British Food Journal

What determines British consumers’ motivation to buy sustainable seafood?

Pirjo Honkanen James A. Young
Article information:
To cite this document:
Pirjo Honkanen James A. Young , (2015),"What determines British consumers’ motivation to buy
sustainable seafood?", British Food Journal, Vol. 117 Iss 4 pp. 1289 - 1302
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2014-0199
Downloaded on: 17 June 2015, At: 00:50 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 66 other documents.
Downloaded by New York University At 00:50 17 June 2015 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 148 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Lin Zhou, Shaosheng Jin, Bin Zhang, Guangyan Cheng, Qiyan Zeng, Dongyang Wang,
(2015),"Determinants of fish consumption by household type in China", British Food Journal, Vol. 117
Iss 4 pp. 1273-1288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2014-0182
Rana Muhammad Ayyub, (2015),"An empirical investigation of ethnic food consumption: A
perspective of majority ethnic group", British Food Journal, Vol. 117 Iss 4 pp. 1239-1255 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2013-0373
Chih-Ching Teng, Yu-Mei Wang, (2015),"Decisional factors driving organic food consumption:
Generation of consumer purchase intentions", British Food Journal, Vol. 117 Iss 3 pp. 1066-1081
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2013-0361

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:198285 []
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 New York University At 00:50 17 June 2015 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

What determines British Sustainable

seafood
consumers’ motivation to buy
sustainable seafood?
Pirjo Honkanen 1289
Nofima (Norwegian Institute of Food, Fisheries and Aquaculture Research), Received 13 June 2014
Tromsø, Norway, and Revised 30 October 2014
Accepted 31 October 2014
James A. Young
Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK

Abstract
Downloaded by New York University At 00:50 17 June 2015 (PT)

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of determinants of consumers’ buying
intentions for sustainable seafood.
Design/methodology/approach – Survey data from 755 representative respondents in the UK were
collected. Structural equation modelling was used to analyse the data. The theory of planned behaviour
was used as a framework for the analysis, with an additional variable, personal norm, which seems to
be especially relevant for environmental behaviour.
Findings – The results confirmed the expected relationships: the motivation to buy sustainable
seafood is increased by a positive attitude towards buying sustainable seafood, perceived pressure
from important others such as family, friends and colleagues, and by a strong moral obligation.
Attitude towards buying sustainable seafood was the strongest predictor of intention found in the
study. To reach a goal of consumers placing greater emphasis upon purchasing more sustainable
seafood, both attitudinal and normative messages could be used. Further implications of the findings
and the scope for further research are discussed.
Research limitations/implications – The study is correlational in nature, thus limiting the causal
inferences that can be made from the results. It does, however, help to explain the relationships in
explored in the model.
Originality/value – This paper addresses the issue of motivation to buy sustainable seafood which
has not received much attention in literature, but is an important issue for anyone trying to increase
consumer sustainable behaviour.
Keywords Attitude, Consumer, Intentions, Norms, Sustainable seafood
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Over the past 20 years consumption of sustainable fish has become an increasingly
important issue for individuals, organisations and regulatory authorities throughout the
world. This trend has been encouraged and reinforced in the communications from
sources ranging from government, private and third sector organisations often combined
with innovative messages such as those from various celebrity chefs (European
Union DG XIV, 2014; WWF, 2014). Sustainability may be defined as a combination of
environmental, social equity and economic aspects (United Nations General Assembly,
2005). The UK has been amongst the frontrunners in taking sustainability to government
policy level, and food sustainability has been on the policy agenda in UK since before
the turn of the century. The UK Sustainable Development Commission (although closed
British Food Journal
Vol. 117 No. 4, 2015
The authors would like to thank the Norwegian Seafood Research Fund for financing the research pp. 1289-1302
project which this paper is based on. The work was performed within the project no: 900273. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
The authors also thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestions. DOI 10.1108/BFJ-06-2014-0199
 BFJ in 2011) concluded that choice editing would be a better alternative to labelling
117,4 and consumer free choice alone to get consumers to act sustainably (Sustainable
Consumption Roundtable, 2006).
Seafood sustainability has risen to become one of the more prominent issues
amongst environmental non-governmental organisations (eNGOs) and policy makers
due to overexploitation of marine resources in many areas (FAO, 2010). Indeed the very
1290 scope of what is now regarded as germane to seafood sustainability has broadened
from traditional biological concerns with the capacity of stocks to maintain whilst
supporting intergenerational exploitation through to wider concerns such as the
socioeconomic, welfare and ethical implications. The very retention of seafood’s
reliance upon hunting as a source of food supply, in part at least, may explain this
status. Consequently, sustainability related to seafood is mainly focused on the
ecological aspects, which is also reflected in the multitude of certification schemes
such as led by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), a market innovation launched
Downloaded by New York University At 00:50 17 June 2015 (PT)

through the unusual partnership of WWF and Unilever over 15 years ago in response
to decreasing fish stocks and overexploitation (WWF, 2014). The MSC has become
the most widespread label for sustainable seafood of its type having 221 fisheries
certified to date and some 22.000 products carrying the MSC logo (MSC, 2014)[1],
significantly larger than other certifying schemes for sustainable seafood such as Friend
of the Sea, Global Aquaculture Alliance, GlobalGAP and Aquaculture Stewardship
Council. The latter three mentioned are for aquaculture products; however, this paper will
focus on sustainable seafood based on wild fisheries.
One consequence of the large number of certification schemes now found in retail
and, to a lesser extent, foodservice sectors is that consumers are invariably exposed to
product labels and other point of sale prompts expressing sustainability credentials
encouraging their selection instead of those without. In addition to these appeals, many
eNGOs prompt consumers’ choice by mechanisms such as providing lists of species
deemed to be sustainable, publication of supermarkets’ sustainability ratings in a range
of media in addition to other, sometimes more intrusive, measures. All such instruments
and initiatives are intended to encourage and guide consumers to make more informed
choices, commonly more consistent with the goals of eNGOs.
As fish stocks have declined there has been an inverse and widening interest from
scientific communities whose sustainable seafood concerns during the last decade
have spawned a more diverse literature about sustainable food consumption in general.
The more specific literature around consumer perceptions of, and motivation to buy,
sustainable seafood, however, remains scarce; an important void in understanding that
needs to be addressed. Existing studies on sustainable food and consumers have shown
that the impact of eco-labels on actual consumer behaviour may not be that large: there
seems to be a gap between consumer attitudes and intentions on one hand, and behaviour
on the other (Bamberg, 2003; Grunert et al., 2014; Pedersen and Neergaard, 2006). It is
therefore important to explore which factors particularly influence purchasing motivation
and how consumers might be encouraged to adopt more sustainable seafood consumption
behaviour.
Accordingly this study aimed to investigate the determinants of sustainable seafood
purchase intentions in the UK, one of the world’s largest and more innovative markets
for sustainable seafood (Roheim et al., 2011). This paper will investigate the roles of
attitude, subjective norm (SN), perceived consumer effectiveness and personal norm as
predictors of intention to buy sustainable seafood in order to find what motivates
sustainable seafood purchase intentions. By this approach the study will contribute by
 adding to the noted limited literature on consumers’ sustainable seafood choices. Sustainable
Second, it will also integrate variables which hitherto have shown mixed results when seafood
modelled, notably personal norm. To aid understanding, these relationships were
studied in a structural equation model.

Previous research on sustainable food and seafood

Research dealing with sustainable food choice behaviour has approached the issue 1291
from different angles and reveals it to be a quite complex matter. One line of research
has been concerned with consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for sustainable
food. Most studies have found consumers to be concerned and willing to pay more for
environmentally friendly products which may have attributes such as animal welfare,
sustainability credentials, eco-labels, etc. (Harris, 2007; Roheim et al., 2011; Tully and
Winer, 2014). However, Johnston and Roheim (2006) found that consumers are not
willing to make trade-offs between taste and eco-labels.
Downloaded by New York University At 00:50 17 June 2015 (PT)

Another line of research has been concerned with determinants of buying/consuming

sustainable food. Vermeir and Verbeke (2008) found that the intention to consume
sustainable dairy products was explained by attitudes, perceived social influences,
perceived consumer effectiveness and perceived availability. Torjusen et al. (2001)
presented a large body of research related to consumer understanding and adoption of
eco-labelling, and showed that consumers who purchased eco-labelled food were more
influenced by ethical, environmental and health concerns compared to non-buyers.
Tanner and Kast (2003) found that Swiss consumers’ green purchases were determined
by positive attitudes towards environmental protection, fair trade, local produce and the
availability of knowledge. Brécard et al. (2009) found that the demand determinants
for eco-labelled seafood in Europe to be freshness of fish, geographical origin and
wild/farmed status as well as price. Verbeke et al. (2007) conducted a study on the perceived
importance that consumers place on sustainability and ethics related to fish. They found
that the perceived importance was not correlated with either attitudes towards eating fish
or fish consumption. In a recent paper, Grunert et al. (2014) found that respondents
expressed medium to high levels of concern for sustainability issues at a general level, but
lower concern at product choice level. According to the authors, their results imply that
sustainability labels do not have much influence on consumers’ product choices.
Notwithstanding some more recent papers focused upon specific aspects of farmed seafood
(Fernández-Polanco and Luna, 2012; Fernández-Polanco et al., 2013; Roheim et al., 2012)
there remain very few studies on the determinants for buying sustainable seafood .
This paper presents results from a study, undertaken in the UK, with the goal of
contributing to the scarce literature about the determinants of sustainable seafood
consumption. The study draws upon the knowledge from existing literature on
sustainable food choices but takes the intention to buy sustainable seafood as the
dependent variable, while attitude towards buying sustainable seafood, SN, perceived
consumer effectiveness and personal norm were used as predictors.
The paper proceeds by setting out the theoretical framework prior to the methodological
approach adopted. Following coverage of this and the statistical procedures, the results are
presented and subsequently discussed before concluding with the implications for further
research.

2. Conceptual framework
The theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) has proven to be a useful conceptual
framework in predicting behaviour, including food consumption (e.g. Conner et al., 2002;
 BFJ Tuu et al., 2008; Verbeke and Vackier, 2005). The TPB suggests that behaviour can be
117,4 predicted from a person’s intention to perform that behaviour and his/her perception of
control over the behaviour. Intention is regarded as a function of attitudes towards the
behaviour, SN and perceived behavioural control. Attitudes are positive or negative
evaluations of the behaviour, while SN reflects the perceived social pressure to perform
behaviour. Finally, perceived behavioural control can also be an antecedent of intention,
1292 as in the case of complete control over behaviour. In that case, intention alone predicts
behaviour. Intention is assumed to capture motivational factors influencing behaviour,
indicating a person’s willingness and propensity to perform it. The TPB has, however,
shown limitations with respect to explaining sustainable behaviour. We have chosen to
use a slightly different approach in an attempt to explain a larger share of intention
to buy sustainable seafood, by adding an additional normative construct in the model.
We have chosen to use the direct measures of attitude and SN in our model. This is
a well-established practice in studies where the aim is to predict intentions and
Downloaded by New York University At 00:50 17 June 2015 (PT)

behaviour (Bansal and Taylor, 2002; Jackson et al., 2003; Pieniak et al. 2010). A meta-
analysis by Armitage and Conner (2001) suggests that consumption is best predicted
by intention to perform the behaviour, while attitude often is the strongest predictor of
intention. Also, Schlegelmilch et al. (1996) showed that attitude is one of the most
important predictors of green purchasing behaviour. We propose that a higher level of
positive attitude towards buying sustainable seafood is positively related to intention
of buying sustainable seafood.
Roberts (1996) suggests that consumers must be convinced that their behaviour has
an impact on the environment if pro-environmental motives are to have any influence
on consumer behaviour. Perceived consumer effectiveness has successfully been used
to measure this in several studies of environmental behaviour (Berger and Corbin, 1992;
Ellen et al., 1991; Roberts, 1996; Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006; Vermeir and Verbeke, 2008.
It can be defined as “a domain-specific belief that the efforts of an individual can make a
difference in the solution to a problem” (Ellen et al., 1991). We propose that the degree to
which consumers feel that their choice of sustainable seafood has an impact on
sustainability of fish stocks, namely, that a higher level of perceived ability to make a
difference in contributing to the sustainability of fish stocks is positively related to
intention of buying sustainable seafood.
There is quite a lot of literature on the role of norms in behaviour. SNs are a part of
the TPB and have been studied often. The role of SN in predicting environmental
behaviour has provided mixed results. Harland et al. (1999) found a limited influence of
SN on environmental behaviour, while Ha and Janda (2012) showed a positive effect.
The literature in general food choices shows that SN is an important influencing factor.
We propose therefore that a higher level of perceived social pressure from important
others is positively related to intention of buying sustainable seafood.
While the rational choice based TPB is a good framework for predicting food choice
(Conner et al., 2002; Dunn et al., 2011), there may be additional variables that contribute
to predicting intentions to buy sustainable food such as moral/personal norm (Harland
et al., 1999). Personal norms are feelings of personal obligation to engage in certain
behaviour (Harland et al., 1999). They have been successfully used in predicting moral
and environmental behaviour in many studies (Harland et al., 1999; Kaiser, 2006;
Manstead and Parker, 1995). Harland et al. (1999) found that personal norms had a
positive influence on pro-environmental intentions for five different behaviours, as did
Bamberg and Schmidt (2003) in a study predicting car use. Both studies found that
those with strong personal norms were more likely to perform the behaviour than those
 who had weaker personal norms. Thøgersen (2002) demonstrated that personal norms Sustainable
are good predictors of choice of organic wine. Gärling et al. (2003) showed that personal seafood
norms predict the intention to perform collective environmental behaviour. More recent
support for the role of personal norms in environmental behaviour is presented by
Thøgersen and Ölander (2006), who found that the stronger the personal norms (and
lower perceived price), the stronger is the likelihood that consumers will buy organic
products. Dean et al. (2008) found that positive moral norms were positively related to 1293
intention to buy organic apples and pizza. There is, however, also evidence that moral
norms do not influence behaviour (Heath and Gifford, 2002; Tanner and Kast, 2003;
Turaga et al., 2010), which makes this an important issue to explore.
Accordingly we thus delineate the influence of chosen variables on the intention to
buy sustainable seafood. The aggregation of these variables is depicted in Figure 1
which shows the conceptual model.
Downloaded by New York University At 00:50 17 June 2015 (PT)

3. Methodology
3.1 Sample and design
Using a representative sample with respect to age, region and social class, a cross-sectional
online survey of consumer perceptions of sustainable seafood was conducted in the UK in
autumn 2011. A sample of 1,000 adults was recruited by a professional agency of which
755 satisfied the preconditions of purchasing/consuming fish at least twice a month and
who were responsible for purchasing food in their household. The questionnaire was
targeted at only those respondents who met these criteria resulting in a sample which
consisted of a dominant (61 per cent) female gender distribution. The average age of the
selected sample was 47 years and 74 per cent were married or partners. The online
self-complete questionnaire explored the respondents’ reports of the previously suggested
variables related to sustainable seafood as discussed below.

3.2 Construct measurement

The research approach used well-established multi-item scales to measure the constructs
in the study (see Table I for items). Attitude was measured with a five-point semantic
differential scale, while the other scales were measured with a five-point Likert scale

ATT

SN

INT

PCE

PN

Notes: ATT, attitude; SN, subjective norm; Figure 1.

The conceptual
PCE, perceived consumer effectiveness; model
PN, personal norm; IN, intention
 BFJ Standard t- Composite Variance
117,4 Relationship loading value reliabilitya extractedb
Attitude 0.94 0.75
Bad … good 0.90 30.61
Unhappy … happy 0.88 29.13
Unpleasant … pleasant 0.88 29.11
1294 Terrible … delightful 0.80 25.33
Negative … positive 0.87 28.89
Intention 0.92 0.80
I’m going to buy sustainable seafood 0.91 30.40
I will try to buy sustainable seafood 0.83 26.56
I plan to buy sustainable seafood 0.94 32.13
Subjective norm 0.94 0.85
Most of my friends think that I should buy sustainable 0.96 33.72
Downloaded by New York University At 00:50 17 June 2015 (PT)

seafood
Most of my family members think I should buy 0.87 28.48
sustainable seafood
Most of my colleagues think I should buy sustainable 0.94 32.47
seafood
Perceived consumer effectiveness 0.82 0.60
There is not much that only one individual can do about 0.89 26.01
sustainability of fish stocks (R)
The conservation efforts of one person are useless as long 0.75 21.40
as other people do not act in a similar way (R)
As one person has no effect on the solution of 0.71 19.97
sustainability problems, there is no point in me
attempting to do so (R)
Personal norm 0.90 0.75
I feel a moral obligation to protect the fish stocks 0.87 27.83
I feel that I should protect the fish stocks 0.89 29.20
I feel it is important that people in general protect the fish 0.84 26.70
stocks
Model fit
χ2 520.63
df 109
p-value 0.000
CFI 0.98
NFI 0.97
Table I. RMSEA 0.074
Confirmatory factor Notes: Composite reliability, (Σ std. loading)2/((Σ std. loading)2+Σ∈); variance extracted, Σ std.
analysis results loading2/(Σ std. loading2+Σ∈); R, reverse-coded items

anchored at 1 (Strongly disagree) and 5 (Strongly agree). Intention to purchase sustainable

seafood was measured with a scale adapted from Thøgersen et al. (2010). Attitude towards
purchasing sustainable seafood (respondents were asked to indicate how they feel
when purchasing sustainable seafood) was adapted from Pieniak et al. (2010). The SN
measure was adapted from Olsen (2007). The measurement of perceived consumer
effectiveness related to sustainability was adapted from Ellen et al. (1991). personal norm
measurement was adapted from Gärling et al. (2003).
 Statistical procedures. Internal consistency, and convergent and discriminant Sustainable
validity were ensured by performing a confirmatory factor analysis (Anderson and seafood
Gerbing, 1988), using Lisrel 8.80 ( Jöreskog and Sörbom, 2007). Next, a structural equation
model was analysed to estimate the suggested relationships. The fit is reported by χ2 as
well as 3 other fit indices: RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), CFI
(Comparative Fit Index) and NFI (Normed fit Index). RMSEA indicates a good model if it
is o0.05, whilst a RMSEAo0.08 is an acceptable fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1992). The 1295
CFI and NFI should be larger than 0.90 (Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Byrne, 1998).

4. Results
4.1 Reliability and validity
The measurement model with 5 constructs was subject to confirmatory factor analysis
using Lisrel 8.80. The results are shown in Table I, showing the factor loadings,
t-values, composite reliability and variance extracted. The model fits the data well,
Downloaded by New York University At 00:50 17 June 2015 (PT)

although the χ2 is significant: χ2 ¼ 520.63, df ¼ 109, p ¼ 0.000, CFI ¼ 0.98, NFI ¼ 0.97,
RMSEA ¼ 0.074.
Convergent validity was determined by studying the individual item loadings on the
constructs. The individual item loadings were all highly significant with t-values W19.0,
with values ranging from 0.71 to 0.96, exceeding the threshold value of 0.5 (Hair et al.,
1995). The composite reliability for all constructs exceeded the 0.6 standard (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). All scales exceeded the 50 per cent guideline for average variance extracted
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988), which still fulfilled the minimum requirement (Chin, 1998).
Table II shows that all correlations were significant, and they are all below 0.6.
The squared correlation between each of the constructs is less than the average
variance extracted from each pair of constructs, which indicates good discriminant
validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

4.2 Structural model results

A Lisrel 8.80 model was run with intention as the dependent variable and attitude, SN, PCE,
moral norm as predictors. The resulting model was found to be reasonably good (Table III),
where the χ2 was significant, but the other fit indexes were good: RMSEA ¼ 0.074,
CFI ¼ 0.98, NFI ¼ 0.97. The explained variance of intention was 51 per cent.
All relationships in the model but one were found significant by the analysis.
Intention was, as expected, predicted by attitude, SN, and personal norm and all
relationships were positive. This means that the motivation (intention) for buying
sustainable seafood was strengthened by having positive attitudes towards buying
sustainable seafood, by perceiving normative pressure and feeling a moral obligation
for preserving sustainability. The impact of perceived consumer effectiveness was,
however, not significant.

Int Att SN PCE PN Mean SD

Intention (Int) 1 3.740 0.793
Attitude (Att) 0.574 1 3.991 0.683
Subjective norm (SN) 0.561 0.371 1 3.180 0.867 Table II.
Perceived consumer Effectiveness (PCE) 0.319 0.228 0.130 1 3.310 0.901 Descriptive results:
Personal norm (PN) 0.596 0.446 0.392 0.401 1 3.779 0.740 means and
Note: All correlations are significant on the 0.01 level correlations
 BFJ Relationship β t-value
117,4
Attitude-intention 0.35 9.25
Subjective norm-intention 0.29 8.49
Perceived consumer effectiveness-intention 0.04 1.27*
Personal norm-intention 0.27 6.75

1296 Model fit Fit indices

χ2 520.63
df 109
p-value 0.000
CFI 0.98
NFI 0.97
Table III. RMSEA 0.074
Structural equation R2int 0.51
relationships Note: *Not significant
Downloaded by New York University At 00:50 17 June 2015 (PT)

5. Discussion and managerial implications

The present study explored the motivational foundations for purchasing sustainable
seafood. The influence of attitude, SN, perceived consumer effectiveness and personal
norm on intention to purchase sustainable seafood was studied. The results confirmed
the proposed relationships: when an individual has a positive attitude toward buying
sustainable seafood, he/she is likely to buy it. The purchasing intention is also enhanced
by perceived pressure from important others such as family, friends and colleagues, and
where a strong moral obligation is felt to contribute to the sustainability of fish stocks.
Attitude toward buying sustainable seafood was the strongest predictor of intention in
this study. As expected, SN and personal were positively related to intention as well,
confirming earlier studies (Berger and Corbin, 1992; Vermeir and Verbeke, 2008).
Perceived consumer effectiveness was not a significant predictor of intention. Possible
reasons for this are discussed later in this section. The independent variables explained
51 per cent of the variance in intention to buy sustainable seafood, a level which is
considered good in social sciences.
The results from this study give indications of how consumers might best be
approached in order to promote sustainable seafood consumption by policy makers
and seafood companies. First, as in Minton and Rose (1997), attitude towards
purchasing sustainable seafood was the strongest predictor of intention to purchase
sustainable seafood, followed by normative influences. To reach a goal of
consumers placing greater emphasis upon purchasing more sustainable seafood,
both attitudinal and normative messages could be used. One strategy would be to
change negative attitudes to more positive, or positive attitudes can be reinforced.
In order to change negative attitudes, one may appeal to the beliefs about sustainable
seafood purchasing and more explicit evaluation of the consequences that form
the attitudes.
Policy makers and marketers may also appeal to the value-based environmental
perception that form attitudes towards environmental issues like attitude towards
purchasing sustainable seafood. Research has shown that value based labels are effective
in marketing for example meat (McEahern and Warnaby, 2008). The severity of the
environmental consequences in the messages will need to be carefully balanced, however,
to avoid consumers regarding the environmental problems to be so large that any one
individual has no chance at all of influencing the sustainability issues (Ellen et al., 1991).
 This is especially true for those individuals for whom the perceived behavioural Sustainable
effectiveness has impact on intentions. seafood
The positive effect of one’s individual efforts on saving fish stocks in the case of
sustainable seafood could be emphasised and supported with examples of an
individual effort making a difference. Our study showed, however, no significant effect
of perceived consumer effectiveness on intention to buy sustainable seafood. One
reason for this may be that for many consumers the evident and verifiable linkage 1297
between their actions and outcomes may be less strong where the consuming
individual is some distance away from the object of concern. Indeed this is often the
case with the geographical location of fish stocks which are typically far removed from
the points of consumption and thus perceived impacts upon sustainable seafood in
general. Another reason may be in accordance to Lee and Holden (1999) who found that
PCE was a significant predictor of high-cost environmental behaviours, while it did not
predict low-cost behaviours. Food purchasing can be considered as a low-cost
Downloaded by New York University At 00:50 17 June 2015 (PT)

behaviour, and therefore there may be a similar effect in this study: the cost of buying
sustainable seafood is not perceived very high. This topic also opens up the wider
issues related to alternative seafood substitute foods and clearly needs more research.
In particular it raises more intriguing questions of consumers’ perceptions of the
sustainability implications of their fundamental choices between different protein
sources, e.g. seafood or red meat; and indeed whether any such considerations are ever
contemplated in this context.
Personal norm was found to influence intention to buy sustainable seafood
positively. Appealing to personal moral obligation may lead to more sustainable
purchasing behaviour, especially through activating personal norms (Schwartz, 1977).
It may, however, not be easy to change or influence personal norms. Minton and Rose
(1997) suggested influencing the SN and thus indirectly working towards personal
norms. SN had a strong influence on intention in this study, so the subject of
sustainable seafood could be related to important others so that SN would have a
greater influence or, for example through using celebrities as part of persuasion
strategies. One such example has been witnessed in the UK with the “Fish Fight”
campaign by the celebrity chef and journalist Hugh Fearnly-Whittingstall which began
in 2011 (Fishfight, 2011)[2]. By drawing consumers’ attention to the practice of
discarding fish that fishermen were unable to land legally due to the imposition of a
system of catch quotas, the online and media campaign has encouraged fish consumers
to register their support for a change in the revised EU Common Fisheries Policy and to
purchase other species stated to be less at risk.
Informational campaigns that are designed to increase knowledge level have proven
to be quite inefficient in many fields, especially healthy eating (see Hornik and Kelly,
2007), unless the information is targeted towards carefully chosen segments and
communicated timeously. There is information available about sustainable seafood for
the consumers, for example purchase guides (Greenpeace Red List, 2012)[3], but
consumers need to search online for the information or be in possession of hard copy or
be motivated and able to access other sources. This is neither necessarily, nor
consistently, what consumers prioritise. It also subjugates responsibility for seafood
sustainability to retailers or foodservice providers. In such situations it may be more
difficult, or less likely, to increase the knowledge level. There is of course also the
problem of inconsistency in the information conveyed concerning the sustainability of
seafood. As noted in one review of certification schemes and guides, contradictory
information exists for a variety of reasons but tends to have the same outcome:
 BFJ consumer confusion (Parkes et al., 2010). There is also evidence that consumers do not
117,4 translate general sustainability concerns to product choices (Grunert et al., 2014), which
should have an impact on designing informational campaigns. This also raises questions
about the extent to which communications about individual species, commonly the unit
of eNGO’s focus, might be regarded as a viable means of addressing concerns.
There are some limitations to this study that should be acknowledged. First,
1298 intention to buy sustainable seafood was used as the dependent variable, not actual
purchasing behaviour. There is evidence that intention may not always be strongly
related to behaviour, especially in environmental behaviour (Verbeke et al., 2007).
This study should therefore be replicated with actual purchasing behaviour to
determine the strength of the relationship between intention and actual behaviours of
buying sustainable seafood. It should also be noted that the study is correlational in
nature, thus limiting the causal inferences that can be made from the results. It does,
however, help to explain the relationships in the model.
Downloaded by New York University At 00:50 17 June 2015 (PT)

5.1 Future research

It would be appropriate to study attitude strength in relation to sustainable seafood
purchasing behaviour. The knowledge level of the consumers is often found to be low
when it comes to environmental issues, indicating that attitudes may be weak even
though they are positive. In that case, they may be easy to influence. More knowledge
about the different attitude strength dimensions and their relation to sustainable
purchasing behaviour is needed.
Another important future research issue is to test these relationships in a context of
actual behaviour. Although intentions are good predictors of behaviour, and express
motivation to buy, there is still a clear need to study actual behaviour. Work also needs
to be done on consumers’ propensity to purchase as points of differentiation become
more widespread and commonplace. Until the common gap between intention and
behaviour, as reported in several studies earlier mentioned, is better understood
forecasting responses will remain uncertain. From a policy perspective this is especially
relevant in the context of seafood given the parlous state of many seafood supply
chains. As the EU and other intergovernmental organisations seek to emplace more
sustainable fisheries and aquaculture policies there is an evident need to improve
understanding of how consumers might shape the future demand for seafood, certified
sustainable or otherwise.

Notes
1. Marine Stewardship Council, 19 May 2014, www.msc.org/
2. www.fishfight.net/hugh-fearnley-whittingstall/ (accessed 17 August 2012).
3. www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/seafood/red-list-of-species/

References
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Armitage, C.J. and Conner, M. (2001), “Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analytical
review”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 471-499.
 Bamberg, S. (2003), “How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related Sustainable
behaviours? A new answer to an old question”, Journal of Environmental Psychology,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 21-32.
seafood
Bamberg, S. and Schmidt, P. (2003), “Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students’ car use
for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis”, Environment and
Behaviour, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 264-285.
Bansal, H.S. and Taylor, S.F. (2002), “Investigating interactive effects in the theory of planned 1299
behavior in a service-provider switching context”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 407-425.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.
Berger, I.E. and Corbin, R.M. (1992), “Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others as
moderators of environmentally responsible behaviours”, Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 79-89.
Downloaded by New York University At 00:50 17 June 2015 (PT)

Brécard, D., Hlaimi, B., Lucas, S., Perraudeau, Y. and Salladarré, F. (2009), “Determinants of
demand for green products: an application to eco-label demand for fish in Europe”,
Ecological Economics, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 115-125.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1992), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, Sociological
Methods & Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 230-258.
Byrne, B. (1998). Structural Equation Modeling with Lisrel, Prelis, and Simplis: Basic Concepts,
Applications, and Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, NJ.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”,
in Marchoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods For Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, pp. 295-336.
Conner, M., Norman, P. and Bell, R. (2002), “The theory of planned behaviour and healthy eating”,
Health Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 194-201.
Dean, M., Raats, M.M. and Shepherd, R. (2008), “Moral concerns and consumer choice of fresh and
processed organic foods”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 2088-2107.
Dunn, K.I., Mohr, P., Wilson, C.J. and Wittert, G.A. (2011), “Determinants of fast-food
consumption. An application of the theory of planned behaviour”, Appetite, Vol. 57 No. 2,
pp. 349-357.
Ellen, P.S., Wiener, J.L. and Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991), “The role of perceived consumer
effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors”, Journal of Public Policy
and Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 102-117.
European Union DG XIV (2014), “Reform of the common fisheries policy”, available at: http://ec.
europa.eu/fisheries/reform/index_en.htm (accessed 19 May 2014).
FAO (2010), State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Fernández-Polanco, J. and Luna, L. (2012), “Factors affecting consumers’ beliefs about
aquaculture”, Aquaculture Economics & Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 22-39.
Fernández-Polanco, J., Mueller Loose, S. and Luna, L. (2013), “Are retailers’ preferences for
seafood attributes predictive for consumer wants? Results from a choice experiment
for seabream (Sparus aurata)”, Aquaculture Economics & Management, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 103-122.
Fishfight (2011), available at: www.fishfight.net/hugh-fearnley-whittingstall/ (accessed 17 August 2012)
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 39-50.
 BFJ Gärling, T., Satoshi, F., Gärling, A. and Jakobsson, C. (2003), “Moderating effects of social value
orientation on determinants of proenvironmental behavior intention”, Journal of Economic
117,4 Psychology, Vol. 23, pp. 1-9.
Greenpeace Red List (2012), available at: www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/
oceans/seafood/red-list-of-species/
Grunert, K.G., Hieke, S. and Wills, J. (2014), “Sustainability labels on food products: consumer
1300 motivation, understanding and use”, Food Policy, Vol. 44, pp. 177-189.
Ha, H.Y and Janda, S. (2012). “Predicting consumer intentions to purchase energy-efficient
products”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 No.7, pp.461-469.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, E.R., Tatham, L.R. and Black, W.C. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Harland, P., Staats, H. and Wilke, H.A.M. (1999), “Explaining proenvironmental intention and
behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 2505-2528.
Downloaded by New York University At 00:50 17 June 2015 (PT)

Harris, S.M. (2007), “Does sustainability sell? Market responses to sustainability certification”,
Management of Environmental Quality: an International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 50-60.
Heath, Y. and Gifford, R. (2002), “Extending the theory of planned behavior: predicting the use of
public transportation”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 2154-2189.
Hornik, R. and Kelly, B. (2007), “Communication and diet: an overview of experience and
principles”, Journal of nutrition Education Behavior, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 5-12.
Jackson, C., Smith, R.A. and Conner, M. (2003), “Applying an extended version of the theory of
planned behaviour to physical activity”, Journal of Sports Sciences, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 119-133.
Johnston, R.J. and Roheim, C.A. (2006), “A battle of taste and environmental convictions for
ecolabeled seafood: a contingent ranking experiment”, Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 283-300.
Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (2007), LISREL 8.80, Scientific Software International, Inc.,
Chicago, IL.
Kaiser, F.G. (2006), “A moral extension of the theory of planned behavior: norms and anticipated
feelings of regret in conservationism”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 71-81.
Lee, J.A. and Holden, S.J.S. (1999), “Understanding the determinants of environmentally conscious
behavior”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 373-392.
McEahern, M.G. and Warnaby, G. (2008), “Exploring the relationship between consumer
knowledge and purchase behaviour of value-based labels”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 414-426.
Manstead, A.S.R. and Parker, D. (1995), “Evaluating and extending the theory of planned
behavior”, in Stroebe, W. and Hewstone, M. (Eds), European Review of Social Psychology,
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, Vol. 6, pp. 69-95.
Minton, A.P. and Rose, R.L. (1997), “The effects of environmental concern on environmentally
friendly behavior: an exploratory study”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 37-48.
MSC (2014), Marine Stewardship Council, 19 May 2014, avaible at: www.msc.org/
Olsen, S.O. (2007), “Repurchase loyalty: the role of involvement and satisfaction”, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 315-341.
Parkes, G., Young, J.A., Walmsley, S.F., Abel, R., Harman, J., Horvat, P., Lem, A., MacFarlane, A.,
Mens, M. and Nolan, C. (2010), “Behind the signs – a global review of fish sustainability
information schemes”, Reviews in Fisheries Science, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 344-356.
 Pedersen, E.R. and Neergaard, P. (2006), “Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware! environmental Sustainable
labelling and the limitations of ‘green’ consumerism”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
seafood
Pieniak, Z., Aertsens, J. and Verbeke, W. (2010), “Subjective and objective knowledge as
determinants of organic vegetables consumption”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 21
No. 6, pp. 581-588.
Roberts, J.A. (1996), “Green consumers in the 1990’s: profile and implications for advertising”, 1301
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 217-231.
Roheim, C.A., Asche, F. and Santos, J.I. (2011), “The elusive price premium for ecolabelled
products: evidence from seafood in the UK market”, Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 655-668.
Roheim, C.A., Sudhakaran, P.O. and Durham, C.A. (2012), “Certification of shrimp and salmon for
best aquaculture practices: assessing consumer preferences in Rhode Island”, Aquaculture
Economics & Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 266-286.
Downloaded by New York University At 00:50 17 June 2015 (PT)

Schlegelmilch, B.B, Bohlen, G.M. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1996), “The link between green
purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 35-55.
Schwartz, S.H. (1977), “Normative influences on altruism”, Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 221-279.
Sustainable Consumption Roundtable (2006), “I will if you will. Towards sustainable
consumption”, Sustainable Development Commission and National Consumer Council,
London, available at: www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/I_Will_If_
You_Will.pdf
Sustainable Development Commission (2011), Looking Back, Looking Forward. Sustainability and
UK Food Policy, SDC, London.
Tanner, C. and Kast, S.W. (2003), “Promoting sustainable consumption: determinants of green
purchases by Swiss consumers”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 883-902.
Thøgersen, J. (2002), “Direct experience and the strength of the personal norm-behavior
relationship”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 19, pp. 881-893.
Thøgersen, J. and Ölander, F. (2006), “The dynamic interaction of personal norms and
environment-friendly buying behavior: a panel study”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 1758-1780.
Thøgersen, J., Haugaard, P. and Olesen, A. (2010), “Consumer responses to ecolabels”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Nos 11/12, pp. 1787-1810.
Torjusen, H., Lieblein, G., Wandel, M. and Francis, C.A. (2001), “Food system orientation and
quality perception among consumers and producers of organic food in Hedmark County,
Norway”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 207-216.
Tully, S.M. and Winer, R. S. (2014), “The role of the beneficiary in willingness to pay for socially
responsible products: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 255-274.
Turaga, R.M.R., Howarth, R.B. and Borsuk, M.E. (2010), “Pro-environmental behavior. Rational
choice meets moral motivation”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1185
No. 1, pp. 211-224.
Tuu, H.H., Olsen, S.O., Thao, D.T. and Anh, N.T.K. (2008), “The role of norms in explaining
attitudes, intention and consumption of a common food (fish) in Vietnam”, Appetite, Vol. 51
No. 3, pp. 546-551.
United Nations General Assembly (2005), “2005 World summit outcome, resolution A/60/1”,
adopted by the General Assembly, 15 September 2005.
 BFJ Verbeke, W. and Vackier, I. (2005), “Individual determinants of fish consumption: application of
the theory of planned behavior”, Appetite, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 67-82.
117,4
Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Sioen, I., Camp, J.V. and DeHenauw, S. (2007), “Perceived
importance of sustainability and ethics related to fish: a consumer behavior perspective”,
Ambio, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 580-585.
Vermeir, I. and Verbeke, W. (2006), “Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer
1302 ‘attitude-intention’ gap”, Journal of agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 169-194.
Vermeir, I. and Verbeke, W. (2008), “Sustainable food consumption among young adults in
Belgium: theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values”, Ecological
Economics, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 542-553.
WWF (2014), available at: www.wwf.org.uk/how_you_can_help/change_how_you_live/
think_about_what_you_eat/top_ten_tips_for_buying_good_seafood.cfm (accessed 19
May 2014).
Downloaded by New York University At 00:50 17 June 2015 (PT)

Further reading
OECD (2008), “Promoting sustainable consumption. Good practices in OECD countries”,
available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/59/40317373.pdf (accessed 22 November 2013).

Corresponding author
Dr Pirjo Honkanen can be contacted at: Pirjo.Honkanen@nofima.no

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