. However, when selling naturalness, it is important to be
aware that the natural products should live up to their promises
because the advantages of a generic strategy can also lead to
possible negative spillover effects. Moreover, it should be consid-
ered that consumers also have different motivations for buying
different products (Van Herpen et al., 2012), which could also lead
to the negative effects of general strategies.
Second, the promotion of sustainable products to consumers
with high adherence to technology involves the communication
that novel technologies can be used to develop food products.
However, it is important to note that consumers who adhere to
natural foods adhere less stringently to technology. Therefore, the
promotion of natural foods should be approached differently than
the promotion of innovative food production technology, because
several studies have shown that consumers might be anxious about
new technologies (Miles and Frewer, 2001). Another possibility
might be to jointly target both consumer groups. Then, novel
technologies can be used to develop products, and promotions can
underline the naturalness of the product and its production
process.
Finally, the results of the current study could imply that prod-
ucts with environmental or ethical benefits are perceived similarly.
As such, these products could be marketed with partially similar
strategies. Because social identification with organic consumers
86
J. Bartels and M.C. Onwezen
is related to both product categories, insights from SIT can be used
to create future marketing strategies for new consumers, such
as creating a sense of belonging to this group (Bartels and
Hoogendam, 2011). Specifically, following SIT (Tajfel, 1972),
marketers could focus on sustainable consumers as a high-status
group that people would like to be a part of to enhance their own
self-esteem. In this context, Griskevicius et al. (2010) found that
status-related motivations increased the desire for green products
when shopping in public. A different (competing) SIT strategy to
get more consumers to engage in environmental friendly or ethical
behaviour could focus on creating lower barriers to entry. Lower-
ing these barriers could lead to feelings of greater social mobility
towards the so-called in-group of sustainable consumers. A spe-
cific strategy to lower entry barriers could focus on the character-
istics of national retail chains (e.g. Walmart in the UK), who profit
from high-positive brand equity or store image (Yoo et al., 2000;
Yoo and Donthu, 2001).
Limitations and future research
The first limitation of this study is its cross-sectional nature. The
dependent variables and their determinants were measured only
once, thus reflecting the situation at one moment in time. Caution
with causal interpretations of the results is therefore recommend-
able. Moreover, all measures included in this study were based
on consumer self-reports. Because our variables of interest all
referred to subjective evaluations or attitudes, the collection of
self-reported data was inevitable. However, whether consumers
can really make a valid estimation of their willingness to buy
sustainable products is arguable.
The second limitation of this study concerns the selected per-
sonal characteristics. Future research on environmental and ethical
behaviour might also focus on consumer involvement with prod-
ucts because product involvement has been demonstrated to be an
important predictor of purchasing behaviour in multiple contexts
(Quester and Smart, 1998; Coulter et al., 2003; Ares et al., 2010).
Furthermore, it would be interesting to investigate the environ-
mental concerns of consumers in relation to their willingness to
buy products that make related claims because insight into the
environmental concerns of consumers is an important factor in
explaining environmentally friendly behaviour (e.g. Fransson and
Gärling, 1999; Schultz, 2001).
The third limitation of the study is that we found a high corre-
lation between intentions to buy products that make environmental
and ethical claims, which implies that there is some statistical
overlap. Although the selected items were clearly distinguishable
based on the content of their claims and the confirmatory factor
analyses showed that the two behavioural intentions were distinct,
consumers might have had difficulty distinguishing between
product messages. Future research can further elaborate on statis-
tical and content-related similarities and differences with regard to
environmental and ethical messages.
Fourth, in the current study, we focused only on social identi-
fication with organic consumers. Because earlier research regard-
ing social identification has indicated that people identify with
multiple entities (Ashforth and Johnson, 2001; Foreman and
Whetten, 2002; Bartels et al., 2007; Bartels and Van den Berg,
2011), future research might include consumer identification with
multiple consumer groups (e.g. health-conscious consumers) to
International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 82–89
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
J. Bartels and M.C. Onwezen
better explain the willingness of consumers to buy products that
claim to be beneficial.
Finally, we only conducted our study in one specific country
where organic food and fair trade consumption have already
evolved. Subsequently, we should be careful about generalizing
our results. However, a deeper understanding of sustainability-
related consumer behaviour requires validation in different coun-
tries (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998). Therefore, future
research could focus on countries that have different general
demographic characteristics, different cultural characteristics and
are in different stages in the adoption of products that make envi-
ronmental and ethical claims.
Conclusions
Based on the results of the current study, we conclude that prod-
ucts with messages about environmental or ethical issues matter
for consumers who appreciate information regarding food, who
are adherent to natural foods or technology and who do not per-
ceive food as merely a primary consumer need. Specifically, the
promotion of products that have environmental and ethical ben-
efits might be more effective among individuals who identify with
organic consumers. Both the individual characteristics of consum-
ers and their social environments play an important role in pre-
dicting their environmentally friendly and ethical behaviour.
References
Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C.B. & Gruen, T. (2005) Antecedents and
consequences of customer-company identification: expanding the role
of relationship marketing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
574–585.
Anderson, K. & Jackson, L.A. (2005) Some implications of GM food
technology policies for Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of African
Economies, 14, 385–410.
Ares, G., Besio, M., Giménez, A. & Deliza, R. (2010) Relationship
between involvement and functional milk desserts intention to pur-
chase. Influence on attitude towards packaging characteristics.
Appetite, 55, 298–304.
Ares, G. & Gámbaro, A. (2007) Influence of gender, age and motives
underlying food choice on perceived healthiness and willingness to
try functional foods. Appetite, 49, 148–158.
Arvola, A., Vassallo, M., Dean, M., Lampila, P., Saba, A. &
Lähteenmäki, R. (2008) Predicting intentions to purchase organic
food: the role of affective and moral attitudes in the theory of planned
behaviour. Appetite, 50, 443–454.
Ashforth, B.E. & Johnson, S.A. (2001) Which hat to wear? The relative
salience of multiple identities in organizational contexts. In Social
Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts (ed. by M.A.T. Hogg &
D.J. Terry), pp. 31–48. Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Bäckström, A., Pirttilä-Backman, A.-M. & Tuorila, H. (2003) Dimen-
sions of novelty: a social representation approach to new foods.
Appetite, 40, 299–307.
Bäckström, A., Pirttilä-Backman, A.-M. & Tuorila, H. (2004) Willing-
ness to try new foods as predicted by social representations and atti-
tude and trait scales. Appetite, 43, 75–83.
Banerjee, S.B., Iyer, E.S. & Kashyap, R.K. (2003) Corporate environ-
mentalism: antecedents and influence of industry type. Journal of
Marketing, 67, 106–122.
Bartels, J. & Hoogendam, K. (2011) The role of social identity and atti-
tudes toward sustainability brands in buying behavior for organic
products. Journal of Brand Management, 18, 697–708.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 82–89
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Social representations and social identity
Bartels, J., Pruyn, A.T.H., de Jong, M.D.T. & Joustra, I. (2007) Multiple
organizational identification levels and the impact of perceived exter-
nal prestige and communication climate. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 28, 173–190.
Bartels, J. & Reinders, M.J. (2010) Social identification, social represen-
tations, and consumer innovativeness in an organic food context: a
cross-national comparison. Food Quality and Preference, 21,
347–352.
Bartels, J. & Van den Berg, I. (2011) Fresh fruit and vegetables and the
added value of antioxidants: attitudes of non-, light, and heavy
organic food users. British Food Journal, 113, 1339–1352.
Bentler, M. (1989) EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. BMDP
Statistical Software, Los Angeles, CA.
Bergami, M. & Bagozzi, R.P. (2000) Self-categorization, affective com-
mitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity
in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39,
555–577.
Bett, C., Oumab, J.O. & De Groote, H. (2010) Perspectives of gatekeep-
ers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food.
Food Policy, 35, 332–340.
Bhattacharya, C.B., Rao, H. & Glynn, M.A. (1995) Understanding the
bond of identification: an investigation of its correlates among art
museum members. Journal of Marketing, 59, 46–57.
Bhattacharya, C.B. & Sen, S. (2003) Consumer-company identification:
a framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with compa-
nies. Journal of Marketing, 67, 76–88.
Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I. & Wright, J. (2004) Shopping for a better
world? An interpretive study of the potential for ethical consumption
within the older market. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21,
401–417.
Carrington, M.J., Neville, B.A. & Whitwell, G.J. (2010) Why ethical
consumers don’t walk their talk: towards a framework for understand-
ing the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying
behaviour of ethically minded consumers. Journal of Business Ethics,
97, 139–158.
Chen, M.-F. (2007) Attitude toward organic foods among Taiwanese as
related to health consciousness, environmental attitudes, and the
mediating effects of a healthy lifestyle. British Food Journal, 111,
165–178.
Chryssohoidis, G.M. & Krystallis, A. (2005) Organic consumers’ per-
sonal values research: testing and validating the list of values (LOV)
scale and implementing a value-based segmentation task. Food
Quality and Preference, 16, 585–599.
Coulter, R.A., Price, L.L. & Feick, L. (2003) Rethinking the origins of
involvement and brand commitment: insights from postsocialist
Central Europe. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 151–169.
De Barcellos, M.D., Krystallis, A., de Melo Saab, M.S., Kügler, J.O. &
Grunert, K.G. (2011) Investigating the gap between citizens’ sustain-
ability attitudes and food purchasing behaviour: empirical evidence
from Brazilian pork consumers. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 35, 391–402.
De Pelsmacker, P. & Janssen, W. (2007) A model for fair trade buying
behavior: the role of perceived quantity and quality of information
and of product-specific attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 75,
361–380.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P. & Ouwerkerk, J.W. (1999) Self-
categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as
related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 29, 371–389.
Feather, N.T. & Rauter, K.A. (2004) Organizational citizenship
behaviors in relation to job status, job insecurity, organizational
commitment and identification, job satisfaction and work values.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77,
81–94.
87
Social representations and social identity
Foreman, P. & Whetten, D.A. (2002) Members’ identification with
multiple identity organizations. Organizational Science, 13,
618–635.
Fransson, N. & Gärling, T. (1999) Environmental concern: conceptual
definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 19, 369–382.
Griskevicius, V., Van den Bergh, B. & Tybur, J.M. (2010) Going green
to be seen: status, reputation and conspicuous conservation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 392–404.
Grunert, S.C. (1993) Green consumerism in Denmark: some evidence
from the OKO foods-project. Der Markt, 32, 140–151.
Grunert, S.C. & Juhl, H.J. (1995) Values, environmental attitudes and
buying of organic foods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16,
39–62.
Hauser, J., Tellis, G.J. & Griffin, A. (2006) Research on innovation: a
review and agenda for Marketing Science. Marketing Science, 25,
687–717.
Holbert, R.L. & Stephenson, M.T. (2002) Structural equation modeling
in the communication sciences, 1995–2000. Human Communication
Research, 28, 531–551.
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J. & Hoyer, W.D. (2009) Social identity and the
service-profit chain. Journal of Marketing, 73, 38–54.
Hu & Bentler (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc-
ture analysis: Coventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Huotilainen, A., Pirttilä-Backman, A.-M. & Tuorila, H. (2006a) How
innovativeness relates to social representation of new foods and to the
willingness to try and use such foods. Food Quality and Preference,
17, 353–361.
Huotilainen, A., Seppälä, T., Pirttilä-backman, A.-M. & Tuorila, H.
(2006b) Derived attributes as mediators between categorization and
acceptance of a new functional drink. Food Quality and Preference,
17, 328–336.
Huotilainen, A. & Tuorila, H. (2005) Social representation of new foods
has a stable structure based on suspicion and trust. Food Quality and
Preference, 16, 565–572.
Krystallis, A. & Chryssohoidis, G. (2005) Consumers’ willingness to
pay for organic food: factors that affect it and variation per organic
product type. British Food Journal, 107, 320–343.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001) Targeting con-
sumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly
products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18, 503–520.
Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G. & Mummery, K. (2002) Eating
‘green’: motivations behind organic food consumption in Australia.
Sociologia Ruralis, 42, 23–40.
Loureiro, M.L. & Lotade, J. (2005) Do fair trade and eco-labels in
coffee wake up the consumer conscience? Ecological Economics, 53,
129–138.
Ma, Y.J. & Lee, H.-H. (2012) Understanding consumption behaviours
for fair trade non-food products: focusing on self-transcendence and
openness to change values. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 36, 622–634.
Mael, F.A. & Ashforth, B.E. (1992) Alumni and their alma mater: a
partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.
Magnusson, M.K., Arvola, A., Hursti, U.K.K., Aberg, L. & Sjödèn, P.O.
(2003) Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences
for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite,
40, 109–117.
McDonald, S., Oates, C.J., Alevizou, P.J., Young, C.W. & Hwang, K.
(2012) Individual strategies for sustainable consumption. Journal of
Marketing Management, 28, 445–468.
Miles, S. & Frewer, L.J. (2001) Investigating specific concerns about
different food hazards. Food Quality and Preferences, 12, 47–61.
88
J. Bartels and M.C. Onwezen
Moscovici, S. (1981) On social representations. In Social Cognition.
Perspectives on Everyday Understanding (ed. by J.P. Forgas), pp.
181–209. Academic Press, London.
Moscovici, S. (2001) Why a theory of social representations? In Repre-
sentations of the Social: Bridging Theoretical Traditions (ed. by K.
Deaux & G. Philogéne), pp. 8–35. Blackwell, Oxford.
O’Brien, M. & Mullins, E. (2009) Relevance of genetically modified
crops in light of future environmental and legislative challenges
to the agri-environment. Annals of Applied Biology, 154,
323–340.
Onwezen, M.C. & Bartels, J. (2013) Development and cross-cultural
validation of a shortened social representations scale. Food Quality
and Preference, 28, 226–234.
Papaoikonomou, E. (2013) Sustainable lifestyles in an urban context:
towards a holistic understanding of ethical consumer behaviours.
Empirical evidence from Catalonia, Spain. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 37, 181–188.
Pedregal, V.D. & Ozcaglar-Toulouse, N. (2011) Why does not every-
body purchase fair trade products? The question of the fairness of fair
trade products’ consumption for consumers. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 35, 655–660.
Phipps, R.H. & Park, J.R. (2002) Environmental benefits of genetically
modified crops: global and European perspectives on their ability to
reduce pesticide use. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 11,
1–18.
Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W.E., Luchs, M.G.,
Ozanne, L.K. & Thøgersen, J. (2011) Sustainable consumption:
opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing, 30, 31–38.
Quester, P.G. & Smart, J. (1998) The influence of consumption situation
and product involvement over consumers’ use of product attribute.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15, 220–235.
Raynolds, L.T. (2002) Consumer/producer links in fair trade coffee net-
works. Sociologia Ruralis, 42, 404–424.
Saba, A. & Messina, F. (2003) Attitudes towards organic foods and risk/
benefit perception associated with pesticides. Food Quality and Pref-
erence, 14, 637–645.
Salazar, H.A., Oerlemans, L. & Van Stroe-Biezen, S. (2013) Social
influence on sustainable consumption: evidence from a behavioural
experiment. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37,
172–180.
Schultz, W.P. (2001) The structure of environmental concern: concern
for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 21, 327–339.
Schumacker, R.E. & Lomax, R.G. (2004) A Beginner’s Guide to Struc-
tural Equation Modelling, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ.
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, 143–151.
Steenkamp, J.E.M. & Baumgartner, H. (1998) Assessing measurement
invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer
Research, 25, 78–90.
Tajfel, H. (1972) Experiments in a vacuum. In The Context of Social
Psychology (ed. by J. Isreal & H. Tajfel), p. 438. Academic Press,
London.
Tajfel, H. (1978) Social categorisation, social identity and social com-
parison. In Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the
Social Psychology of Inter-group Relations (ed. by H. Tajfel),
pp. 61–76. Academic Press, London.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup con-
flict. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (eds by W.G.
Austin & S. Worchel), pp. 33–47. Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 82–89
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
J. Bartels and M.C. Onwezen
Tarkiainen, A. & Sundqvist, S. (2009) Product involvement in organic
food consumption: does ideology meet practice? Psychology and
Marketing, 26, 844–863.
Thøgersen, J. (1999) The ethical consumer. Moral norms and packaging
choice. Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 439–460.
Thøgersen, J. & Ölander, F. (2003) Spillover of environment-friendly
consumer behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23,
225–236.
Ullman, J.B. (2001) Structural equation modeling. Using Multivariate
Statistics, 4th edn (ed. by B.G. Tabachnick & L.S. Fidell), pp. 676–
780. Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Van Herpen, E., Van Nierop, E. & Sloot, L. (2012) The relationship
between in-store marketing and observed sales for organic versus fair
trade products. Marketing Letters, 23, 293–308.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (2014) 82–89
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Social representations and social identity
Vermeir, I. & Verbeke, W. (2006) Sustainable food consumption: explor-
ing the consumer ‘attitude – behavioral intention’ gap. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 169–194.
Yoo, B. & Donthu, N. (2001) Developing and validating a multidimen-
sional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business
Research, 52, 1–14.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. & Lee, S. (2000) An examination of selected mar-
keting mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 28, 195–211.
Zander, K. & Hamm, U. (2012) Information search behaviour and its
determinants: the case of ethical attributes of organic food. Interna-
tional Journal of Consumer Studies, 36, 307–316.
89