See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280034365

Does the consumers’ buying behavior differ for vegetarian and non-
vegetarian food products?: Evidences from an emerging market

Article  in  British Food Journal · August 2015

DOI: 10.1108/BFJ-09-2014-0324

CITATIONS READS

20 1,268

2 authors:

Niraj Kumar Sanjeev Kapoor

School of Rural Management- Xavier University Bhubaneswar Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow
30 PUBLICATIONS   259 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   389 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Study of Community Participation in Forest Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Niraj Kumar on 21 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 British Food Journal
Does the consumers’ buying behavior differ for vegetarian and non-vegetarian
food products?: Evidences from an emerging market
Niraj Kumar Sanjeev Kapoor
Article information:
To cite this document:
Niraj Kumar Sanjeev Kapoor , (2015),"Does the consumers’ buying behavior differ for vegetarian and
non-vegetarian food products?", British Food Journal, Vol. 117 Iss 8 pp. 1998 - 2016
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2014-0324
Downloaded on: 15 July 2015, At: 11:00 (PT)
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 69 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 58 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Mahsa-Sadat Taghavi, Alireza Seyedsalehi, (2015),"The effect of packaging and brand on children’s
and parents’ purchasing decisions and the moderating role of pester power", British Food Journal,
Vol. 117 Iss 8 pp. 2017-2038 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2014-0260
Rossella Di Monaco, Silvana Cavella, (2015),"Differences in liking of traditional salami: The effect of
local consumer familiarity and relation with the manufacturing process", British Food Journal, Vol. 117
Iss 8 pp. 2039-2056 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2014-0168
Md. Mohsan Khudri, Saida Sultana, (2015),"Determinants of service quality and impact of service
quality and consumer characteristics on channel selection", British Food Journal, Vol. 117 Iss 8 pp.
2078-2097 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2014-0431

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

Token:JournalAuthor:6D413C5C-4117-4D2E-A2E2-166C78AF4D49:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of
download.
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

BFJ
117,8
Does the consumers’
buying behavior differ for
vegetarian and non-vegetarian
1998 food products?
Received 18 September 2014
Revised 26 March 2015 Evidences from an emerging market
Accepted 26 March 2015
Niraj Kumar
Department of Rural Management, Xavier Institute of Management,
Bhubaneswar, India, and
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

Sanjeev Kapoor
Centre of Food and Agri-Business Management,
Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify and compare the factors which affect the consumers’
buying behavior of vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products in an emerging middle-size market.
The paper also compares the preferences of the consumers for various food products and their respective
market attributes.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 282 households of two middle-sized cities of India were
personally surveyed with a structured questionnaire. Simple statistical analysis such as frequency
distribution, factor analysis and analysis of variance, and logit regression were carried out to infer the
required information.
Findings – The results indicate that consumers consume more of vegetarian product than that of
non-vegetarian products. Most of the consumers were interested in seeing and verifying the products
of both of the categories before buying. Age and income of the consumers play important role in
influencing their buying behavior for vegetarian food products, but not that of non-vegetarian food
products. It was found that credence attributes of products, and market attributes play a dominant role in
influencing the consumers’ behavior for both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products. Packaged
branded products were not popular in both the food categories.
Research limitations/implications – The localized nature of this study limits the scope of wider
generalization. Future research could use larger samples spread across all regions having different
food culture.
Practical implications – The findings of the study will be of help to food retailers who are interested
to know whether the consumers’ buying process for these two categories of food products is more or less
same or different in nature. This would help them to customize their product-specific marketing
strategies as per the customers’ preferences and requirements.
Originality/value – The paper gives a comparative insight on consumers’ behavior toward both
vegetarian and non-vegetarian food. It provides specific reasons for having different or similar marketing
strategies for two categories of food.
Keywords India, Consumer behaviour, Food products, Food retailing, Emerging markets, Agribusiness
Paper type Research paper

British Food Journal Introduction

Vol. 117 No. 8, 2015
pp. 1998-2016
What consumers buy, how much, when, in what form and from where: these are some of
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
the questions, answers to which every marketer is curious to know. Knowing consumers’
DOI 10.1108/BFJ-09-2014-0324 wishes is an important condition for making an efficient sales concept (Cerjak et al., 2010).
 This assumes paramount importance in an evolving business like food retailing where Vegetarian
there has been large scale transformation across the globe in general and in Asia in and
particular since the last one decade (Timmers, 2005). Throughout the world, major
shifts in dietary patterns are occurring, even in the consumption of basic staples
non-vegetarian
toward more diversified diet (Kearney, 2010). With high product involvement (as food food products
products are basic necessities), purchase involvement of the consumers for these
products is also increasing. The buying process of food is no more characterized by 1999
impulse buying as in the past (Kumar and Kapoor, 2014) and has undergone change
in the last few years (Boon and Kurtz, 1998; Ali et al., 2010; NABARD, 2011;
Damodaran and Kulkarni, 2012). A shift in food consumption patterns toward more
diversified and high-value products like milk and milk products, fruits and
vegetables and meat is being experienced across the world (Huang and Bouis, 1996;
Meenakshi, 1996; D’Monte, 2011).
In India, though cereal continues to be an important constituent of a household food
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

basket, the share of high-value food such as vegetables, fruits, milk meat, fish and eggs is
increasing (Mittal, 2006). There has been considerable increase in consumption of meat
and other protein-rich foods like fish, milk, fruits and vegetables in developing countries
(Kearney, 2010). This shift in dietary pattern is a consistent change associated with
economic growth the world over (Huang and Bouis, 1996; Meenakshi, 1996). During the
1990s and the 2000s the output per capita of vegetables, fruits, milk, fish, meat and poultry
increased in India, though not as much as the rise in per capita income. So, there has been
a widening demand-supply gap in the country ( Joseph, 2013). Food consumption and
purchase in India has changed because of change in food preferences, socio-demographic
factors, increasing awareness about health benefits of fruits and vegetables and the food
industry’s marketing policies (Sharma and Jain, 2011). It has also been reported that the
growth of sales of fruits and vegetables by organized retails in Asian countries including
India lags behind that of processed food as most of the households continue to buy
fruits and vegetables from traditional retailers (Chen et al., 2005). Most of the urban
consumers (80-90 percent) in Asia use wet markets regularly (Nielsen, 2003). Unorganized
retails like, neighborhood shops, hawkers, pushcart sellers, roadside shops, kirana shops,
daily or weekly evening markets are the major sources of fresh fruits and vegetables in
India (Ali et al., 2010; Bulsara and Matharu, 2010; NABARD, 2011).
Researchers on food choices have considered product attributes as one of the
perspective to increase the understanding of consumers (Assael, 1998). Food can be
classified into search, experience and credence goods according to its level of quality that
can be discovered (Nelson, 1970; Darby and Karni, 1973; Ford et al., 1988). The peculiarities
of products are among the most critical factors determining the consumers’ purchase
decision. In recent decades, efforts to understand the relative importance of various
product attributes and their influence on the overall buying behavior of consumers have
been considerably explored (Kiesel and Villas-Boas, 2007). Studies have found that
customers attach varying importance to different product attributes while purchasing
fruits and vegetables (Ernst et al., 2006; Mahaliyanaarachchi, 2007; Dimech et al., 2011) and
their attitude and perception have been influenced by a number of personal characteristics
of customers (Fearne and Lavelle, 1996). Cognitive and emotional elements have been
found to have more influence on consumers’ purchase decisions for fruits and vegetables
than advertising and other campaigns (Nicolae and Corina, 2011). Indian customers prefer
buying food products on a regular basis and consider branded products as expensive
(Mukherjeee et al., 2011). Distance, convenience merchandise and loyalty are rated as very
important factors in deciding the outlet for the purchase (Sinha et al., 2002).
 BFJ Food purchasing behavior of consumers in developing economies such as India has
117,8 significantly changed due to an increase in per capita disposable income, global
interaction, information and communication technologies, urbanization, education, change
in life style, family structure and health awareness (KPMG, 2005; Pingali, 2006; Kaur and
Singh, 2007; Ali, et al., 2010). The agri-food market system has become more organized,
customer focussed and, in fact, is facilitating the growth of organized food retailing
2000 (Chen et al., 2005). Many studies have predicted that modern retail will continue to witness
double-digit growth in India (McKinsey & Company, 2007; Kearney, 2011; Mukherjee
et al., 2011; NABARD, 2011). It has been predicted that the share of organized retailing in
the food and grocery segment could grow up to 15-20 percent (Reardon and Gulati, 2008).
A report of Boston Consulting Group has estimated that in India, the domestic food
market is likely to triple to USD 900 billion by 2020 ( Jagran Post, 2011). According to a
study the annual spending of each middle class household on fast food restaurants in
India’s tier-II and tier-III cities has increased by 108 percent in the last two years
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

(ASSOCHAM, 2014). Though retailing of fresh fruits, vegetables and grocery is considered
a very low margin business, the huge market potential in India has attracted India
business houses to make their entry through different retail formats (Sengupta, 2008).
Indian-owned retail outlets are already active and aggressive in the meat, fish, fruit and
vegetable sector of the food market (Vaish, 2007; Sruthijith and Chakravarty, 2010;
Ali et al., 2010; Mamgain, 2011). Unlike in the past, the debate today is no longer whether
food and grocery retail in India would grow but rather how fast it can grow and what
challenges need to be overcome (Gupta, 2007). Although food retail growth has by and
large occurred in metropolitan (with a population of more than five million) and bigger
cities (with a population of more than one million) in India, the focus has now shifted to
lesser known smaller cities. With increasing spending power of the consumers, the retail
business in the smaller cities will increase by 50-60 percent due to easy and relatively
cheap availability of land and increasing demand among consumers (Damodaran, 2009;
Rastogi, 2010). According to a study by Ginesys, industrial townships and tier-II cities are
emerging as the new retail centers (The Economic Times, 2013) and these emerging
markets hold the maximum business potential for food retailers. Realizing this immense
potential, many organized retail corporations are aggressively venturing into the market
and targeting middle and smaller cities, where the potential is still untapped.
Food preferences and behavior are likely to vary from culture to culture (Falk et al.,
2001; Akamatsu et al., 2005; Coveney, 2006) and there is need to identify these differences
(Chang, 2014). Therefore, there is dire need to understand the true drivers of shopping
behavior of Indian customers for food products as they get fairly involved in store choice
decision (Sinha et al., 2002). Simultaneously, it is important for a store to understand the
consumers’ behavior for developing the marketing strategy (Sinha, 2003). It is necessary to
understand food purchasing behavior of consumers to attract them to the organized retail
outlets. Most of the organized retail stores are involved in selling both vegetarian and non-
vegetarian food products. Retailers are interested to know whether the consumers’ buying
process for these two categories of food products is more or less the same or different in
nature. This would help them to customize their product-specific marketing strategies as
per the customers’ preferences and requirements. Although there have been a good number
of studies to understand the Indian consumers’ behavior for individual categories of food,
i.e., vegetarian or non-vegetarian products (Srinivasan and Elangovan, 2000; Raju and
Suryanarayana, 2005; Upadhyay and Pathania, 2013, Devi Prasad and Madhavi, 2014,
Kumar and Kapoor, 2014), there is hardly any research in which a comparative study has
been made to study the consumers behavior for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food
 products. These two different food product categories are of varying importance for the Vegetarian
consumers in India. While vegetables are one of the regular and essential constituents and
of food, consumption of non-vegetarian food is considered as “special food” for most of
the consumers, and even within the category their frequency and quantity has varied
non-vegetarian
(CIRAD, 2014). food products
An Individual’s socio-demographic characteristics can influence the perceived
importance of various food attributes (Weirenga, 1983), and his purchase behavior 2001
of health-related products (Aschemann-Witzel and Hamm, 2010). Traditionally, the price of a
product has been considered as the prime factor for the consumers’ decision-making process
in India. Ali et al. (2010) reported that Indian consumers are still price conservative and
adopt the cheapest and the best while purchasing quality food products, and their income
affects their purchase behavior of food products (Upadhyay and Pathania, 2013). It would be
interesting to analyze how demographic characteristics of consumers of middle and smaller
cities influence their buying behavior for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products.
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

Product attributes as perceived by consumers are critical factors in the food choice process
and are considered to be a major determinant for the success of many product marketing
strategies (Batra and Sinha, 2000; Kupiec and Revell, 2001). Fruits and vegetables are
purchased in raw form, whereas, some sort of processing is required to make non-vegetarian
products available to the consumers. What are these attributes of vegetarian and non-
vegetarian products, which influence the consumers’ perception of quality? Are these the
same or different? How do consumers treat search, experience and credence product
attributes while making their preferences and choices for these two different categories of
the products? Answers to these questions are vital for food companies to decide about their
marketing strategies. Consumers’ selection of a store is based on their perception and
confidence in retail outlet which in turn is dependent on the availability of quality products
(Dash et al., 1976), ambience, hygiene, and credibility (Devi Prasad and Madhavi, 2014). The
importance of a store increases for the products it offers when quality cannot be perceived
by search attributes, and when the brand loyalty of the consumers cannot be established.
These food products meet both these criteria. It is important to know the relative role of
convenience, ambience, market services, choices of products and quality of products for the
customers’ preference of organized retail for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products.
The results would provide a clue to the organized retailers whether to adopt store
exclusiveness or not for the two categories of the food products?

Research purpose and hypotheses

This paper attempts to identify and compare the factors which affect the consumers’ buying
behavior of vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products in an emerging middle-size
market. The paper compares the choices of the consumers for various vegetarian and
non-vegetarian food products and their market attributes. The specific hypotheses tested in
the present research are as follows:
H1. Consumers’ buying behavior in terms of frequency, quantity of purchase and
form of purchase is different for vegetarian and non-vegetarian products.
Based on the frequency and volume of purchase, necessary strategies can be developed
not only to make fresh products available to the consumers, but also to minimize the
wastage and inventory cost to the retailers:
H2. The demographic characteristics of consumers (gender, age, education and income)
significantly influence the buying behavior for both the categories of food products.
 BFJ Understanding the demographic characteristics of consumers would help the retailers
117,8 to design promotional programs for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products:
H3. The importance of different product attributes is expected to be similar for the
consumers while purchasing vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products.
H4. The different market attributes are expected to play similar roles for the
2002 consumers while purchasing vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products.

Research methods
The consumers’ buying behavior has been captured through quantity and frequency of
purchase, form of purchase and preferred location of store for different vegetarian and
non-vegetarian products. The factors influencing the buying behavior have been broadly
categorized under customer-related (gender, age, education and income), product-related
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

(quality, hygiene and price) and market-related (convenience, credit sale, vendor behavior,
availability in desired quantity and quality) behaviors. The different products and market
attributes were selected based on qualitative research. Frequency distribution and cross-
tabulation were conducted to assess the buying behavior of the consumers. Analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was conducted to test whether socio-economic factors of consumers
are important in explaining their buying behavior of vegetarian and non-vegetarian food
products. The importance of different sets of products and market attributes was
determined using factor analysis. For this purpose, the principle component analysis
was conducted using varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization. Factor analysis is used
to describe variability among observed, correlated variables in terms of a potentially lower
number of unobserved variables called factors. Importance of attributes can be described
in terms of assessed mean score (if rated on certain point scale, say five-point scale).
A varimax solution yields results which make it as easy as possible to identify each
variable with a single factor. This is the most common rotation option. However, the
orthogonality (i.e. independence) of factors is often an unrealistic assumption.
The data for this research were collected through questionnaire survey in two major
cities of the state of Odisha[1], namely, Bhubaneswar and Rourkela[2]. A total of
282 households (182 households from Bhubaneswar and 100 households from Rourkela)
were selected from economically developed areas and having sufficient purchasing
power for organized retail shopping. The data were collected by interviewing the family
head in the household. The selection of items under vegetarian (fruits and vegetables)
and non-vegetarian food (fish, chicken and mutton) was based on the review of literature
and on the findings of a pilot study. The results of a small pilot study conducted on
the same sample indicated that in majority of households (54.1 percent), the housewives
decide the menu of food items. On the other hand, it was found that in 60 percent cases,
the husband did the shopping. The analysis indicated that purchase of food products is a
family affair.
The survey questionnaire had questions representing socio-economic profile of
consumers (gender, age, monthly family income and level of education), their buying
behavior (purchase frequency, quantity and form of purchase) of vegetarian and non-
vegetarian food products, and the various product (freshness, quality and nutrition) and
market attributes (convenience, availability of assured quality, market ambience
and market services). The consumers’ perception of these attributes was taken on a
Likert scale (1 ¼ not at all important, 2 ¼ somewhat important, 3 ¼ important, 4 ¼ very
important and 5 ¼ extremely important).
 Results and discussion Vegetarian
Consumers’ profile and
Consumers’ profile in terms of their gender, age, education and income, has been presented
in Table I. A majority (more than 50 percent) of the respondents were male and about
non-vegetarian
65 percent of the respondents belonged to the age group of 30-50 years. In respect of food products
qualification more than 90 percent hold graduation or higher degrees. About 40 percent
of the households stated their monthly income to be between Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 40,000 2003
(1US$ ¼ Rs. 60) and above. This category of households is considered as middle class in
India. In total, 52 percent of the sample households were from the upper middle class
having monthly income in the range of Rs. 40,000-70,000. The consumers’ profile indicates
that the chosen sample was appropriate to understand the consumers’ behavior for
buying vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products from the organized retail.

Buying behavior
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

The purchase behavior of the consumers was assessed on the basis of the frequency of
purchase, volume of transaction and form of purchase (Table II). The results indicate that
vegetables and fish are frequently purchased products with a mode value of 2.
It indicates that these two commodities are purchased twice or thrice in a weak. On the
other hand, fruits, chicken and meat are purchased mostly on a weekly basis. Odisha

Sl. No. Characteristics No. of respondents (%)

1. Gender
Male 55.3
Female 44.7
2. Age (years)
o30 32.6
31-40 35.8
41-50 28.7
W50 2.9
3. Education
Intermediate 7.0
Graduate 48.0
Post graduate 45.0
4. Family monthly income (Rs.)
10,000-20,000 7.4 Table I.
20,000-40,000 40.0 Socio-economic
40,000-75,000 48.1 profile of
W75,000 4.5 respondents

Product Frequency of purchase (mode value) Average transaction quantity (kg)

Vegetables 2 3.5
Fruits 3 2.7 Table II.
Mutton 3 0.9 Buying behavior for
Chicken 3 0.9 vegetarian and
Fish 2 1.0 non-vegetarian food
Notes: 1: daily; 2: twice to thrice in a week; 3: once in a week; 4: twice in a month; 5: once in a month products
 BFJ being a coastal state, both vegetables and fish are an important constituent of the
117,8 consumers’ food basket. Consumption of fruits and vegetables is more (with an average
shopping of 3.5 and 2.7 kg, respectively) as compared to that of non-vegetarian products
(average transaction quantity of about 1.00 kg). The results present another interesting
aspect that for both the product categories, majority of the consumers are interested in
seeing the products physically before buying so that they personally examine and select
2004 the product (Table III). In case of vegetarian products, consumers prefer physically
verifying and selecting the products; whereas in case of non-veg products, they only
verify the sample. There was no significant response toward purchase of packaged
branded products in both of these categories of the food products. The results reflect that
consumers are more interested in freshness of the products and they want to evaluate it
through their search attributes. Further, brand loyalty in buying vegetarian or non-
vegetarian food items has not been developed so far in Indian consumers. Thus, our first
hypothesis that the buying behavior of the consumers is not altogether different for the
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

two categories of food products can be partially accepted. The organized retailers can
take these findings for maintaining the inventory level for their packed vegetarian or
non-vegetarian food products. Vigorous efforts in terms of promotional programs have to
be undertaken to bring non-interested customers to organized retail outlets.
The influence of the demographic profile of the consumers on their buying behavior
for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products was studied using ANOVA technique.
The results in terms of F ratios and their significance levels are given in Table IV.
The results reveal that for purchase decisions in respect of both frequency and
transaction quantity, the responses of males and females are similar for both
vegetarian and non-vegetarian products (the F ratios are non-significant for gender
characteristics of consumers). This contradicts the findings of Haddock-Fraser et al.
(2009), which showed that gender differences were significant in respect of frequency of
shopping for food products in the Japanese market. The age of the consumers affect the
frequency of buying of both the vegetables and fruits. The consumers of 35 years and

Decision criteria Non-vegetarian products Vegetarian products

Table III.
Preferred method for Physically verifying and selecting 35.4 69.0
buying different food Seeing the sample 56.6 26.5
products (percentage Properly packed by vendor 1.0 3.5
of respondents) Take branded product (packaged) 0.0 1.0

Purchase decision Product Gender Age Income

Frequency of purchase Vegetables 1.73 9.84** 22.74***

Fruits 2.04 7.29* 21.27***
Mutton 0.038 2.313* 0.204
Chicken 0.096 1.045 0.170
Table IV. Fish 0.652 0.424 1.478
Analysis of variance Transaction quantity Vegetables 0.96 4.76* 10.43***
(ANOVA) between Fruits 0.034 1.84 5.52***
purchase behavior Mutton 0.065 2.617** 1.322
and demographic Chicken 2.261 3.133** 0.958
characteristics of Fish 0.238 0.673 0.427
consumers Notes: *,**,***Significant at 10, 5 and 1 percent levels, respectively
 above prefer more frequent purchase of fruits and vegetables. In case of non-vegetarian Vegetarian
food products, the effect of consumers’ age was visible on frequency of purchase and and
transaction quantity for mutton as young consumers (less than 25 years) prefer
frequent purchase of mutton as reported by Kumar and Kapoor (2014). The monthly
non-vegetarian
income of the consumers had no influence on their purchase decisions for non- food products
vegetarian food products (the F ratios are non-significant for income characteristics
of consumers), but it had a highly significant effect on the frequency and amount of 2005
purchase of fruits and vegetables (F ratios are significant at 1 percent significance
level). Haddock-Fraser et al. (2009) also reported that except for the price sensitivity,
there was no other income effect on the food purchase factors of Japanese consumers.
The findings indicate that by and large, age and income of the consumers play an
important role in influencing their buying behavior for vegetarian food products, but
the demographic characteristics of consumers do not significantly influence the buying
behavior for non-vegetarian food products. Therefore, the H2 is partly true.
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

Importance of product attributes

The buying decisions for a product are based on how consumers perceive the quality
of the product. The consumers’ perception about the product quality depends upon a
combination of its search, experience and credence attributes. The mean value of
consumers’ response to the importance of various vegetarian food product attributes has
been presented in Table V. The results indicate that consumers attach more importance
to credence attributes like, freshness, nutrition and medicinal value. These product
attributes get the first three ranks with a mean value of 4.9, 4.8 and 4.6, respectively.
The search attributes like size, color, variety and grading are ranked low by the
consumers. The experience attribute “taste” got the rank of 5 with the mean value of
consumers’ response as 4.5. The mean value of consumers’ response on the importance
of various non-vegetarian food product attributes has been presented in Table VI. Freshness
and nutritional value (free from chemicals) were also ranked as extremely important product
attributes by the consumers of non-vegetarian food products, with a mean value of 4.9 and
4.55, respectively. The importance of credence attributes has also been highlighted in the
study conducted by Dimech et al. (2011) for the Maltese consumers of fruits and vegetables.
Freshness has been found to be the most important criterion consumers look for while
purchasing non-vegetarian foods (Haddock-Fraser, et al. 2009; Becker, et al., 1997; Raju and
Suryanarayana, 2005; NABARD, 2011). These results contradict that that Indian consumers

Product attributes Mean

Freshness 4.9
Nutrition 4.8
Medicinal value 4.6
Hybrid/local variety 4.5
Taste 4.5
Variety 4.5
Size 4.3
Color 4.2 Table V.
Odor 4.2 Importance of
Grading/sorting 4.2 product attributes
Organically grown 3.9 for vegetarian food
Notes: 1 ¼ Not at all important; 5 ¼ most important products
 BFJ are always price conservative in their buying behavior. Rather, the results indicate that
117,8 the consumers are moving more toward product attributes for buying the vegetarian
and non-vegetarian food products, as has been reported by Goyal and Singh (2007).
The organized retailers have to maintain the quality of food products with high priority.
Consumers’ response to different product attributes were clubbed into three and two
sets of related attributes, respectively, for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products
2006 using principal component analysis (Tables VII and VIII). Using factor analysis, these
attributes explain 66.38 and 69 percent of variance in consumers’ preference for
vegetarian products and non-vegetarian products, respectively. For vegetarian food
products, the variance indicated by the factor “Credence Attributes” is 30.83 percent,
and the product attributes like nutritional value, hybrid variety and organic cultivation
practices, medicinal value, and freshness load high on this factor in the descending order.
The second factor “Search Attributes” explains 19.25 percent variation in consumers’
preference and product attributes like grading/sorting, variety, size and color load high
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

on this factor in the descending order. The variance shown by the third factor called
“Experience Attributes” turned out to be 16.30 percent and product attributes like taste
and odor load high on this factor.
In case of non-vegetarian products, the variance indicated by the first factor called
“Food Safety” is 55 percent, and the product attributes like chemical-free meat, animal kept
well before slaughter, and meat served fresh load high on this factor in the descending

Product attributes Mean

Served fresh 4.90

Chemical free 4.58
From healthy animal 4.55
Table VI. Age 4.41
Importance of Maintained total hygienic condition while processing 4.36
product attributes Kept well before slaughter 3.83
for non-vegetarian Animal with good quality feed 3.62
food products Notes: 1 ¼ Not at all important; 5 ¼ most important

Product attributes Credence attributes Search attributes Experience attributes

Nutrition 0.841 0.121 0.007

Hybrid/desi variety 0.808 0.162 −0.017
Organically grown 0.772 0.074 0.042
Medicinal value 0.643 0.276 0.068
Freshness 0.629 0.211 0.302
Grading/sorting −0.043 0.856 0.000
Variety 0.356 0.678 −0.018
Size 0.448 0.655 0.087
Color 0.442 0.495 0.371
Table VII. Taste −0.152 0.223 0.896
Factor analysis – Odor 0.284 −0.188 0.863
rotated component Total variance explained (%) 30.83 19.25 16.30
matrix for vegetarian Cumulative variance explained (%) 30.83 50.08 66.38
food product Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: varimax with Kaiser
attributes normalization
 order (Table VIII). The second factor termed as “Food Quality” explains 14 percent Vegetarian
variation and the product attributes like meat from healthy animal, quality of animal feed, and
age of animal and hygienic conditions while processing load high on this factor in the
descending order. In India, in most of the meat shops, animals are slaughtered and
non-vegetarian
processed in retail outlets. Sometimes animals are slaughtered in front of customers if they food products
want to see personally what they buy (Winter, 2008). Thus the results confirm that the
food safety (credence attributes) also play a dominant role in influencing the consumers’ 2007
behavior for non-vegetarian food products. It leads to the acceptance of H3 which states
that the importance of different product attributes is expected to be similar for the
consumers while purchasing vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products.

Significance of market attributes

The preferences of consumers for different market attributes for vegetarian food
products are presented in Table IX. The figures indicate that for fruits and vegetables,
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

market convenience, availability of quality fresh products with availability of choices are
the preferred market attributes. The ranks of these attributes are high in terms of mean
score of consumers’ response. In case of non-vegetarian food products, assured good
quality with the mean score of 4.64 was ranked first (Table X) followed by the meat
preparation in front of the customers’ eye (mean score of 4.50). Importantly, price turned

Attributes Food safety Food quality

Chemical free 0.900 0.163

Kept well before slaughter 0.869 0.248
Served fresh 0.718 0.402
From healthy animal 0.163 0.906
Animal fed in good quality food 0.244 0.706
Age 0.220 0.634 Table VIII.
Maintained total hygienic condition while processing 0.534 0.606 Factor analysis –
Total variance explained (%) 55 14 rotated component
Cumulative variance explained (%) 55 69 matrix for
Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: varimax with Kaiser non-vegetarian food
normalization product attributes

Mean
Attributes Vegetables Fruits

Market convenience 4.36 3.90

Availability of quality products 3.68 3.90
Availability of variety/choices 3.60 3.50
Availability of fresh products 3.48 3.90
Hours of market operation 3.20 3.30
Price 3.08 3.10
Bargaining power 3.04 3.10 Table IX.
Market ambience 3.00 3.10 Importance of
Market cleanliness 2.84 3.10 market attributes
Market services 2.84 3.00 for vegetarian
Notes: 1 ¼ Not at all important; 5 ¼ most important food products
 BFJ out to be a much less important market attribute both for vegetarian and non-vegetarian
117,8 food products. This rejects the assumption that Indian consumers resort to cheap product
strategy for purchasing food items. For Sri Lankan vegetable consumers, quality,
freshness and low prices were the major considerations in deciding about the place of
purchase of vegetable (Mahaliyanaarachchi, 2007). In Malaysia, lower income consumer
groups were prepared to bear with dirty market places in order to keep the price
2008 affordable (Sheng et al., 2008). A study in Vietnam on the factors affecting consumers’
preference for traditional markets vs supermarket revealed that freshness, price and
convenience were important in shaping the choice of consumers for traditional outlets for
fresh foods (Maruyama and Trung, 2007). It has been reported that factors affecting
choice of retail outlets varied across the gender; while men gave more prominence to
proximity, women emphasized the merchandise offered by stores (Sinha, 2003). Factors
like, value for money, availability of variety of products at same place, good display of
products, nearby availability and good ambience were rated very high for food
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

purchasing decisions (Haddock-Fraser et al., 2009; Gupta, 2009; Devi Prasad and
Madhavi, 2014).
The principal component extraction method with varimax rotation has yielded four
factors which together explain 77.97 percent of the variance in preference of market
attributes for buying vegetables (Table XI). The first factor, termed “Physical
Appearance of Market” indicates the important attributes of markets such as cleanliness
and ambience.
Physical appearances turned out to be the most important factor explaining a total of
26.82 percent variation in preference of market attributes for buying vegetables.
The second factor “Market Convenience and Services” explains 21.73 percent variation,
where attributes like market convenience, services and its hours of operation load very
high. It signifies that consumers need the market to remain open for a long duration so
that they can make their purchases when they have time. Availability of quality products
can be defined as the third factor which shows 16.74 percent variation in preference of
market attributes. Here, the attributes like availability of fresh products, availability
of quality products and availability of choices load high on the factor. The last factor
“Consumer Bargaining Power” explains only 12.68 percent variation and attributes like
consumer bargaining power and price load high on this factor.
In case of fruits, which are relatively costly products, the results of principal
component extraction method in explaining the variance in preference of market
attributes are opposite to those found in case of vegetables. Here the factor “Consumers
Bargaining Power” explains maximum variance of 23.22 percent, whereas the factor

Factors Mean

Assured good quality 4.64

Prepared in front 4.50
Near to house/convenience 3.69
Acquaintance with shop keeper 3.37
Table X. Desired quantity 3.16
Importance of Special treatment 2.41
market attributes Cheaper than market 2.23
for non-vegetarian Credit transaction 1.62
food products Notes: 1 ¼ Not at all important; 5 ¼ most important
 Factors Vegetarian
Market and
Physical convenience Availability of Consumer
appearance of and services quality bargaining non-vegetarian
Attributes market (M1) (M2) products (M3) power (M4) food products
Market cleanliness 0.791 0.364 −0.219 0.078
Market ambience 0.550 0.227 −0.555 −0.238 2009
Market convenience −0.205 0.839 −0.195 0.148
Market services 0.174 0.825 −0.014 −0.009
Hours of market operation −0.076 0.933 −0.208 0.144
Availability of fresh products 0.040 0.091 0.864 −0.082
Availability of quality products 0.540 0.205 0.751 0.052
Availability of variety/choices 0.288 0.386 0.758 −0.062
Bargaining power −0.169 −0.249 −0.186 0.684
Price 0.371 −0.038 0.544 0.611 Table XI.
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

Total variance explained (%) 26.82 21.73 16.74 12.68 Factor analysis –
Cumulative variance explained (%) 26.82 48.55 65.29 77.97 rotated component
Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: varimax with Kaiser matrix for market
normalization attributes: vegetables

“Market Convenience and Services” turned out to be the least important factor explaining
only 15.60 percent of variation (Table XII).
For non-vegetarian products, the factor “Market Facilities and Services” turned out to
be the most important factor as it explains a total of 45.3 percent variation and attributes
like special treatment given by the vendor to the consumer, sale on credit and availability
of meat in desired quantity, load high on this factor (Table XIII). The second factor
“Market Convenience and Familiarity” explains 18.9 percent variation. The attributes like
familiarity of consumers with vendors, market convenience and meat prepared in front of
consumers, load high on this factor. It signifies that trust on the seller plays an important
role in explaining the consumers’ choice of market for non-vegetarian food products.
Goyal and Singh (2007) have found that Indian consumers of fast food have the highest
value of taste and quality followed by hygiene and ambience. Since the credence
attributes of these products are more important for consumers, trust on seller is a
substitute for judging the quality of the products. Given the differences in the importance
of various market attributes in explaining the consumers’ responses for vegetarian and
non-vegetarian food products, we reject the H4 which states that the importance of
different market attributes is expected to be similar for the consumers while purchasing
vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products.

Summary and conclusions

The present research identifies and compares the factors which affect the consumers’
buying behavior of vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products in an emerging middle-size
market. Realizing the immense potential, many organized retail corporations are
aggressively venturing into the market and targeting middle and smaller cities, where
the potential is untapped till now. Most of the organized retail stores are involved in selling
both categories of food products. The study helps the marketers who are interested to know
whether the consumers’ buying process for these two categories of food products is more or
less the same or different in nature. This would help them to customize their product-specific
marketing strategies as per the customers’ preferences and requirements.
 BFJ Factors
117,8 Market
Consumer Physical Availability of convenience
bargaining appearance of quality and services
Attributes power (M4) market (M1) products (M3) (M2)

Bargaining power 0.861 −0.146 0.060 −0.144

2010 Price 0.812 −0.116 0.364 0.187
Market ambience −0.018 0.905 0.070 0.039
Market cleanliness −0.101 0.844 0.347 0.144
Availability of variety/choices 0.201 0.405 0.763 −0.064
Availability of quality products 0.240 0.128 0.858 0.145
Availability of fresh products 0.301 0.175 0.834 −0.009
Hours of market operation 0.146 −0.427 0.330 0.715
Market convenience 0.095 0.460 −0.302 0.695
Market services −0.388 0.267 0.170 0.679
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

Table XII.
Factor analysis – Total variance explained (%) 23.22 21.18 20.86 15.60
rotated component Cumulative variance explained (%) 23.22 44.40 65.26 80.86
matrix for market Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: varimax with Kaiser
attributes: fruits normalization

The results indicate that vegetables and fish are frequently purchased products
(twice or thrice in a weak) as compared to fruits, chicken and meat which are purchased
mostly on a weekly basis. Consumption of fruits and vegetables is more as compared to
that of non-vegetarian products. The results present that a majority of the consumers in
both the categories of food products, are interested in seeing the products before buying
so that they can select the product themselves. There was no significant response toward
purchase of packaged branded products in both the categories of the food products
indicating that organized retailing in food products is still at an infant stage. Further,
brand loyalty in buying vegetarian or non-vegetarian food items has not been developed
so far in Indian consumers. The findings indicate that by and large, age and income of the
consumers play important role in influencing their buying behavior for vegetarian food
products, but the demographic characteristics of consumers do not significantly

Attributes Facilities and services (M1) Convenience (M2)

Special treatment 0.822 −0.285

Credit transaction 0.736 0.387
Desired quantity 0.679 −0.297
Cheaper than market 0.477 −0.635
Assured quality −0.761 −0.034
Table XIII. Acquaintance with shop keeper −0.021 0.892
Factor analysis – Convenience −0.038 0.664
rotated component Prepared in front of eyes −0.711 0.436
matrix for market Total variance explained (%) 45.3 18.9
attributes for Cumulative variance explained (%) 45.3 64.2
non-vegetarian Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: varimax with Kaiser
food products normalization
 influence the buying behavior for non-vegetarian food products. These results contradict Vegetarian
the belief that Indian consumers are always price conservative in their buying behavior. and
Rather, the results show that the consumers are moving more toward product and
market attributes for buying vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products. The results
non-vegetarian
confirm that credence attributes play a dominant role in influencing the consumers’ food products
behavior for both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products. Physical appearance of
the market (cleanliness and ambience), market convenience and services are significant 2011
factors affecting consumers’ purchase decisions for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food
products. Additionally, trust on the seller plays an important role in explaining the
consumers’ choice of the market for non-vegetarian food products.
It is clear that there are perceptible differences in buying behavior of the consumers
for the two categories of food products. Consumers do not give similar emphasis to
frequency and volume of purchase, while purchasing vegetarian and non-vegetarian food
products, but their buying behavior remains the same for both the categories of products
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

in terms of preferred form of purchase. The importance of different product attributes

is not similar for the consumers while purchasing vegetarian and non-vegetarian food
products as credence attributes dominate the buying behavior of consumers of
vegetarian food products. For non-vegetarian food products, search attributes are equally
important along with credence attributes. On the other hand, the importance of different
market attributes is also not similar for the consumers while purchasing vegetarian and
non-vegetarian food products. The research establishes that vegetarian and non-
vegetarian food products cannot be treated as homogenous products, and therefore,
product-specific information would play the key role in promoting organized retail. These
results provide strategic inputs to the retail industry to customize food retailing as per
the consumers’ choices and their preferences.

Implications for the organized retail industry

Given a very dismal consumers’ response toward purchase of packaged branded products
in both the categories of the food products, vigorous efforts in terms of promotional
programs have to be undertaken to bring customers to organized retail outlets. Since the
credence attributes of these products are more important for consumers, trust on the seller
is a substitute for judging the quality of the products. Food labeling would be the key
source of information to the consumers and marketers can use it as an important
instrument for influencing the buying decisions of the consumers. The results clearly spell
out that the consumers’ purchase decisions are different for vegetarian and non-
vegetarian food products in terms of frequency and transaction quantity.
The organized retailers can take these findings for maintaining the inventory level for
their packed vegetarian or non-vegetarian food products. It would require designing
robust supply chain to make sure the availability of food products and simultaneously
minimizing the wastage and inventory cost of the different food products. The organized
retailers have to maintain the quality of food products at the top, irrespective of the
category of the product. The organized retailers should reap the benefits of having good
market ambience and services to attract the young and affluent consumers.

Notes
1. Odisha is located on the east coast of India. It, is considered as one of the poorest states of the
country. However, during the last decade it has experienced all round development and has
developed at a higher rate than the national average. Organized retail has already taken root
in major cities of Odisha and its share in overall sale is on the rise. For instance, in
 BFJ Bhubaneswar, a city having a population of under one million, there were no organized
retailers till 2003 but by the year 2008, it had 21 such retailers (Harper, 2010).
117,8 2. Bhubaneswar and Rourkela are the two cities in the state of Odisha, which are developing
very fast though they come under non-metro cities of the country. These two cities had
the maximum Gross District Domestic Product during the year 2012-2013 among all the
30 districts of the state of Odisha. To study the future of retail in India, the National Bank for
Agriculture and Rural Development has classified Bhubaneswar as a B1 city, i.e. non-metro
2012 middle-sized city (NABARD, 2011).

References
Akamtsu, R., Maeda, Y., Hagihara, A. and Shirakawa, T. (2005), “Interpretation and attitude
towards health eating among Janpanese workers”, Appetite, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 123-129.
Ali, J., Kapoor, S. and Moorthy, J. (2010), “Buying behavior of consumers for food products in an
emerging economy”, British Food Journal, Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 109-124.
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

Aschemann-Witzel, J. and Hamm, U. (2010), “Do consumers prefer foods with nutrition and health
claims? Results of purchase simulation”, Journal of Marketing Communication, Vol. 16
Nos 1/2, pp. 47-58.
Assael, H. (1998), Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action, 6th ed., International Thompson,
Cincinnati, OH.
ASSOCHAM (2014), “Indian fast food market new destination: tier-II, III cities; beating the
slowdown trend”, available at: www.assocham.org/prels/shownews-archive.php?id¼4493
(accessed September 4, 2014).
Batra, R. and Sinha, I. (2000), “Consumer-level factors moderating the success of private label
brands”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 175-191.
Becker, T., Benner, E. and Glitsch K. (1997), “Quality policy and consumer behavior towards fresh
meat”, National quality policy report, University of Hohenheim, available at: https://
marktlehre.uni-hohenheim.de/fileadmin/einrichtungen/marktlehre/Forschung/EU-Research/
gerqp1.pdf (accessed April 20, 2012).
Boon, L.E. and Kurtz, D.L. (1998), Contemporary Marketing, 4th ed., The Dryden Press, Orlando.
Bulsara, H.P. and Matharu, M. (2010), “Retailing and branding vegetables and fruits:
an exploratory study”, Pranjana, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 60-70.
Cerjak, M., Mesic, Z., Kopic, M., Kovacic, D., and Markovina, J. (2010), “What motivates
consumers to buy organic food: comparison of Croatia, Bosnia, Herzegovina,
and Slovenia”, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 278-292.
Chang, R.C.Y (2014), “The influence of attitudes towards healthy eating on food consumption
when travelling”, Current Issues in Tourism, doi:10.1080/13683500.2014.890579.
Chen, K., Shepherd, A.W. and Silva, C.D. (2005), “Changes in food retailing in Asia: implications of
supermarket procurement practices for farmers and traditional marketing systems”,
Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance Occasional Paper No. 8. Food and
Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
CIRAD (2014), “Meat consumption in Andhra Pradesh”, available at: http://pigtrop.cirad.fr/
content/pdf/1067 (accessed September 2, 2014).
Coveney, J. (2006), Food Morals and Meaning. The Pleasure of Anxiety of Eating, 2nd ed.,
Routledge, Abingdon, OX.
Damodaran, H. and Kulkarni, V. (2012), “How vegetarian are we really?”, The Hindu Business
Line, available at: www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/harish-damodaran/
article2769196 .ece?homepage¼true (accessed April 4, 2012).
 Damodaran, S. (2009), “Retail in India – the past, present and future”, eQuestIndia, available at: Vegetarian
www.equestindia.com/eq/article_3.asp (accessed December 19, 2011).
and
Darby, M.R. and Karni, E. (1973), “Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud”, Journal of non-vegetarian
law and Economics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 67-88.
food products
Dash, J.F., Schiffman, L.G. and Berenson, C. (1976), “Information search and store choice”, Journal
of Advertising Research, Vol 16 No. 3, pp. 35-40.
Devi Prasad, U. and Madhavi, S. (2014), “Fish consumption behaviour in west Godavari district, 2013
AP, India”, Research Journal of Management Science, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 1-5.
Dimech, M., Caputo, V. and Canavari, M. (2011), “Attitudes of maltese consumers towards quality
in fruit and vegetables in relation to their food-related lifestyles”, International Food and
Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 21-35.
D’Monte, D. (2011), “One man’s meat is simply another’s poison”, Asian conversation, available at:
www.asianconversation.com/indiaNonVeg.php (accessed March 3, 2012).
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

Ernst, S., Batte, M.T., Darby, K. and Worley, T. (2006), “What matters in consumer berry
preferences: price? Source? Quality?”, Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 68-71.
Falk, L.W., Sobal, J., Bisogni, C.A., Connors, M., and Devine, C.M. (2001), “Managing healthy
eating: definitions, classifications, ans strategies”, Health Education and Behavior, Vol. 28
No. 4, pp. 425-439.
Fearne, A., and Lavelle, D. (1996), “Segmenting the UK egg market: results of a
survey of consumer attitudes and perception”, British Food Journal, Vol. 98 No. 1,
pp. 7-12.
Ford, G.T., Smith D.B. and Swasy, J.L. (1988), “An empirical test of the search, experience
and credence attributes framework”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15,
pp. 239-244.
Goyal, A. and Singh, N.P. (2007), “Consumer perception about fast food in India: an exploratory
study”, British Food Journal, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 182-195.
Gupta, K.B. (2009), “Consumer behaviour for food products in India”, paper presented in
19th Annual World Symposium of International Food & Agribusiness Management
Association, Budapest, June 20-21, available at: www.ifama.org/events/conferences/2009/
cmsdocs/1063_paper.pdf (accessed March 3, 2012).
Gupta, P. (2007), “Food retailing: challenges and trends”, Tata Strategic Management Group,
available at: www.tsmg.com/article-consumer-a-retail.html (accessed September 4, 2014).
Haddock-Fraser, J., Poole, N.D. and Doishita, M. (2009), “The failure of multinational food
retailers in Japan: a matter of convenience?”, British Food Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 327-348.
Harper, M. (2010), “Retail winners and losers – the impact of orgainsed retailing”, in Malcolm, H. (Ed.),
Inclusive Value Chains: A. Pathway Out of Poverty, World Scientific, London, pp. 16-27.
Huang, J. and Bouis, H. (1996), “Structural change in the demand for food in Asia”, Food,
Agriculture, and Environment Discussion Paper No. 11, International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington, DC, available at: www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/
publications/2020_dp_dp11.pdf (accessed March 3, 2012).
Jagran Post (2011), “Indian food market to triple to USD 900 billion by 2020: report”, Jagran Post,
available at: http://post.jagran.com/Indian-food-market-to-triple-to-USD-900-billion-by-
2020-Report-1321467379 (accessed April 15, 2012).
Kaur, P. and Singh, R. (2007), “Uncovering retail shopping motives of Indian youth”, Young
Consumers, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 128-138.
 BFJ Kearney, A.T. (2011), “Retail global expansion: a portfolio of opportunities-2011 global retail
index”, available at: www.atkearney.com/ images/global/pdf/Global_Retail_Expansion-
117,8 GRDI_2011.pdf (accessed April 12, 2013).
Kearney, J. (2010), “Food consumption trends and drivers”, Philosophical Transaction of Royal
Soceity B, Vol. 365 No. 1554, pp. 2793-2807.
Kiesel, K. and Villas-Boas, S.B. (2007), “Got organic milk? Consumer valuations of milk labels
2014 after the implementation of the USDA organic seal”, Journal of Agricultural & Food
Industrial Organization, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-40.
KPMG (2005), Consumer Markets in India: The Next Big Things, Publication No. 213-405, KPMG
International, Mumbai.
Kumar, N. and Kapoor, S. (2014), “Study of consumers’ behavior for non-vegetarian products in
emerging market of India”, Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 59-77.
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

Kupiec, B. and Revell, B. (2001), “Measuring consumer quality judgements”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 7-22.
McKinsey & Company (2007), The Bird of Gold’: The rise of India’s consumer Market, McKinsey
Global Institute, San Francisco, CA, available at: www.mckinsey.com/mgi/reports/pdfs/
india_consumer_market/MGI_india_full_report.pdf
Mahaliyanaarachchi, R.P. (2007), “The impact of the behavioural patterns of vegetable
consumers on marketing activities”, The Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 63-74.
Mamgain, P. (2011), “Food retail chains sell vegetables & fruits up to 40% cheaper than local
vendors”, Economic Times, available at: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/
2011-01-07/news/284270231vegetable-prices-safal-price-rise (accessed July 19, 2012).
Maruyama, M. and Trung, L.V. (2007), “Traditional bazaar or supermarkets: a probit analysis of
affluent consumer perception in Hanoi”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution
and Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 233-252
Meenakshi, J.V. (1996), “How important are changes in taste? A state level analysis of food
demand”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 31 No. 50, pp. 3265-3269.
Mittal, S. (2006), “Structural shift in demand for food: projection for 2020”, Working Paper
No. 184, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi,
available at: www.icrier.org/pdf/WP_184.pdf (accessed March 13, 2013).
Mukherjeee A., Satija, D., Goyal, T.M., Mantrala, M.K. and Zou, A. (2011), “Impact of the retail FDI
policy on Indian consumers and the way forward”, ICRIER Policy Series No. 5, Indian
Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi.
NABARD (2011), “Current scenario of Indian food retail industry and future outlook
of development of organised food retail”, Chapter in OrganisedAgri-Food Retailing
In India, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai, pp. 26-46.
Nelson, P. (1970), “Information and consumer behavior”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 78
No. 2, pp. 311-329.
Nicolae, I. and Corina, P. (2011), “Consumer behavior on the fruits and vegetable market”, Annals
of the University of Oradea: Economic Science, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 749-754.
Nielsen, A.C. (2003), “Asia retail and shopper trends”, available at: www.acnielsen.com (accessed
September 28, 2003).
Pingali, P. (2006), “Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems:
implications for research and policy”, Food Policy, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 281-298.
 Raju, D.T. and Suryanarayana, M.V.A.N. (2005), “Meat consumption in Prakasam district of Vegetarian
Andhra Pradesh: an analysis”, Livestock Research of Rural Development, Vol. 17 No. 11,
available at: www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/11/raju17130.htm (accessed March 10, 2014).
and
Rastogi, A. (2010), “Rural and small towns, the next big opportunity for Indian retail?” available at:
non-vegetarian
http://trak.in/tags/business/2010/09/24/rural-india-retail-opportunity/ (accessed April 20, 2012). food products
Reardon, T. and Gulati A. (2008), “The rise of supermarkets and their development implications:
international experiences relevant for India”, IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00752, IFPRI, 2015
Washington, DC, February.
Sengupta, A. (2008), “Emergence of modern retail: an historical perspective”, International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 689-700.
Sharma, V.P. and Jain, D. (2011), “High value agriculture in India: past trends and future prospects”,
Working Paper Nos 2011-07-02, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, July.
Sheng, T.Y., Shamsudin, M.N., Mohamed, Z.A., Abdullah, A.M. and Radam, A. (2008),
“Food consumption behavior of Malays in Malaysia”, IIUM Journal of Economics and
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

Management, Vo. 16 No. 2, pp. 209-219.

Sinha, P.K. (2003), “Shopping orientation in the evolving Indian market”, Vikalpa, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 13 -22.
Sinha, P.K., Banerjee A. and Uniyal, D.P. (2002), “Deciding where to buy: store choice behavior of
Indian shoppers”, Vikalpa, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 13-28.
Srinivasan, N. and Elangovan, D. (2000), “Consumer perception towards processed fruits and
vegetable products”, International Journal of Marketing, Vol 30 Nos 11/12, pp. 22-25.
Sruthijith, K.K. and Chakravarty, C. (2010), “New future for fruit & vegetables”, Economic Times,
Feb 13, available at: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-02-13/news/
27624098_1_vegetables-fruits-retail-trade (accessed July 19, 2012).
The Economic Times (2013), “Tier II cities, industrial townships are new retail hotspots”,
Economic Times, May 1, available at: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-05-
01/news/38958077_1_retail-centres-penetration-cities, (accessed September 1, 2014).
Timmer, C.P. (2005), “Agriculture and pro-poor growth: an Asian perspective”, CGD Working
Paper No. 63, Centre for Global Development, Washington, DC.
Upadhyay, H. and Pathania, R. (2013), “Consumer expenditure behavior in India: a case of rural
and urban consumer”, International Journal of Business and Management Invention, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 68-73.
Vaish, N. (2007), “Retail vegetable market boom with Reliance, future group entry”, India Today,
available at: http://indiatoday.indiatoday.in/story/sabzi-madis-enhanced-grading/1/155962.html
(accessed August 12, 2012).
Weirenga, B. (1983), “Model and measurement methodology for analysis of consumer choice of
food products”, Journal of Food Quality, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 119-137.
Winter, M.A. (2008), “Traditional meat shop in India, available at: www.foodindustryindia.com/
newfood/detailnews.jsp?n¼Traditional+Meat+Shops+in+India&id¼496 (accessed March
3, 2013).

Further reading
Kapoor, S. and Kumar, N. (unpublished), “Fruits and vegetables consumers’ behavior:
implications for organized retailers in emerging markets”, Journal of International Food &
Agribusiness Marketing.
Mathew, J. (2013), “Freeing up India’s food markets”, East Asia Forum, October 18, available at: www.
eastasiaforum.org/2013/10/18/freeing-up-indias-food-markets/ (accessed September 4, 2014).
 BFJ About the authors
117,8 Dr Niraj Kumar is a Professor of Rural Management at the Xavier Institute of Management,
Bhubaneswar (India). His areas of interest are agribusiness, rural marketing, and development
communication. Dr Niraj Kumar is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
niraj@ximb.ac.in
Dr Sanjeev Kapoor is a Professor at the Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow (India). He
holds PhD in Rural Banking and Agriculture Economics. His current research areas are
2016 agriculture marketing and rural finance.
Downloaded by Professor Niraj Kumar At 11:00 15 July 2015 (PT)

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

View publication stats