The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0007-070X.htm

Effect of utilitarian and hedonic Perceived

value of
values on consumer willingness to organic food in
Tunisia
buy and to pay for organic olive oil
in Tunisia 1013
Zohra Zinoubi Ghali Received 11 June 2019
Revised 12 October 2019
Department of Business Administration, Saudi Electronic University, 30 November 2019
Ryadh, Saudi Arabia and Accepted 1 February 2020
Higher Institute of Management, University of Tunis, Le Bardo, Tunisia

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to study the influence of organic food perceived values (utilitarian vs hedonic) on
consumer willingness to buy and willingness to pay in a developing country.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper utilized a survey of 467 Tunisian consumers of organic olive
oil. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the reliability and validities of
constructs, as wells as model fit and the structural model.
Findings – The findings indicate that both utilitarian and hedonic values have significant influence on
consumer willingness to buy and to pay for organic olive oil. The hedonic value has a stronger influence on
willingness to buy while the utilitarian value has a stronger influence on willingness to pay.
Research limitations/implications – This study contributes to knowledge regarding the relationships
between organic food perceived value and consumer willingness to buy and to pay. Findings provide clear
ways for practitioners to communicate the perceived values of their organic foods in order to increase their
consumption.
Originality/value – This paper is one of the rare studies that focuses on willingness to buy and to pay for
organic food in a developing country. In addition, it is a first attempt to test the consumer perceived values of
organic olive oil in the context of one of the biggest producer countries of this type of food.
Keywords Hedonic value, Utilitarian value, Organic food, Willingness to pay, Willingness to buy, Developing
market
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Over the past few decades, various environmental issues (pollution, waste overstock, etc.) and
food safety incidents (food poisoning, food contamination, etc.) have increased consumers’
interest in environment-friendliness and wholesome food worldwide (Thompson and
Darwish, 2019). In this context of high consumer consciousness regarding the impact of what
they consume on their health and the environment, the consumption of organic products has
been expanding rapidly (Aryal et al., 2009; Yadav and Pathak, 2016). This change has deeply
influenced consumers’ behavior and altered living standards and lifestyles significantly (Lim
et al., 2014). However, the literature reveals that the demand for organic food is greater in
developed countries (e.g. Canada, USA and Europe) than it is in developing ones (Petljak et al.,
2017; Willer and Lernoud, 2019). Furthermore, theoretical studies and empirical data about
the consumption of organic food products in developing markets seem limited compared with
those in developed markets (Ghali and Toukabri, 2019; Yadav and Pathak, 2016).
According to the findings of a recent survey conducted by Willer and Lernoud (2019), a
large number of organic food producers are from developing countries like India, Uganda and British Food Journal
Mexico, with almost 3 million producers. However, the majority of consumers are from Vol. 122 No. 4, 2020
pp. 1013-1026
developed countries like Germany, China, France and the United States. Additional © Emerald Publishing Limited
0007-070X
developed countries like Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden have been found to have the DOI 10.1108/BFJ-06-2019-0414
BFJ highest per capita organic consumption (Willer and Lernoud, 2019, p. 24). These statistics
122,4 also show that the majority of certified organic products in developing countries (particularly
in Africa) are destined for export markets (Willer and Lernoud, 2019, p. 28). This strategy of
the mass export of organic food products to developed markets has significant consequences
on domestic consumption in these countries. Hence, organic-food consumption is still at the
nascent stage and not a perceived choice for the entire population (Yadav and Pathak, 2016).
It has been found that availability, premium price and affordability were the major barriers to
1014 consuming organic foods in these countries (Keramitsoglou et al., 2018; Petljak et al., 2017;
Wang et al., 2019).
Tunisia is among the African countries that produces organic food products, primarily for
export (Willer and Lernoud, 2019). It is the second big producer of olive oil in the world after
Spain. It has the largest area of organic olive groves in the world (more than 254,000 hectares).
In Tunisia, 15.5 percent of the olive area is organic (Willer and Lernoud, 2019, p. 125). It
produces more than 175,000 tones, with 80 percent of this destined for export to developed
countries in all continents. This strategy of mass export is used to cover the trade balance
deficit. However, this influences the availability and the affordability of organic olive oil in the
domestic market. Hence, it considered as “luxury food,” because its premium pricing
precludes many people from purchasing it (Ghali and Toukabri, 2019).
The literature reveals that several research studies have focused on the influences of
organic foods values on consumer attitude and purchase intention (Arvola et al., 2008; Jones
et al., 2006; Lee and Yun, 2015; Ryu et al., 2010). Additional studies have tested the influence of
product attributes like logo (Anastasiou et al., 2017), price (Dodds et al., 1991), certified label
(Liu et al., 2019) and quality (Aryal et al., 2009) on WTP or WTB. Most of these studies were
conducted in developed markets. However, this research is among the few research works to
focus on the influence of perceived values (utilitarian vs hedonic) on WTP and WTP.
Moreover, it is the first of its kind to be conducted in an emerging market. More precisely, it is
a first attempt to test the impact of utilitarian and hedonic values of organic olive oil on
consumer WTP and WTB in the context of one of the biggest producer countries (Tunisia) of
this type of food. The findings of this study may provide significant insights for marketers in
developing countries to formulate effective communication strategies aiming to develop
organic consumption while focusing on perceived values of organic foods.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a literature review
of the variables utilized in the conceptual model. The third section describes the methodology
of the research. The fourth section describes the results of the study. The final section
provides a discussion of the results, conclusions, implications, limitations and directions for
further research.

Literature review
The organic food product and its values
According to the American Department of Agriculture (2015), agricultural products are
certified as organic if they are produced without the utilization of conventional pesticides,
sewage sludge, synthetic fertilizers, antibiotics and growth hormones. Ditlevsen et al. (2019)
described organic food products as being nutritious, natural and pure foods. They are also
more enjoyable, fresher, tastier and healthier, according to Wang et al. (2019). These different
characteristics show that organic food value cannot be summarized based on its functional
value (Lim et al., 2014). Indeed, nowadays, consumption is no longer limited to the act of
purchasing but also manipulates and alters feelings and emotions beyond functional and
cognitive aspects (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Lim et al., 2014). Hence, according to these
authors, products may provide both utilitarian and hedonic values. And yet, the weighing of
each attribute in consumer decision-making is a complex phenomenon, as the context and the
motivations driving food consumption can differ (Fuljahn and Moosmayer, 2011; Maehle Perceived
et al., 2015). value of
The utilitarian value of a product is “what consumers get for what they give, or ‘the
consumer’s overall evaluation of the utility of a product or service provision based on
organic food in
perceptions of what is received for what one gives” (Zeithaml, 1988, p14). Particularly in the Tunisia
organic field, these authors considered the utilitarian value as the product’s instrumental
functionality, such as low price, low caloric content or high nutritional value. This value also
refers to the consumer’s overall assessment of a product’s or service’s functional benefits and 1015
drawbacks (Fuljahn and Moosmayer, 2011). According to Ditlevsen et al. (2019), the utilitarian
value of an organic food product proceeds from its nutritional quality, purity, safety and
healthy attributes. In other words, it is a task-oriented, rational, tangible, objective, cognitive,
and nonemotional outcome of organic consumption (Jones et al., 2006; Maehle et al., 2015).
Hedonic value refers to the pleasure gained from the taste and from the freshness and
purity of food (Maehle et al., 2015). It is also the perception of the value received from the
multisensory and emotive aspects of a product (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Maehle et al.,
2015). For these authors, because the consumer is seeking fun, fantasy, arousal, multisensory
stimulation and enjoyment through the act of consumption, the hedonic value of products can
drive the consumer’s behavior. In other words, the hedonic value of a product is viewed not as
referring to objectives and entities but as providing experiential consumption that is full of
pleasure and enjoyment (Ginon et al., 2014; Jones et al., 2006). In the context of organic
consumption, this enjoyment can be driven by the better taste and the freshness of the
product as well as by the pleasure felt by the consumers when doing something right for their
health and the environment (Petljak et al., 2017).

Willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to buy (WTB)

Several authors have stated consumers’ preferences and decisions about whether to purchase
or pay a premium price for a product (Anastasiou et al., 2017; Ginon et al., 2014). The WTB and
the WTP are two concepts in consumer preferences. In the area of marketing, these two
concepts are effective and appropriate to predict and explain consumers’ purchase decisions
or behavior (Ghazali et al., 2017; Keramitsoglou et al., 2018).
WTP is used to study consumer reactions toward prices and constitutes an alternative
to price elasticities of a demand when market data is not available (Alphone and Alfnes,
2017; Le Gall-Ely, 2009). It is positively correlated with behavioral attitude (Anastasiou
et al., 2017; Nssivera et al., 2017). In the field of organic food farming, WTP is defined as the
maximum amount a customer would be willing to pay or sacrifice in order to buy an organic
food product (Krystallis and Chryssohoidis, 2005). It also measures “the additional price a
consumer will pay for an organic product above the price that is asked for a comparable
conventional product” (Anastasiou et al., 2017, p.4). WTP for organic food reflects
consumers’ concerns about the ethical production of food in terms of environmental
friendliness, quality and security, as well as trust in the certification regime (Liu et al., 2015;
Wang and Huo, 2016).
WTB is much less studied compared with WTP. This concept is a surrogate of purchase
intention (Liao and Hsien, 2013). It consists of the customer’s likelihood to shop, purchase
products and recommend the store to others (Jahangir et al., 2009). WTB is a crucial indicator
for actual purchase behavior since it expresses the effort expended by consumer toward a
concrete behavior (Baggozzi et al., 1990). It is derived from a positive attitude toward an
environmentally friendly product (Malik and Singhal, 2017). Jahangir et al. (2009) found that
price sensitivity, promotion and product quality are important predictors of WTB. According
to Konuk (2019), environmental concerns, a desire for fair consumption, trust in the “Fair
Trade”–certified label and consumer innovativeness are important drivers of WTB.
BFJ Utilitarian value of organic food and consumers’ willingness to buy and to pay
122,4 Lee and Yan (2015) considered utilitarian values of organic food such as consumers’
conception of nutritional content, ecological welfare and price attributes to have a strong
influence on consumer willingness to buy organic food. Petjak et al. (2017) found that food
safety, human health, animal welfare and environment have a crucial impact on predicting
consumer WTP. Moreover, they considered that because organic food is healthier and tastier
that its conventional counterparts, it has a stronger influence on WTP. Krystallis and
1016 Chryssohoidis (2005) stated that the magnitude of the correlation between utilitarian values
(quality, security, trust in the certification and brand name) and WTP is a function of the
organic food category. Konuk (2019) tested the influence of consciousness for fair
consumption, environmental concern, trust and innovativeness on consumers’ willingness
to buy and to pay for fair trade food. He found that all these variables, which reflect the
cognitive aspect of fair trade food consumption, have a more important influence on WTB
than WTP. In the same vein, Nejati and Moghaddam (2013) studied the influence of utilitarian
and hedonic values on consumer behavioral intentions in a developing context (Iran). They
found that both values have significant influence on purchase intention and consumer
satisfaction. However, utilitarian value has a more powerful influence on the consumer
purchase intention. Additional previous studies (Anastasiou et al., 2017; Aryal et al., 2009;
Ghazali et al., 2017) found that consumers are motivated to pay premium prices for organic
food for its superior utilitarian values (safety, healthfulness, environment-friendliness,
quality traceability) as compared to conventional counterparts.
Following this literature review, the first hypothesis can be proposed as follows:
H1. Utilitarian value of organic food has significant positive influences on consumers’
willingness to buy and to pay.
H1a. Utilitarian value of organic food has a significant positive influence on consumers’
willingness to buy.
H1b. Utilitarian value of organic food has a significant positive influence on consumers’
willingness to pay.

Hedonic value of organic food and consumers’ willingness to buy and to pay
Nowadays, consumption is no longer limited to the act of purchasing but also manipulates and
exchanges feelings and emotions beyond the functional aspect (Holbrook and Hirschman,
1982). Therefore, a product’s hedonic value plays a crucial role in the stimulation of consumer
purchase behavior (Ghazali et al., 2017). Furthermore, it exerts a stronger influence on
consumer buying behavior compared to utilitarian value, according to Chung (2015).
The hedonic value of a product can be perceived when the product has a superior taste and
offers a holistic pleasure in terms of purchasing and consuming experience (Babin et al.,
1994). For Arvola et al. (2008) and Lim et al. (2014), the self-rewarding feelings of doing the
right thing are significantly correlated with the intention to buy organic food. Spendrup et al.
(2016) stated that the different hedonic attributes of an organic food product, like taste,
freshness, appearance and other sensory characteristics, influence consumer preferences
toward organic produce and consequently affect the intention to buy. According to these
authors, the positive emotions felt during the consumption of sustainable food strengthen the
consumer’s willingness to buy. Additional studies (Liu et al.., 2019; Wang et al., 2019) have
stated that the pleasure and enjoyment that the consumer feels when consuming organic food
and his/her interest in good health and a clean environment justify his/her willingness to pay
a premium price. However, several studies have revealed that hedonic value does not
necessarily have a similar influence on consumers’ WTP and WTP. For example, Ginon et al.
(2014) argued that consumers are less sensitive toward price when making a hedonic
purchase. Maehele et al. (2015) stated that the differences in motivations behind the purchase Perceived
of hedonic vs utilitarian products lead to price being relatively more important for utilitarian value of
products compared to hedonic ones.
Based on the discussed literature, the second hypothesis can be formulated as follows:
organic food in
Tunisia
H2. The hedonic value of organic food has significant positive influences on the
consumer’s willingness to buy and his willingness to pay.
H2a. The hedonic value of organic food has a significant positive influence on the 1017
consumer’s willingness to buy.
H2b. The hedonic value of organic food has a significant positive influence on the
consumer’s willingness to pay.
Based on the aforementioned discussion, a conceptual model is presented in the following
Figure 1:

Methodology
Sample characteristics and data collection
To collect data, a self-administrated questionnaire was used in this study. Before the final data
collection, a preliminary survey was administrated in order to assess the clarity of the
questionnaire and its suitability for the respondents (Giachino et al., 2019; Yadav and Pathak,
2016). A dozen of questionnaires were distributed to research scholars in the department in
which the author works. Minor modifications were introduced based on their recommendations.
The final survey was administered over nine weeks from January 17, 2019 to March 23, 2019
at several sales points offering organic olive oil in the city of Tunis (the capital of Tunisia).
During this period, a total of 478 respondents were reached, all of whom willingly provided
responses. However, after eliminating inappropriate questionnaires (where all the answers were
identical), the final sample size was 467 respondents. The questionnaires were delivered face to
face by the authors to a convenience sample, with some dispersion in terms of gender, income,
age and education. Table I contains the demographic proprieties of the respondents. The choice
of Tunisia as a developing country for this study was made for two reasons. First, this country
is the second most important producer of organic olive oil in the world, after Spain, and it has the
largest area of olive in the world (Willer and Lernoud, 2019, p. 125). Second, in Tunisia, olive oil
is a lot more than food. It represents culture, savoir-faire, and it is part of the everyday life for the
majority of people (Putinja, 2018).

Measures
While the first part of the questionnaire dealt with the sociodemographic profile of
respondents, the second part included questions that operationalize each construct of the

Organic food
perceived values:

Utilitarian H1a Willingness to Buy

Value
H1b

H2a
Hedonic Willingness to Pay
H2b
Value Figure 1.
Conceptual model
BFJ Variables/criteria N %
122,4
Gender
Male 227 48.60
Female 240 51.40
Age (years)
1018 Less than 20 14 3.00
18–30 79 16.91
31–45 211 45.19
Older than 46 163 34.90
Education
Elementary 48 10.27
Graduate 232 49.68
Post-graduate 105 22.49
Professional 82 17.56
Household monthly income level (TD*)
Low income (Less than 700) 15 3.21
Medium income (from 701 to 1,300) 266 56.96
High income (from 1,301 to 2,000) 133 28.47
Very high income (more than 2,001) 53 11.53
Main household purchaser
Table I. Myself 146 31.26
Demographic Other members 102 21.84
description of Both 219 46.90
participants (N 5 467) Note(s): *TD 5 Tunisian Dinar; 1TD 5 0.35 US $ in August 2019, National average wage 5 350 US $

conceptual model. Items were measured using seven-point Likert scales ranging from
1 5 strongly disagree to 7 5 strongly agree. The items of all these scales were provided in
Table II. The survey instruments were borrowed from previous research works and adapted
for this study. The scale items have been widely used, and their applicability is well
established in diverse contexts. The variable “utilitarian value” was measured by adapting
the scale of Ryu et al. (2010). The variable “hedonic value” was measured by adapting the scale
of Arvola et al. (2008). The variable “willingness to buy” was measured using the scale of
Dodds et al. (1991) and Sweeney et al. (1999). The variable “willingness to pay” was measured
using the scale of Lee et al. (2015) and Netemeyer et al. (2004). Data analysis was conducted
using structural equation modeling (SEM). This study led the authors to proceed with a two-
stage analysis method (Hair et al., 2013). First, measurement model analysis was used to test
the validity and reliability of the constructs. Then, the structural model was tested for the
model fit and hypotheses testing.

Results
Measurement model
Using Cronbach’s α to measure the internal consistency of the items, the score ranged from
0.712 to 0.906, which meets the requirement for being above 0.7 (Hair et al., 2013). This means
that the items of each instrument contribute significantly to the formation of the dimension,
and their correlation with the total score exceeds 0.3 (Roussel et al., 2002). These findings
allowed the authors to confirm the reliability of the measurement scales of each construct.
Furthermore, convergent and discriminant validity were measured. The convergent validity
was tested using the following three indicators: composite reliability (CR); factor loading and
 Factor Cronbach’s Standard
Perceived
Construct items loadings α errors t-values CR AVE value of
organic food in
Utilitarian value (UV)
UV 1 Buying organic olive oil 0.873 0.823 0.012 26.666*** 0.873 0.872 Tunisia
was convenient
UV2 Buying organic olive oil 0.924 0.896 0.002 28.763***
was pragmatic and 1019
economical
UV3 It was not a waste of money 0.901 0.845 0.009 27.033***
when buying organic olive
oil
UV4 Buying organic olive oil is 0.864 0.906 0.015 26.111**
interesting
Hedonic value (HV)
HV1 Buying organic olive oil 0.745 0.766 0.023 26.739*** 0.803 0.734
would give me pleasure
HV2 Buying organic olive oil 0.823 0.891 0.043 27.327***
would feel like doing the
morally right thing
HV3 Buying organic olive oil 0.711 0.712 0.011 25.873***
would make me feel like a
better person
HV4 The use of organic olive oil 0.887 0.833 0.034 27.667***
can affect my well-being
positively
HV5 I would enjoy using organic 0.798 0.792 0.061 26.901***
olive oil
HV 6 I would feel relaxed using 0.803 0.831 0.052 26.333***
organic olive oil
Willingness to buy (WTB)
WB1 I consider buying organic 0.801 0.754 0.012 27.301** 0.781 0.698
olive oil
WB2 I will purchase organic 0.799 0.782 0.036 26.333***
olive oil
WB3 There is a strong likelihood 0.803 0.701 0.011 27.666***
that I will buy organic olive
oil
Willingness to pay (WTP)
WP1 I am willing to spend extra 0.671 0.733 0.063 25.541*** 0.712 0.614
in order to buy organic
olive oil
WP2 It is acceptable to pay a 0.754 0.801 0.033 27.201***
premium to purchase
organic olive oil
WP3 I am willing to pay more for 0.783 0.766 0.013 27.867***
organic food Table II.
Note(s): **p < 0.005; ***p < 0.001; N 5 467. X2 5 969,763; df 5 363; X2/df 5 2.671; GFI 5 0.953; AGFI 5 0.933; Properties of the
RMSEA 5 0.021; CFI 5 0.904; PNFI 5 0.266 measurement model

average variance extracted (AVE). All the CRs of the constructs ranged from 0.712 to 0.873,
which implies that all constructs met the recommended criterion of being above 0.6 (Baggozzi
and Yi, 1988). Factor loadings were between 0.671 and 0.924, i.e. well above the recommended
BFJ value 0.6 (Hair et al., 2013). The AVE values ranged from 0.614 to 0.872, which met the
122,4 recommended level of being above 0.5 (Hair et al., 2013). Therefore, convergent validity for
every construct is confirmed.
The details of reliability and convergent validity are outlined in the following Table II.
To confirm the discriminant validity, the square root of AVE of each construct must be
larger than the correlation between the constructs (Roussel et al., 2002). This criterion was
met, indicating good discriminant validity for every construct of the conceptual model. The
1020 details of discriminant validity are outlined in the following Table III.

Structural model
The relationships between constructs can be determined by examining their path coefficients
and related t statistics via the bootstrapping procedure.
For the first independent variable, utilitarian value, the path coefficients found indicate
that they have significant positive effects on both willingness to buy and willingness to pay
for the respective values (β 5 0.247, t-value 5 3.001; p < 0.01; β 5 0.236, t-value 5 2.634;
p < 0.01). Therefore, H1a and H1b are supported. Consequently, the first hypothesis (H1) is
supported.
For the second independent variable, hedonic value, the path coefficients found indicate
that they have significant positive effects on both willingness to buy and willingness to pay
for the respective values (β 5 0.376, t-value 5 13.334, p < 0.01; β 5 0.133, t-value 5 5.111,
p < 0.01). Therefore, H2a and H2b are supported. Consequently, the second hypothesis (H2) is
supported.
The results of the estimated SEM model are illustrated in the following Figure 2.

Discussion
The research findings support the research hypotheses. This means that both utilitarian and
hedonic values of organic food products constitute drivers of consumers’ willingness to buy
and willingness to pay. These findings are similar to those of Corsi and Novelli (2007), Aryal
et al. (2009), and Lu and Chi (2018). However, these values do not have the same influence
intensity on WTP and WTB. Utilitarian value has a stronger influence on WTP, while
hedonic value has a stronger influence on WTB. This means that the consumer is willing to
pay premium prices when he/she is aware of the utilitarian attribute of organic food (olive oil)
and has trust in its nutritional value, superior quality and healthfulness. Therefore, paying
premium prices for organic food products is considered a sacrifice made by the consumer for
the sake of good health and well-being. These findings are in line with Alphone and Alfness
(2017), Krystallis and Chryssohoidis (2005) and Wang et al. (2019), who stated that consumers
are willing to pay more for organic products because they perceive these products as higher
quality, safer foods that they can trust more than their conventional counterparts.
On the other hand, WTB was mainly elicited by the hedonic value of organic food in the
case of the interviewed sample. This means that the freshness and good taste of organic food,

Constructs 1 2 3 4

1. UV 0.933
2. HV 0.873*** 0.856
Table III. 3. WB 0.893*** 0.836** 0.835
Correlation matrix for 4. WP 0.834** 0.824*** 0.811*** 0.783
discriminant validity Note(s): **p < 0.005; ***p < 0.001; N 5 467. The square root of AVE is shown as italic at diagonal
 Organic food
Perceived
perceived values: value of
Utilitarian
organic food in
Value
0.247 ***
Willingness to Buy Tunisia
0.236 *** 0.376 **

Hedonic
1021
0.133*** Willingness to Pay
Value

Note(s): ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.005; N = 467.

Figure 2.
X2(294) =1373.433; p < 0.01; X2/df = 4.672; GFI = 0.931; AGFI = 0.911; Hypothesized model
TLI = 0.978; CFI = 0.914. IFI = 0.915; RMSEA = 0.021

as well as the pleasure and enjoyment felt by the consumer when doing something beneficial
for his/her health and environment, elicit an experience of consumption. These findings are in
line with Lee and Yun (2015), Anastasiou et al. (2017) and Maehle et al. (2015), who confirmed
the hedonic value of organic food had more impact on WTB compared to its utilitarian
counterpart. Thus, we can understand that nowadays, even for the organic food industry,
consumption is no longer limited to the act of purchasing. Indeed, it also manipulates and
exchanges feelings and emotions beyond the functional aspect of the product (Holbrook and
Hirshman, 1982). So, more than the superior functional values, the consumer is looking for
pleasure and enjoyment through the act of purchasing organic food.
Finally, this investigation, led in a developing country, allowed the authors to compare the
findings with those of some previous research works conducted in developed countries
(Aryal et al., 2009; Babin et al., 1994; Crosi and Novelli, 2007; Fuljahn and Moosmayer, 2011).
As any other consumer in a developed country, the Tunisian consumer buys organic food
mainly out of emotional, affective and hedonic motives. This means that today’s consumer
does not seek only functional and cognitive attributes through a purchasing act; he/she
equally seeks immersion in an emotional experience of consumption (Ghazali et al., 2017).
However, unlike many findings of studies conducted in developed countries (Ginon et al.,
2014; Wang et al., 2019), the present study suggests that in a developing country, the
consumer is willing to a pay premium price for organic food mainly for the sake of its
utilitarian value (quality, purity, safety, etc.). In the authors’ opinion, this can be accounted for
by the difference in the purchasing power of consumers in developed countries vs developing
ones. Indeed, the low income of many consumers in a developing country like Tunisia
constitutes a constraint against being more spontaneous, irrational and emotional when
choosing a product. In other words, the premium price of organic food compared to the price
of its conventional counterpart, as well as the limited purchasing power of consumers in a
developing country, require the consumer to be more reasonable and rational when
purchasing this category of food (Ghali and Toukabri, 2019).

Implications and limitations

From a theoretical perspective, this study makes several important contributions. First,
although Tunisia is among the leading producers and exporters of organic olive oil in the
world, the consumption of this product in this country remains limited (Ghali and Toukabri,
2019). Research regarding the drivers of consumers’ preferences regarding purchasing and
paying for this product remains worthwhile to increase the consumption of organic olive oil in
Tunisia.
BFJ Second, the literature reveals that several research studies have focused on the influences
122,4 of organic food’s values on purchase intention and attitude (Arvola et al., 2008; Jones et al.,
2006; Lee and Yun, 2015; Nejati and Moghaddam, 2013; Ryu et al., 2010). Additional studies
have tested the influence of product attributes like logo (Anastasiou et al. 2017), price, brand
and store information (Dodds et al., 1991), certified label (Liu et al., 2019) and quality (Aryal
et al., 2009) on WTP or WTB. However, this research is among the few research works to
focus on the influence of perceived values (utilitarian vs hedonic) on WTP and WTP.
1022 Moreover, it is the first of its kind to be conducted in an emerging market.
Third, the findings of this study show that the utilitarian value of organic food has the
greatest influence on WTP, while the hedonic value has the largest influence on WTB. These
findings are in line with the research of Krystallis and Chryssohoidis (2005) conducted in a
developing market (Greece), which found that utilitarian values like quality, security and
trust play an important role in defining WTP. However, the findings of this study include
some differences compared with those conducted in developed countries. For example, Ginon
et al. (2014) argued that consumers are less price-sensitive when making a hedonic purchase.
Heid and Ham (2013) revealed that taste, as a hedonic value of organic food, has a stronger
influence on German consumers’ WTP. Lee and Yan (2015) found that for US consumers, both
utilitarian and hedonic values play a crucial role in predicting consumer purchase intention.
In the Chinese context, attention to safety and freshness of organic fruits were found to be
vital for WTP (Wang et al., 2019). These differences in the hedonic vs utilitarian value
influence extent on WTP vs WTB, refering to the level of price importance in purchase
decision-making of the consumers in the two categories of countries. Consumers in
developing countries are more rational when it comes to buying premium-priced products,
which is in relation with their monthly income and purchasing power. Finally, despite this
study being conducted in only one developing country and focused on the study of only one
category of organic products, the study remains of interest for other developing markets.
This is because Tunisia, like many developing countries, is an important producer of organic
food products; however, the consumption of this category of foods within the country is still
in its nascent stage. Therefore, the recommendations developed in this study are of interest
for other developing contexts because they clarify some ways to increase the consumption of
organic foods.
From a managerial perspective, the findings of this study among Tunisian customers
leads to several recommendations that retailers can use to enhance the consumption of
organic olive oil within Tunisia.
First, because the consumer is aware of the values of organic olive oil, the authors
recommend that practitioners in this sector highlight both the utilitarian and hedonic
attributes of this product when creating their communication strategies. On the one hand,
because the utilitarian value of organic olive oil exerts its greatest impact on WTP,
practitioners should deliver rich information about the benefits of organic consumption for
health and the environment and make the consumer aware that higher prices correspond to
better quality, reliability, safety, purity, etc. (Konuk, 2019). On the other hand, because the
hedonic value of the product has the strongest influence on WTB, marketers could leverage
the hedonic benefits of its usage by engaging in emotional appeal advertising. This allows
linking the product with indulgence to stimulate pleasure and enjoyment (Ghazali et al., 2017;
Nejati and Moghaddam, 2013). Besides, the consumer’s desire for pleasure and enjoyment can
be met through multisensory marketing by highlighting the hedonic properties of the product
(attractive package, visual aspect of freshness, good taste, etc.). In addition, retailers should
improve the hedonic values of their products through attractive, eco-friendly packaging and
by placing them in special shelves in order to improve visibility and attractiveness.
Second, because organic products are premium-priced, strengthening their presence in the
domestic market may elicit the desired consumer response and boost the willingness to pay a
premium price. This is possible through the diversification of sale points and the Perceived
intensification of the presence of this product in stores, outlets and supermarkets in all the value of
regions of this country. In addition, online organic stores may represent a good opportunity to
make their products more available, especially when there is a concentration of organic stores
organic food in
in the main cities in developing countries, like Tunisia (Ghali and Toukabri, 2019). Tunisia
Furthermore, the authors recommend that producers of organic olive oil use short
distribution chains in order to control costs and remain closer to the consumer. To make
this practical, retailers should focus on regional products because this reduces consumers’ 1023
sensitivity to price and improves their involvement in organic purchase behavior (Ghali and
Toukabri, 2019).
Third, consumers in developing countries are, generally, more sensitive to the high price
of organic foods compared with conventional ones (Ghali and Toukabri, 2019) and their
WTP is greatly influenced by what they get compared to what they pay (Yu et al., 2014).
Therefore, retailers should improve fairness of price conceptions regarding their organic
products by considering the organic food competitors’ prices as well as the income of their
customers when setting price levels for their products. This could be achieved by reducing
nonmonetary costs by using new technologies when reaping, collecting and squeezing
olives. Policymakers also have also a vital role to play through their pricing policies.
Supporting small farmers through subventions and special funds, as well as helping to
modernize their activities by introducing new technologies, can improve production levels
and drive prices down. Finally, retailers can use reliable quality labels by taking advantage
of the fact that Tunisian olive oil was voted the world’s best oil in 2019 (ANBA, 2019; Girelli
et al., 2019).
Despite the contribution of this study, it has, however, some limitations also, which
suggest avenues for further research. The first limitation of this study is the focus on only
one category of organic food (organic olive oil). However, prior studies (Krystallis and
Chryssohoidis, 2005; Yadav and Path, 2016) have shown that consumers’ willingness to
buy and pay can differ according to the organic food product category. Therefore, the
results may not be generalizable to the entire organic industry. Second, this study examined
the relationships between organic food values and consumers’ WTB and WTP without
considering the respondents’ demographic characteristics, which may have considerable
influence on consumers’ WTB and WTP (Wang et al., 2019). Hence, segmenting consumers
based on sociodemographic criteria (gender, age, income and education) may lead to a
better understanding of WTP and WTB based on the consumer profile. Third, one of the
major limitations of this study was the adaptation of the measurement scales, originally
created and tested in developed markets. Future research should develop reliable and
validated scale measurement for emerging countries in order to investigate the different
parameters. Finally, the comparison between the findings of studies with other studies
carried out internationally may constitute a future path for research. It would be also useful
to conduct longitudinal studies to deepen the understanding of consumers’ behavior
toward organic food.

References
Alphonce, R. and Alfnes, F. (2017), “Eliciting consumer WTP for food characteristics in a developing
context: application of four valuation methods in an African market”, Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 123-142.
American Department of Agriculture (2015), “National organic program”, available at: www.ams.usda.
gov/about-ams/programs-offices/national-organic-program (accessed 20 January 2019).
Anastasiou, C.N., Keramitsoglou, K.M., Kalogeras, N., Tsagkaraki, M.I., Kalatzi, L. and Tsagarakis,
K.P. (2017), “Can the “Euro-leaf” logo affect consumers’ willingness-to-buy and willingness-to-
BFJ pay for organic food and attract consumers’ preferences? An empirical study in Greece”,
Sustainability, Vol. 9, No. 8, p. 1450.
122,4
ANBA (2019), “Tunisian olive oil voted the world’s best, Newsroom. Brazil-Arab New Agency”,
available at: https://anba.com.br/en/tunisian-olive-oil-voted-the-worlds-best/ (accessed 04
October 2019).
Arvola, A.M., Vassallo, M., Dean, P., Lampila, A., Saba, L., Lahteenmaki, L. and Shepherd, R. (2008),
“Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: the role of affective and moral attitudes in the
1024 theory of planned behavior”, Appetite, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 443-454.
Aryal, K., Chaudhary, P., Pandit, S. and Sharma, G. (2009), “Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic
products: a case from kathmandu valley”, Journal of Agriculture and Environment, Vol. 10,
pp. 15-22.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value”, The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-656.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. and Baumgartner, J. (1990), “The level of effort required for behavior as a
moderator of the attitude-behavior relation”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 45-59.
Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structure equation models”, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Chung, Y.S. (2015), “Utilitarian and utilitarian shopping values in airport shopping behavior”, Journal
of Air Transport Management, Vol. 49, pp. 28-34.
Corsi, A. and Novelli, S. (2007), “Italian consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for organic
beef”, in Organic Food, Springer, pp. 143-156, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/227243055_Italian_Consumers%27_Preferences_and_Willingness_to_Pay_for_Or
ganic_Beef.
Ditlevsen, K., Sandoe, P. and Lassen, J. (2019), “Healthy food is nutritious, but organic food is healthy
because it is pure: the negotiation of healthy food choices by Danish consumers of organic
food”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 71, pp. 46-53.
Dodds, W.D., Monroe, K. and Grewal, D. (1991), “Effects of price, brand and store information on
buyers’ product evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 307-319.
Fuljahn, A. and Moosmayer, D.C. (2011), “The myth of guilt: a replication study on the suitability of
hedonic and utilitarian products for cause related marketing campaigns in Germany”,
International Journal of Business Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 85-92.
Ghali, Z.Z. and Toukabri, M. (2019), “The antecedents of the consumer purchase intention: sensitivity
to price and involvement in organic product: moderating role of product regional identity”,
Trends in Food Science and Technology, Vol. 90, pp. 175-179.
Ghazali, E., Soon, P.C., Mutum, D., S. and Nguyen, B. (2017), “Health and cosmetics: investigating
consumers’ values for buying organic personal care products”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 39, pp. 154-163.
Giachino, C., Truant, E. and Bonadonna, A. (2019), “Mountain tourism and motivation: millennial
students’ seasonal preferences”, Current Issues in Tourism, pp. 1-15.
Ginon, E., Combris, P., Loheac, Y., Enderli, G. and Issanchou, S. (2014), “What do we learn from
comparing hedonic scores and willingness-to-pay data?”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 33,
pp. 54-63.
Girelli, C.R., Coco, L.D. and Fanizzi, F.P. (2019), “Tunisian Extra virgin olive oil traceability in the EEC
market: Tunisian/Italian (coratina) EVOOs blend as a case study”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 8,
p. 1471.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2013), “Partial least squares structural equation modelling:
rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 46 Nos
1-2, pp. 1-12.
Heid, A. and Hamm, U. (2013), “Organic consumers’ willingness-to-pay for boar meat products before Perceived
and after tasting product samples”, Organic Agriculture, Vol. 3, pp. 83-93.
value of
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp. 132-140.
organic food in
Jahangir, N., Parvez, N. and Bhattacharjee, D. (2009), “Determinants of consumers’ willingness to buy:
Tunisia
empirical investigation”, ABAC Journal, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 29-37.
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K. and Arnold, M.J. (2006), “Hedonic and Utilitarian shopping value: 1025
investigating differential effects on retails outcomes”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59
No. 9, pp. 974-981.
Keramitsoglou, K.M., Manfreda, K.L., Anastasiou, C., Skjak, K.K. and Tsagarakis, K.P. (2018), “Mode
comparison study on willingness to buy and willingness to pay for organic foods: paper-and-
pencil versus computerized questionnaire”, Electronic Commercial Research, Vol. 18,
pp. 587-603.
Konuk, F.A. (2019), “Consumers’ willingness to buy and willingness to pay for fair trade food: the
influence of consciousness for fair consumption, environmental concern, trust and
innovativeness”, Food Research International, Vol. 120, pp. 141-147.
Krystallis, A. and Chryssohoidis, G. (2005), “Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic food: factors
that affect it and variation per organic product type”, British Food Journal, Vol. 107 No. 5,
pp. 320-343.
Le Gall-Ely, M. (2009), “Definition, measurement and determinants of the consumer’s willingness to
pay: a critical synthesis and directions for further research”, Recherche et Applications en
Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 91-113.
Lee, H.J. and Yun, Z.S. (2015), “Consumers’ perceptions of organic food attributes and cognitive and
affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions toward organic food”, Food
Quality and Preference, Vol. 39, pp. 259-267.
Lee, K.H., Bonn, M.A. and Cho, M. (2015), “Consumer motives for purchasing organic coffee: the
moderating effects of ethical concern and price sensitivity”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1157-1180.
Liao, C.H. and Hsien, I.Y. (2013), “Determinants of consumer’s willingness to purchase gray-market
smartphones”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 111, pp. 409-424.
Lim, W.M., Yong, J.L. and Suryadi, K. (2014), “Consumers’ perceived value and willingness to
purchase organic food”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 27, pp. 298-307.
Liu, C.C., Chen, C.-W. and Chen, H.-S. (2019), “Measuring consumer preferences and willingness to pay
for coffee certification labels in Taiwan”, Sustainability, Vol. 11, p. 1297.
Liu, X., Xu, L., Zhu, D. and Wu, L. (2015), “Consumers’ WTP for certified traceable tea in China”,
British Food Journal, Vol. 117 No. 5, pp. 1440-1452.
Lu, L. and Chi, C.G. (2018), “An examination of the perceived value of organic dining”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 2826-2844.
Maehle, N., Iversen, N., Hem, L. and Otnes, C.C. (2015), “Exploring consumer preferences for hedonic
and utilitarian food attributes”, British Food Journal, Vol. 117 No. 12, pp. 3039-3063.
Malik, C. and Singhal. (2017), “Consumer environmental attitude and willingness to purchase
environmentally friendly products: an SEM approach”, Vision, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 152-161.
Nassivera, F., Troiano, S., Marangon, F., Sillani, S. and Markova Nencheva, I. (2017), “Willingness to
pay for organic cotton: consumer responsiveness to a corporate social responsibility initiative”,
British Food Journal, Vol. 119 No. 8, pp. 1815-1825.
Nejati, M. and Moghaddam, P.P. (2013), "The effect of hedonic and utilitarian values on satisfaction
and behavioural intentions for dining in fast-casual restaurants in Iran", British Food Journal,
Vol. 115 No. 11, pp. 1583-1596.
BFJ Netemeyer, R.G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth, F. (2004),
“Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity”, Journal of
122,4 Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 209-224.
Peter, T., Caroline, S., Meike, G. and Paul, R. (2016), “Emerging versus developed economy consumer
willingness to pay for environmentally sustainable food production: a choice experiment
approach comparing Indian, Chinese and United Kingdom lamb consumers”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 124, pp. 65-72.
1026 Petljak, K., Stulec, I. and Renko, S. (2017), “Consumers’ willingness to pay more for organic food in
Croatia”, Ekonomski Vjesnik, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 441-455.
Putinja, I. (2018), “The rise of olive oil from Tunisia. Euro news”, available at: https://www.euronews.
com/living/2018/05/30/the-rise-of-olive-oil-from-tunisia (accessed 4 October 2019).
Roussel, P., Durrieu, F., Campoy, E. and El Akremi, A. (2002), Methodes d’equations structurelles:
recherches et applications en gestion, Economica, Paris.
Ryu, K., Han, H. and Jang, S.S. (2010), “Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values,
satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry”, International,
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 416-430.
Spendrup, S., Hunter, E. and Isgren, E. (2016), “Exploring the relationship between nature sounds,
connectedness to nature, mood and willingness to buy sustainable food: a retail field
experiment”, Appetite, Vol. 100, pp. 133-141.
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N. and Johnson, L.W. (1999), “The role of perceived risk in the quality-value
relationship: a study in a retail environment”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 77-105.
Thompson, L.A. and Darwish, W. (2019), “Environmental chemical contaminants in food: review of a
global problem”, Journal of Toxicology, Vol. 2019, pp. 1-14.
Wang, L., Wang, J. and Huo, X. (2019), “Consumer’s willingness to pay a premium for organic fruits in
China: a double-hurdle analysis”, International Journal of Environment Research and Public
Health, Vol. 16 No. 126, pp. 3-14.
Wang, L.J. and Huo, X.C. (2016), “Willingness-to-pay price premiums for certified fruits-A case of fresh
apples in China”, Food Control, Vol. 64, pp. 240-246.
Willer, H. and Lernoud, J. (2019), “The world of organic agriculture. Statistics and emerging Trends. (FiBL)
and IFOAM-organics international”, available at: https://shop.fibl.org/CHen/mwdownloads/
download/link/id/1202/?ref51 (accessed 30 September 2019).
Yadav, R. and Pathak, G.S. (2016), “Intention to purchase organic food among young consumers:
Evidences from a developing nation”, Appetite, Vol. 96, pp. 122-128.
Yu, X., Gao, Z. and Zeng, Y. (2014), “Willingness to pay for the “green food” in China”, Food Policy,
Vol. 45, pp. 80-87.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 2-22.

Corresponding author
Zohra Zinoubi Ghali can be contacted at: zohragh@yahoo.fr; z.ghali@seu.edu.sa

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com