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

net/publication/263203774

Study of consumers' behavior for non-vegetarian products in emerging

market of India

Article in Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies · May 2014

DOI: 10.1108/JADEE-05-2013-0016

CITATIONS READS

31 6,115

2 authors:

Niraj Kumar Sanjeev Kapoor

School of Rural Management- XIM University Bhubaneswar Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow
31 PUBLICATIONS 506 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 670 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Niraj Kumar on 13 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2044-0839.htm

Study of
Study of consumers’ behavior for consumers’
non-vegetarian products in behavior
emerging market of India
Niraj Kumar 59
Faculty of Rural Management, Xavier Institute of Management,
Received 2 May 2013
Bhubaneswar, India, and Revised 17 January 2014
Sanjeev Kapoor Accepted 18 January 2014
Centre of Food and Agri-Business Management,
India Institute of Management, Lucknow, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to understand non-vegetarian food consumption behavior,
and factors affecting the same of the consumers of middle-sized market, where organized retailing
is still at infancy.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 182 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, logit regression were carried out to infer the
required information.
Findings – Although an important constituent of the food, for most the consumers, purchase of
non-vegetarian products were weekly, well planned, and family affairs. Assured good quality, followed
by the meat preparation in front of the customers’ eye emerged important market attributes for
selecting the store by the consumers. The study revealed that consumers were mainly dependent on
search and credence attributes of the product for non-vegetarian food purchase decisions.
Research limitations/implications – This paper analyses non-vegetarian food consumption food
behavior of those customers, for whom non-vegetarian food is still considered as special food, and who
belong to middle-sized cities where organized food retailing has just started.
Originality/value – The subject is relatively less researched in emerging markets where organized
food retail is still at infancy, and where non-vegetarian foods are considered special.
Keywords Consumer behavior, Agribusiness, Emerging markets, India, Food retailing,
Non-vegetarian food
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Rapid changes in food consumption pattern of consumers have led to the emergence of
structured food retailing industry in developing countries. Agri-food market system
has become more organized, customer centric and, in fact, is facilitating growth of
organized food retailing (Chen et al., 2005). Modern retailing has transformed food
retailing in large Asian economies like China and India (Timmer, 2005). With rapid
economic growth, increasing urbanization, and increasing number of women joining
the workforce, consumers have started looking for easy access and convenient
shopping. Consumers have become more discriminating in their food choices and
have started emphasizing more on convenience, freshness, and quality of products Journal of Agribusiness in
(Quagrainie et al., 1998; Acebron et al., 2000). Expansion of modern self-service stores Developing and Emerging Economies
Vol. 4 No. 1, 2014
and spread of supermarkets and hypermarkets are changing organization and pp. 59-77
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
institutions of agri-food systems (Cook et al., 2001; Reardon and Berdegué, 2002). 2044-0839
Food purchasing behavior of consumers, in developing economies such as India, DOI 10.1108/JADEE-05-2013-0016
JADEE has significantly changed due to an increase in per capita disposable income, global
4,1 interaction, information and communication technologies, urbanization, education,
change in life style, family structure, and health awareness (KPMG, 2005; Kaur and
Singh, 2007; Pingali, 2006; Ali et al., 2010).
According to Boston Consulting Group report, India is one of the largest producers
and consumers of food in the world, and the domestic food market is likely to triple
60 to 900USD billion by 2020 ( Jagran Post, 2011). It has been predicted that share of
organized retailing in the food and grocery segment could grow up to 15-20 percent
(Reardon and Gulati, 2008).
India, with its rising urban population coupled with comparatively younger
population is likely to experience changed purchase behavior with more preferences
for convenience and less concerns for savings (NABARD, 2011). According to a study
conducted by NABARD, per capita domestic demand in India for chicken, meat, fishes,
and egg is likely to be 18.74 kg considering the annual GDP growth rate of 7 percent
(NABARD, 2011). This is in spite of the fact that consumption of non-vegetarian food is
still not so common and is considered sort of special food for most of the consumers.
The result of The Hindu-CNN-IBN State of the Nation Survey proved that the popular
image of vegetarian India is off the mark, as only 31 percent of Indians and 21 percent
of families (with all the members) were found vegetarian (Yadav and Kumar, 2006).
In India though cereal continues to be important constituent of a household food
basket, the share of high-value food such as vegetables, fruits, milk meat, fish, and
eggs is increasing (Mittal, 2006). The shift in dietary pattern away from cereal
consumption to more expensive meat, poultry, and milk products is a consistent
change associated with economic growth world over (Huang and Bouis, 1996;
Meenakshi, 1996). Production and consumption of non-vegetarian products like meat,
chicken, and fishes in India has increased in last few years (Ali et al., 2007). Increasing
income, industrialization, changing life style and food habits are fueling demand for
high-value food products like meat, eggs, fishes, fruits, and vegetable (Dastagiri, 2004,
Rao et al., 2006; D’Monte, 2011).
To capture the opportunities of growing organized retail, big corporate organizations
are foraying in this segment and investing huge money, in this emerging market (Ali et al.,
2010). Indian owned retail outlets are already active and aggressive in food market (Vaish,
2007; Mamgain, 2011). Because of huge potential in general and food retailing in
particular, India has been ranked fourth in global food retail index and second in terms
of global foreign direct investment confidence index (Kearney, A.T., 2011). After a lot of
debate, Government of India has allowed FDI in multi brand retail which will open the
doors for many international players (Sanyal, 2012) like Wal-Mart, and Tesco who with
low margins and low prices, would cater to mass market (Mukherjeee et al., 2011). The
role of modern food retail sector and vertical integration of the food supply chain to foster
the diversification in diet toward livestock and dairy products in Asian countries has been
advocated (Beghin, 2006; Pingali, 2006).

2. Research purpose
However, in spite of fast growth of modern retail outlets, a large percentage of
consumers in Asia still prefer traditional market and wet markets. The perception and
possibly the reality, is that wet market supplies are fresh and often cheaper (Chen et al.,
2005). Entry of more and more corporate houses in organized retail of food products is
expected to further kick up competition in the business and put pressure on margins
(Daftari, 2007). Introduction of larger and diverse retail formats is providing new
experiences and option for shoppers which have led to very high footfalls into stores Study of
but low conversion in terms of actual purchase (Sinha et al., 2002). Indian consumers consumers’
are known to be price sensitive and retailers have to manage with razor thin margins
(Goswami and Mishra, 2009). Further, to bring hitherto not-interested food customers behavior
to organized retail outlets for the purchase of non-vegetarian products, it is necessary
to understand customers and their purchase behavior which varies for the
consumers of bigger cities than that of middle and smaller cities (NABARD, 2011). 61
Understanding food purchasing behavior of consumers helps marketing professionals
to plan, promote, and sale of the products more efficiently. Understanding consumer
purchasing behavior allows companies to promote products and services more easily
(Al-Gahaifi and Svetlik, 2011). Better knowledge of the consumer is the presumption
for preparing the efficacious selling concept (Kovacic et al., 2002). So far retailers
who have focussed on developing supply side efficiencies need to think about demand
side effectiveness as well to optimize business performance (Sanghvi, 2007). Although,
in recent decades efforts to understand consumers attitudes, or overall buying behavior
and the relative importance of various attributes in purchasing food have been widely
explored (Kiesel and Villas-Boas, 2007), but it has mostly remained limited to bigger
cities where retails have already established. Thus, it is momentous to examine the
purchasing behavior of consumers of emerging markets, i.e. non-metro cities, where
the focus is likely to increase and competition is likely to be intense in years to come.
In view of such evidences, this study was undertaken with the objective of identifying
factors which affect consumers’ decisions making for the purchase of non-vegetarian
foods[1] in the emerging market.
Taking cue from various results of earlier literature on the subject, the focus of the
study is to identify factors which affect the consumers’ buying behavior of
non-vegetarian food products which would be helpful in designing appropriate
marketing strategies (in terms of pricing, packaging, advertisement, store design, and
its location) for these products. The present research attempts to understand the
buying behavior of consumers in terms of their choices for various product and market
attributes for non-vegetarian food products in emerging middle-sized market.
The consumers’ buying behavior has been captured through quantity and frequency
of purchase, expenditure pattern, and preferred location of store for different
non-vegetarian products. The factors influencing the buying behavior have been
broadly categorized under customers related (gender, age, education, occupation, and
income), product related (quality, hygiene, and price) and market related (convenience,
credit sale, vendor behavior, availability in desired quantity and quality). The study
tries to provide the strategic inputs to food retail industry to customize their marketing
strategies as per the customers’ preferences and requirements. Study of relative
importance of various attributes will help in understanding the consumers’ purchase
decision criteria for non-veg products. The understanding of buying behavior of
consumers can be used to develop appropriate marketing strategies in developing
economies where organized retailing in meat products is still at an infant stage.
The specific hypotheses tested in the present research are as follows:

H1. Consumers’ buying behavior in terms of frequency and quantity of purchase is

same for different non-vegetarian products like mutton, chicken, and fish.

H2. The demographic characteristics of consumers (gender, age, education, and

income) significantly influence the buying behavior for mutton, chicken, and fish.
JADEE H3. Consumers lay similar emphasis on various product attributes while
4,1 purchasing non-vegetarian food products.

H4. Consumers lay equal importance to various market attributes at the time of
purchase of non-vegetarian food products.

62 The research framework used in the study has been conceptualized in Figure 1.

3. Data and methods

3.1 Sample and data collection
The study was conducted in the state of Odisha of India. Non-vegetarian food is
considered as staple food in the State as majority of the population is non-vegetarian in
their food habit. It is worth noting that only eight percent of Odiya are vegetarian
(Yadav and Kumar, 2006). According to 68th round of NSSO data, average urban
Oriya spends 40.68 percent of total income on food. Among the various constituents of
food, an average urban Oriya spends 8.7 percent of their total expenditure on food
on non-veg food (meat, fish, eggs) which is slightly higher than average urban India
who spends 7.25 percent of total food expenditure on non-veg food (NSSO, 2013).
Organized retail has already taken root in major cities of Odisha and their share in
overall sale is going to increase. For instance, in Bhubaneswar, a city having
population of under one million, there were no such retailers in the 2003 but by the year
2008, it had gone to 21 (Harper, 2010).
The data for this research were collected through personally administered
questionnaire survey conducted during the months of May and June of year 2011. The
survey was done in two major cities of state of Odisha[2], namely Bhubaneswar and
Rourkela. These two cities are developing very fast though represent typical non-metro
cities of the country. In India though, the metro cities and other tier 1 cities continue to
sustain retail growth, the buzz has now shifted to lesser known ones. As the spending

Market Attributes
(convenience, credit sale,
vendor behavior,
availability of products in
desired quantity, and Consumer Buying
quality) Behavior Marketing Strategy
(frequency and quantity of (pricing, packaging,
purchase, expenditure and advertisement, store
preferred location of the selection, and its design
store
Product Attributes
(quality, hygiene, and
price)

Consumer Socio-Economic
Factors
(gender, age, education, income, and
Figure 1. occupation)
Research framework
power is no longer limited to metro cities, the retail business in the small towns Study of
and cities will increase by 50 to 60 percent pertaining to easy and inexpensive consumers’
availability of land and demand among consumers (Damodaran, 2009; Rastogi, 2010).
To study the future of retail in India, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural behavior
Development too had considered and classified Bhubaneswar as the B1 city, i.e.
non-metro middle-sized city (NABARD, 2011). According to a recent survey conducted
by Global Initiative for Restructuring Environment and Management, the city of 63
Bhubaneswar has emerged as the 6th best business destination among 21 major
cities of India. The cities selected for the study (Bhubaneswar and Rourkela)
have maximum gross district domestic product during the year 2012-2013 among
all the districts of the State of Odisha.
A total of 182 non-vegetarian households from economically developed area with
diverse socio-economic background were interviewed in both the cities to elicit their
response on buying behavior for non-vegetarian food products. The sample
households were selected having sufficient purchasing power required for organized
retail shopping.

3.2 Data collection instrument

The survey questionnaire developed for the study had questions representing three
different components of the study, namely, socio-economic profile of consumers,
their buying behavior of non-vegetarian food products, and the various products and
market attributes. The first component included questions related to socio-economic
information of the respondents such as gender, age, monthly income, education level,
and occupation. The second component related to buying behavior of consumers
and consisted of questions related to consumers’ purchase frequency, quantity of
non-vegetarian food purchased in one transaction, and monthly expenditure on all food
items as well as on non-vegetarian food items. To understand the product and market
attributes (the third component of the study), questions were asked related to preferred
location of store for non-vegetarian food, and various market attributes like
convenience, availability of assured quality, prevalence of credit transaction, and trust
on shopkeeper, etc. In order to analyze the relative importance of these market
attributes, the consumers’ perception on these attributes was taken on a Likert scale
(1 ¼ not at all important, 2 ¼ some what important, 3 ¼ important, 4 ¼ very important,
and 5 ¼ extremely important). Data were also collected on consumers’ perception on
various product attributes such as freshness, meat from healthy and hygiene animal,
and chemical free product. The perception data were again collected using Likert scale
(1 ¼ not at all important, 2 ¼ some what important, 3 ¼ important, 4 ¼ very important,
and 5 ¼ extremely important). The response of the consumers was also taken to get
their major decision criteria while purchasing non-vegetarian food products. To feel the
future of organized retailing, the questionnaire also included the consumers’ preference
and present awareness of packed or frozen of non-vegetarian food products.

3.3 Data analysis

A simple statistical analysis with the help of frequency distribution and
cross-tabulation was conducted to assess the consumption and buying behavior of
the consumers. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to test whether
socio-economic factors of consumers are important in explaining the buying behavior
of non-vegetarian food products. Factor analysis was performed to identify the
importance of different set of product and market attributes. For this purpose, the
JADEE principle component analysis was conducted using varimax rotation with Kaiser
4,1 normalization. In order to identify the factors affecting the consumers’ buying behavior
(frequency and quantity of purchase of non-vegetarian food items), the logistic
regression was carried out. The independent variables considered in the analysis were
consumers’ social and demographic characteristics (gender, age, education, occupation,
income, residential area, and family structure and size), market attributes (convenience,
64 assured quality, and meat prepared on spot) and product attributes (chemical free,
meat from healthy animal, and animal kept well before slaughtering). Frequency and
quantity of purchase of all the three non-vegetarian food together (mutton, chicken and
fish) were taken as dependent variables.

4. Results and discussions

4.1 Consumers’ profile analysis
Consumers’ profile has been studied in terms of their gender, age, education,
occupation, and income which were considered to have bearing on their buying
behavior. It is evident from Table I, that majority (57 percent) of respondent were male
which indicates that still marketing decisions in family are being made by the male
members. All the respondents were of between 20 and 50 years of age. This is reflection
of changing family structure and culture where there are more and more nuclear
families, and decisions are being taken by working head of the family. More than
90 percent of respondents were graduate and above, which was mainly because of the

Attributes % of respondents

Gender
Male 56.9
Female 43.1
Age (yrs)
o20 0.0
20-30 38.2
31-40 32.4
41-50 29.4
450 0
Education
Intermediate and below 8.1
Graduate 47.5
Post graduate and above 44.4
Occupation
Housewife 12.1
Self-employed 2.0
Service 71.7
Business 4.0
Student 6.1
Others 4.0
Monthly household income (INR)
o10,000 0.0
10,000-20,000 8.8
20,001-40,000 32.4
40,001-75,000 45.1
Table I. 475,000 13.7
Socio-economic
profile of respondents Note: Sample size ¼ 182
sample was drawn from the economically developed urban area. Totally, 77 percent of Study of
the respondents were in middle category with monthly income varying between consumers’
Rs. 20,001 to Rs. 75.000[3]. Occupation profile of respondents show that majority of the
respondents (about 72 percent) were in service. This is important to note that while behavior
43 percent of respondents were female only 12 percent were housewives. This is an
indication of increasing share of women’s population in working class.
65
4.2 Buying behavior
Buying behavior of the consumers was assessed on the basis of quantity of purchase,
frequency of purchase, expenditure on non-vegetarian products, and preferred location
of the store. It was found that fish is the most frequently purchased product with a
mean value of 2.4 and a mode value of 2 (Table II). It indicates that fish is purchased
on weekly basis. This might be due to the fact that Odisha is a coastal State in
India having fish in abundance quantity and of varying quality. The next frequent
purchased item is chicken with a mean value of 2.7 and a mode value of 3.
The analysis indicates that most of the consumers buy mutton on fortnightly basis.
Table II also shows that on an average most of the consumers bought about 1 kg
of non-vegetarian in one transaction. The purchase of fish quantity was more (1 kg)
because it is considered as a part of regular food and also was comparatively cheaper.
This is in line of finding of D’Monte (2011) who reported that for people in coastal areas
all over the world, fish is cheap source of protein for them. Thus, our H1, which
assumes that the consumers’ purchase decisions are similar for mutton, chicken, and
fish, is rejected. The organized retail industry can take these finding for marketing of
their frozen or packed non-vegetarian food items.
The consumers’ response on the two aspects of buying behavior for mutton,
chicken, and fish (frequency of purchase and transaction quantity) was analyzed with
their demographic profile to assess whether there are any significant differences in
their responses. The results were obtained using ANOVA technique (Table III). Results
indicate that for both the aspects, the responses of male and female are similar for all
the three products. This is in contrast to the findings of Haddock-Fraser et al. (2009),
where the authors have showed that gender differences were significant in respect of
frequency of shopping for food products in Japanese market. In case of frequency of
purchase, the responses differ significantly for mutton only with respect to age of the
consumers. Consumers belonging to young age group (less than 25 years) prefer
frequent purchase of mutton as compared to their older counterparts. Similarly, young
consumers buy more of mutton and chicken as compared to those belonging to the
older age group.

Decision Product Mean Mode SD Friedman test

Frequency of purchase Mutton 3.7 3 1.256 w2 ¼ 28.30 ap0.000

Chicken 2.7 3 0.632
Fish 2.4 2 0.616
Transaction quantity (kg) Mutton 0.9 0.5 0.532 w2 ¼ 6.427 Sig. ¼ 0.040
Chicken 0.9 1 0.339
Fish 1.0 1 0.506 Table II.
Consumers’ response
Notes: Daily – 1; twice to thrice in a week – 2; once in a week – 3; twice in a month – 4; once in a on non-vegetarian
month – 5 food buying behavior
JADEE It is clear from the results that there is no effect of education and income of the
4,1 consumers on their buying behavior of these products. Haddock-Fraser et al. (2009)
reported that except the price sensitivity, there was no other income effect on food
purchase factors of Japanese consumers. The insensitivity of income of the consumers
to the purchase of non-vegetarian products substantiates that non-vegetarian products
have become necessary part of consumers’ diet in the State and these products cannot
66 be treated as luxury diet items. Based on the findings, the H2 is only partially true.
The survey results find that on average consumers spent about 38 percent of
their total income on food items (Table IV). More than one-fifth of their total food

Decision Product Gender Age Education Income

Frequency of purchase Mutton 0.038 2.313** 1.611 0.204

Table III. Chicken 0.096 1.045 1.404 0.170
Analysis of variance Fish 0.652 0.424 0.421 1.478
(ANOVA) between Transaction quantity Mutton 0.065 2.617* 0.146 1.322
purchase behavior Chicken 2.261 3.133* 0.257 0.958
and demographic Fish 0.238 0.673 1.161 0.427
characteristics
of consumers Note: *,**Significant at 5 and 10 percent level, respectively

Expenditure pattern %
(a)
Monthly expenditure on all food items out of total expenditure 37.8
Monthly expenditure on vegetarian food out of total expenditure on food 40.0
Monthly expenditure on non-vegetarian food out of total expenditure on food 21.3
(b)
Age category (years) Meana F Sig.
o25 1.8 0.982 0.405
25-40 1.9
40-55 1.6
455 1.8
Total 1.8
Education
Below graduate 1.9 0.517 0.598
Graduate 1.8
PG 1.9
Total 1.8
Monthly family income (K)
10-20 1.4 2.941 0.037
20-40 1.7
40-75 1.9
475 2.2
Total 1.8
Table IV. Gender
(a) Expenditure pattern Female 1.9 0.031 0.86
of consumers on different Male 1.8
food items; (b) consumers’ Total 1.8
response on monthly a
expenditure behavior Notes: Not significant with respect to gender, age, and education, but significant (at 5 percent level)
on non-vegetarian food with respect to income of the consumers
expenditure was spent on non-vegetarian food items indicating the importance of these Study of
products in the food basket. It has also been reported that in Indian non-metro cities, consumers’
consumers spend on an average 9.0, 8.0, and 7.0 percent of their total food expenditure
on chicken, meat, and fish, respectively (NABARD, 2011). behavior
Findings in Table IV indicate that monthly expenditure on the non-vegetarian
food does not vary significantly with respect to gender, age, and education of
the consumers. However, it keeps on increasing with the increase in income of the 67
consumers. Moreover, the differences in this expenditure among the different income
categories of respondents have been found statistically significant. Majority of
respondents indicated that by and large their expenditure on non-vegetarian meat
has increased. NSSO estimates also report that as the income level increases, the
consumption of meat, fish, and eggs increases, the magnitude of increase being
the largest for rich households (NSSO, 2013).
When studied about who decides the menu of non-vegetarian food, it was found that
in majority of households (54.1 percent), respective wives decide. On the other hand,
it was found that in 60 percent cases it was the husband (head of the family) who did
marketing. The analysis indicates that purchase of non-vegetarian food is a family
affair and the decisions to buy a particular non-vegetarian item are made at home.
While deciding about the store, most of the consumers (67 percent) preferred nearest
market place over neighborhood non-vegetarian shop and non-vegetarian market.
This was because respondents were of opinion that in nearest market place, one can
also do marketing of other household products like vegetables, fruits and grocery, etc.
According to a study conducted by NABARD, unorganized outlets are preferred across
the various categories of cities (including metro) for all categories of foods. In small
towns and cities of India, more than 95 percent of consumers preferred unorganized
outlets for the purchase of chicken, meat, and fish. Further, on an average in small
towns and cities, consumers traveled around 281 meters and spent around 16 minutes
of time in purchasing non-vegetarian foods (NABARD, 2011).
Table V indicates that as per the response of majority of consumers (68 percent)
quality of products turned out be the major decision criteria to buy the non-vegetarian
products. Ambience of the store came as another important factor governing the buying
of these products for about one quarter of surveyed consumers. Rimal (2005) had
concluded that meat consumption level is affected by price, income, taste and preferences
of consumers, consumers’ concern about health and lack of convenience in preparation.
The results given in Table V shows that majority of consumers (87 percent)
were interested in seeing the product before buying it and preferred physically

Decision criteria % of consumers

(a)
Quality 68.2
Weight 07.4
Ambience/surrounding of shop 24.4 Table V.
(b) (a) Major decision
Physically verifying and selecting 34.4 criteria for buying the
Seeing the sample 52.6 non-vegetarian products;
Properly packed by vendor 1.0 (b) preferred method
Price 5.0 for buying the
Take branded product 0.0 non-vegetarian products
JADEE verifying and selecting the product. Consumers have such a strong desire for
4,1 freshness of meat that they detect the quality and adulteration through their naked
eyes and taste (Raju and Suryanarayana, 2005). In India, in most of the meat shops,
animals are slaughtered and processed in shop itself. Sometimes in front of
customers if he wants to see first what he buys (Winter, 2008). Interestingly, only
5 percent of the consumers gave any importance to price of the product while buying
68 these products. These results contradict that that Indian consumers are always
price conservative in their buying behavior. Rather, the results indicates that the
consumers are moving toward more on product and market attributes for buying the
non-vegetarian food products.

4.3 Consumers’ response on product attributes

Product attributes play a major role in purchase choices of the buyers and are crucial
determinants of success/failure of product and its marketing strategies. The product
can be defined in terms of its different attributes like search, experience, and credence.
The buying decisions for different products mainly depend on a combination of these
attributes. Consumers expressed significantly different views on different product
attributes (Friedman test, w2 ¼ 83.464, ap0.000). Freshness was ranked as extremely
important by most of the consumers (Table VI). Haddock-Fraser et al. (2009), while
analyzing buying behavior of consumers for food products in Japanese market, also
showed that freshness was the principal importance to the product choice decisions.
Meat from healthy animals, chemicals free, from animals of required age, and hygienic
conditions while processing, were also ranked higher among the consideration factors
for meat purchase. Freshness has been found most important criteria consumers
look for while purchasing non-vegetarian foods (Becker et al., 1997; Raju and
Suryanarayana, 2005; NABARD, 2011). Since consumers express different views on
different product attributes, therefore, H3 (consumers lay similar emphasis on various
product attributes) is rejected.
A comparative study of consumers’ response on the various product attributes with
their socio-economic profile was done by ANOVA to assess if there are any significant
differences in the individual responses on the product attributes for the purchase of
meat-items (Table VII). It was found that by the large consumers (except some sporadic
differences) did not differ significantly and their responses were almost uniform across
the sample. Exceptions were consumers with higher education who were found more
concerned with hygiene, and those with higher income who gave more weightage to
the freshness of the product. Similar results were also found after a study on rural
customers in India (Raju and Suryanarayana, 2005).

Product attributes Meana Mode SD

From healthy animal 4.55 5 0.726

Chemical free 4.58 5 0.759
Age 4.41 5 0.896
Animal with good quality feed 3.62 5 1.444
Table VI. Kept well before slaughter 3.83 5 1.176
Importance of various Maintained total hygienic condition while processing 4.36 5 0.911
product attributes Served fresh 4.90 5 0.339
in purchase of
non-vegetarian foods Note: a1, not important; 5, extremely important
Consumers’ responses on seven product attributes were grouped to two sets of Study of
related attributes namely, Food safety and food quality through principal component consumers’
analysis. Using factor analysis, these two attributes explain 69 percent of variance
(Table VIII). The variance indicated by food safety (credence attributes) is 55 percent, behavior
and it loads high on chemical free meat, animal kept well before slaughter and meat
served fresh. Food quality parameters explain 14 percent variation and are loaded on
meat from healthy animal, age of animal, and hygienic conditions while processing. 69
Using country of origin (COO) as an indicator of quality and safety, several researchers
have also concluded that COO plays a very important role in influencing the buying
behavior of consumers for poultry meat in European countries (Vukasovič, 2010, 2011;
Strašek, 2011).

4.4 Consumers’ response on market attributes

Study of reasons for going to preferred market and shop revealed that quality
considerations were at the top of mind of consumers. Assured good quality with
mean score of 4.64 was ranked first followed by the meat preparation (cleaning,
chopping, delivery of desired part of body like legs and chest) in front of the
customers’ eye (Table IX). Near to the house/convenience in purchasing (with mean
score of 3.69) and acquaintance with shop owner (mean score of 3.37) were other
attributes which were considered relatively important by the consumers. Credit
transaction and low price turned out to be of very less important market attributes
both in terms of mean as well as mode score. Based on a study it has been reported
that in non-metro cities of India, consumers spend 91, 87, and 95 percent of their

Socio-economic variables/product attributes Age Education Occupation Income

From healthy animal 2.209 0.870 0.601 1.202

Free from chemical 0.093 0.311 1.631 1.250
Age 0.922 2.074 0.364 2.050
Animal fed with good quality feed 4.659*** 1.198 0.418 1.218
Kept well before slaughter 2.001 0.735 0.346 1.224 Table VII.
Maintained total hygienic condition while processing 0.130 3.187** 1.410 1.954 ANOVA between
Served fresh 0.449 1.507 0.312 2.686** socio-economic profile
of consumers and
Note: *,**,***Significant at 10, 5 and 1 percent level, respectively product attributes

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 – rotated
Total variance explained (%) 55 14 component matrix for
Cumulative variance explained (%) 55 69 product attributes
JADEE total expenditure on chicken, meat, and fishes, respectively, in purchasing these
4,1 items form un-organized sector. 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 highly for food purchasing decisions (Haddock-Fraser
et al., 2009). Similar to responses on product attributes, the consumers’ responses
were significantly different for different market attributes (Friedman test, w2 ¼
70 112.901, ap0.000). Thus, H4 (consumers lay equal importance to various market
attributes) cannot be supported.
A comparative study of consumers’ response on the various market attributes with
their socio-economic profile was done by ANOVA to assess if there are any significant
differences in the individual responses on the market attributes for the purchase of
meat-items (Table X). It was found that the responses were almost uniform across
the sample. Based on the results, it can be concluded that socio-economic profile of the
consumers do not significantly influences the importance of market attributes for the
purchase of non-vegetarian foods.
Consumers’ response on these nine market attributes were grouped to two set
of factors using principal component analysis (Table XI). The first factor is called
as market facilities and services (M1) which turned out to be the most important
factor as it explains a total of 45.3 percent variation and loads high on special
treatment given by vendor to consumer, sale on credit and availability of meat in
desired quantity. The second factor is market convenience and familiarity (M2)
which is related to market convenience, and the familiarity of consumers with

Factors Meana Mode SD

Near to house/convenience 3.69 5 1.394

Assured good quality 4.64 5 0.620
Credit transaction 1.62 1 1.168
Acquaintance with shop keeper 3.37 3 1.296
Prepared in front 4.50 5 0.886
Table IX. Cheaper than market 2.23 1 1.231
Importance of various Special treatment 2.41 1 1.446
market attributes Desired quantity 3.16 4 1.443
in purchase of
non-vegetarian foods Notes: a1, not important; 5, extremely important

Socio-economic variables/market attributes Age Education Occupation Income

Convenience 4.150** 2.419* 0.879 0.590

Assured quality 3.202** 0.096 0.743 2.049
Credit transaction 0.514 4.790*** 0.700 1.077
Acquaintance with shop keeper 2.271 3.466** 0.663 0.791
Prepared in front of eyes 3.371 1.474 1.674 1.017
Table X. Cheaper than the market 0.449 0.310 1.512 0.578
ANOVA between Special treatment 0.042 0.295 1.765 0.120
socio-economic Desired quantity 0.129 0.003 0.700 0.271
profile of consumers
and market attributes Notes: *,**,***Significant at 10, 5 and 1 percent level, respectively
Attributes Facilities and services (M1) Convenience (M2)
Study of
consumers’
Special treatment 0.822 0.285 behavior
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 71
Acquaintance with shop keeper 0.021 0.892
Convenience 0.038 0.664 Table XI.
Prepared in front of eyes 0.711 0.436 Factor analysis – rotated
Total variance explained (%) 45.3 18.9 component matrix for
Cumulative variance explained (%) 45.3 64.2 market attributes

vendors, explains 18.9 percent variation. This factor loads very high for familiarity
of consumers with vendors. It signifies that trust on seller plays an important
role in explaining the consumers’ choice for market for non-vegetarian food
products. 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.

4.5 Factors affecting consumers’ buying decisions

In order to identify the factors affecting the frequency of purchase of non-vegetarian
food items, the logistic regression was carried out. The independent variables
considered in the analysis were consumers’ social and demographic characteristics
(gender, age, education, occupation, income, residential area, and family structure
and size), market attributes (convenience, assured quality, and meat prepared on
spot) and product attributes (chemical free, meat from healthy animal, and animal
kept well before slaughtering). Frequency of purchase of all the three non-vegetarian
food together (mutton, chicken, and fish) was taken as dependent variable.
The result of logit regression analysis is exhibited in Table XII. The model is a
reasonably good fit as indicated by the summary statistics. The w2 statistic for
the model is 43.66 which is significant at 10 percent level and Cox & Snell R2
(R2CS ¼ 0.351) and Nagelkerke R 2 (R 2N ¼ 0.470) indicate an adequately goodness of
fit. The estimated logit model correctly predicted 82 percent of respondent’s views.
The results indicate that the consumers’ frequency to purchase non-vegetarian food
items is positively and significantly affected by age, education, and family income.
Importantly, among the product attributes, chemical free product was found to
be a significant factor that positively influenced the frequency to purchase
non-vegetarian food items.
The results for similar exercise for the factors explaining the quantity of
non-vegetarian food items have been presented in Table XIII. The model is a
reasonably good fit as indicated by the summary statistics. The w2 statistic for
the model is 32.26 which is significant at 1 percent level and Cox & Snell R2
(R2CS ¼ 0.273) and Nagelkerke R2 (R2N ¼ 0.372) indicate an adequately goodness of
fit. The estimated logit model correctly predicted 76 percent of respondent’s views.
The results indicate that the consumers’ purchased quantity of non-vegetarian
food items is significantly but positively affected by age (demographic profile of
consumers), meat prepared on spot (market attribute), and chemical free product
(product attribute).
JADEE B SE Wald Sig. Exp(B)
4,1
Socio-economic factors
Gender (1 if male, 0 otherwise) 0.344 0.611 0.316 0.574 0.709
Age (1 if o35 years, 0 otherwise) 1.802 0.610 8.709 0.003 6.059
Education (1 if graduate, 0 otherwise) 1.898 1.034 3.368 0.066 6.674
72 Occupation (1 if employed, 0 otherwise) 1.218 0.745 2.674 0.100 0.296
Income (1 if 420 K, 0 otherwise) 2.416 1.189 4.129 0.042 11.200
Locality (1 if high profile) 0.029 0.647 0.002 0.965 1.029
Family structure (1 if nuclear, 0 otherwise) 1.205 0.604 3.974 0.046 3.336
Family size (1 if o5 members, 0 otherwise) 1.378 0.855 2.596 0.100 0.252
Market Attributes
Convenience (1 if nearby home, 0 otherwise) 1.773 1.282 1.911 0.167 0.170
Assured quality (1 standard quality, 0 otherwise) 2.547 1.738 2.148 0.143 12.771
Prepared on spot (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) 0.204 1.292 0.025 0.874 1.227
Competitive price 0.010 0.818 0.000 0.990 0.990
Product attributes
From healthy animal (animal fed with good quality feed) 0.552 0.916 0.363 0.547 0.576
Chemical free 1.886 0.886 4.535 0.033 6.591
Kept well before slaughtering 0.193 0.894 0.047 0.829 1.213
Constant 5.219 2.106 6.139 0.013 0.005
Percentage correct 82
2 log likelihood 95.153
Table XII. Cox and Snell R2 0.351
Logit regression Nagelkerke R2 0.470
analysis – frequency of w 2
43.662***
purchase (1 if frequent,
0 otherwise) Note: ***Significant at 1 percent level

5. Conclusions
5.1 Summary of findings
With the onset of changing retail marketing environment, this study provides valuable
features of consumers’ buying behavior of non-vegetarian food products in developing
economy where organized retailing in meat products is still at an infant stage. Buying
behavior of the consumers was assessed on the basis of quantity of purchase,
frequency of purchase, expenditure, and preferred location of the store. The consumers’
buying decision process has been analyzed in terms of their preferences for various
product and market attributes. The findings of the study reveal that maximum number
of consumers purchased non-vegetarian foods once in week. Moreover, non-vegetarian
products have become necessary part of consumers’ diet in the State and these
products cannot be treated as luxury diet items. More than one-fifth of their total food
expenditure was spent on non-vegetarian food by the surveyed consumers indicating
the importance of these products in the food basket.
The analysis indicates that purchase of non-vegetarian food is a family affair and
the decision to buy a particular non-vegetarian item is not impulsive rather it is made
at home much before it is purchased. Since these decisions are made before entering to
the store, impulse buying is completely ruled out. For this reason, the non-vegetarian
food processing industry has to adopt pull marketing strategy (creating the demand)
rather than a push one (dependent on channel). For this purpose vigorous efforts are
required to create brand awareness among the consumers. High-consumers’ rating for
assured good quality followed by the meat preparation (cleaning, chopping, delivery of
 B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Study of
consumers’
Socio-economic factors behavior
Gender (1 if male, 0 otherwise) 0.184 0.604 0.093 1.000 0.761 0.832
Age (1 if o35 years, 0 otherwise) 1.162 0.566 4.211 1.000 0.040 0.313
Education (1 if graduate, 0 otherwise) 1.116 0.863 1.674 1.000 0.196 0.327
Occupation (1 if employed, 0 otherwise) 0.428 0.699 0.374 1.000 0.541 1.534 73
Income (1 if 420 K, 0 otherwise) 1.519 1.053 2.081 1.000 0.149 0.219
Locality (1 if high profile) 0.195 0.623 0.098 1.000 0.755 1.215
Family structure (1 if nuclear, 0 otherwise) 0.438 0.548 0.638 1.000 0.424 0.645
Family size (1 if o5 members, 0 otherwise) 0.291 0.778 0.140 1.000 0.709 0.748
Market attributes
Convenience (1 if nearby home, 0 otherwise) 0.734 1.041 0.498 1.000 0.480 2.084
Assured quality ( 1 standard quality, 0 otherwise) 0.221 1.146 0.037 1.000 0.847 1.248
Prepared on spot (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) 2.244 1.156 3.769 1.000 0.052 0.106
Competitive price 0.912 0.770 1.404 1.000 0.236 2.490
Product attributes
From healthy animal (animal fed with good quality feed) 1.203 0.861 1.952 1.000 0.162 3.329
Chemical free 1.936 0.842 5.284 1.000 0.022 0.144
Kept well before slaughtering 0.902 0.841 1.149 1.000 0.284 0.406
Constant 4.541 1.868 5.911 1.000 0.015 93.739
Percentage correct 76 Table XIII.
2 log likelihood 101.506 Logit regression
Cox and Snell R2 0.273 analysis – non-veg
Nagelkerke R2 0.372 purchase quantity
w2
32.257* in one transaction
(1 if 41 Kg,
Note: *Significant at 10 percent level 0 otherwise)

desired part of body like legs and chest) in front of the customers’ eye emerged the
important market attributes for selecting the store by the consumers. Majority of the
consumers are interested in seeing the non-vegetarian product before buying it and
prefer physically verifying and selecting the product.

5.2 Implications for retail industry

The study reveals that consumers were mainly dependent on search and credence
attributes of the product for non-vegetarian food purchase decisions. Under these
situations, transparent packaging, availability of sample to check and food labels
will be key instruments in influencing the buying decisions of the consumers of
non-vegetarian food. The problem of information asymmetry in influencing the
consumers’ preferences and their satisfaction in consumption of food products, has
been emphatically reported in the literature (Poole et al., 2007). The consumers of
non-vegetarian food products would be more interested to know the ways food is
produced and processed and the food labeling would be the key source of information.
Information related to “the product is chemical free,” would be the unique selling
preposition for non-vegetarian food products.
The study reveals that product assortment and consumers’ trust on vendor play
important role in marketing of non-vegetarian food products. The retail firms have to
make a large investment in this directions to establish their entry in this market.
Although Government of India has opened the door for FDI in multi-brand retail in
India, but as such, it does not affect Odisha as presently no city in the State has a
JADEE population of one million (ten lakh). The results clearly spell out that the consumers’
4,1 purchase decisions are different for mutton, chicken, and fish. The organized retail
industry can take these finding for marketing of their frozen or packed non-vegetarian
food items. The non-vegetarian food products cannot be treated as homogenous
products, and therefore, product-specific information has to be provided to the
consumers. These results can be used as strategic inputs by the retail industry to
74 customize non-vegetarian food retailing as per the consumers’ preferences and
requirements.
Notes
1. For the study non-vegetarian food products means raw meat, chicken, and fish which are
most common constituents of non-vegetarian menu in the study area.
2. Odisha, located on the east coast of India, is 11th most populous state of country. Considered
as one of the poorest states of the country, the state has human development index even
below the national average. However, during the last decade it has experienced all round
development and has developed at the pace more than that of national average.
The economy grew in real terms at 2004-2005 prices at the rate of 8.23 percent during the
11th Five Year Plan.
3. Rs. Means Indian Rupee (INR); 1 US $ ¼ Rs. 48 (at the time of data collection).

References
Acebron, L.B., Levy Mangin, J.P. and Calvo Dopico, D. (2000), “A proposal of the buying model
for fresh food products: the case of fresh mussels”, Journal of International Food and
Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 75-96.
Al-Gahaifi, T.H. and Svetlik, J. (2011), “Factors influencing consumer behavior in market
vegetable in Yemen”, Acta Universitatis Agriculture et Silviculturae Mendelianae, Vol. 59
No. 7, pp. 17-27.
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.
Ali, J., Singh, S.P. and Muhammad, S. (2007), “High value agriculture and structural changes in
the Indian meat industry: implication for agribusiness and small farmers”, Journal of Food
Distribution Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Becker, T., Benner, E. and Glitsch, K. (1997), “Quality policy and consumer behavior towards
fresh meat”, National Quality Policy Report, available at: https://marktlehre.uni-
hohenheim.de/fileadmin/einrichtungen/marktlehre/Forschung/EU-Research/gerqp1.pdf
(accessed April 20, 2012).
Beghin, J.C. (2006), “Evolving dairy markets in Asia: recent findings and implications”, Food
Policy, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 195-200.
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.
Cook, M.L., Reardon, T., Barrent, C. and Cacho, J. (2001), “Agro-industrialisation in emerging
markets: overview and strategic context”, International Food and Agribusiness
Management Review, Vol. 2 Nos 3/4, pp. 277-288.
Daftari, I. (2007), “Reliance Fresh may add groceries products: an empirical study”, Area, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 32-34.
Damodaran, S. (2009), “Retail in India – the past, present and future”, eQuestIndia, available at:
www.equestindia.com/eq/article_3.asp (accessed December 19, 2011).
Dastagiri, M.B. (2004), “Demand and supply projections for livestock products in India”, Policy Study of
Paper No. 21, National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, ICAR,
New Delhi. consumers’
D’Monte, D. (2011), “One man’s meat is simply another’s poison”, Asian Conversation, available at: behavior
www.asianconversation.com/indiaNonVeg.php (accessed March 3, 2012).
Goswami, P. and Mishra, M.S. (2009), “Would Indian consumers move from kirana stores to
organized retailers when shopping for groceries?”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and 75
Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 127-141.
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 Harper, M.
(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”, 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.
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-GRDI_
2011.pdf (accessed December 3, 2012).
Kiesel, K. and Villas-Boas, S.B. (2007), “Got organic milk? Consumer valuations of milk labels
after the implementation of the USDA organic seal”, Journal of Agricultural & Food
Industrial Organization, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-40.
Kovacic, D., Radman, M. and Kolega, A. (2002), “Behavior of fruit and vegetable buyers on
the city market in the Croatia”, paper presented at 13th International Farm Management
Congress, Wageningen, July 7-12.
KPMG (2005), Consumer Markets in India: The Next Big Things, Publication No. 213-405, KPMG
International, Mumbai.
Mamgain, P. (2011), “Food retail chains sell vegetables & fruits up to 40% cheaper than local
vendors”, Economic Times, January 7, available at: http://articles.economictimes.
indiatimes.com/2011-01-07/news/28427023_1_vegetable-prices-safal-price-rise (accessed
July 19, 2012).
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 July 14, 2012).
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, August.
NABARD (2011), “Current scenario of Indian food retail industry and future outlook of
development of organised food retail”, Organised Agri-Food Retailing in India, National
Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai, pp. 26-46.
JADEE NSSO (2013), “Level and pattern of consumer expenditure”, NSS 68th Round, Ministry
of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Govt. of India, New Delhi, June 20,
4,1 pp. 11-12.
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.
Poole, N.D., Martinez-Carrasco Martinez, L. and Vidal Gimenez, F. (2007), “Quality perception
76 under evolving information conditions: implications for diet, health and consumer
satisfaction”, Food Policy, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 175-188.
Quagrainie, K.K., Unterschultz, J. and Veeman, M. (1998), “Effects of product origin and selected
demographics on consumer choice of red meats”, Canadian Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 201-219.
Raju, D.T. and Suryanarayana, M.V.A.N. (2005), “Meat consumption in Prakasam district of
Andhra Pradesh: an analysis”, Livstock Research of Rural Development, Vol. 17 No. 11,
pp. 1-8, available at: www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/11/raju17130.htm (accessed March 10, 2012).
Rao, P.P., Birthal, P.S. and Joshi, P.K. (2006), “Diversification towards high value agriculture
role of urbanization and infrastructure”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41 No. 24,
pp. 2747-2753.
Rastogi, A. (2010), “Rural and small towns, the next big opportunity for Indian retail?”, available at:
http://trak.in/tags/business/2010/09/24/rural-india-retail-opportunity/ (accessed April 20,
2012).
Reardon, T. and Berdegué, J.A. (2002), “The rapid rise of supermarkets in Latin America:
challenges and opportunities for development”, Development Policy Review, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 317-334.
Reardon, T. and Gulati A. (2008), “The rise of supermarkets and their development implications:
international experience relevant for India” IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00752, IFPRI,
Washington, DC, February.
Rimal, A. (2005), “Meat labels: consumer attitude and meat consumption pattern”, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 47-54.
Sanghvi, N. (2007), “I have seen the future and it works”, The Economic Times, Kolkata Edition,
May 1, p. 4, available at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/services/
retail/i-have-seen-the-future-and-it-works/articleshow/1982376.cms (accessed July 27, 2013).
Sanyal, P. (2012), “Government approves FDI in multi-brand retail, other big bang reforms;
Trinamool wants decision withdrawn”, available at: www.ndtv.com/article/india/
government-approves-fdi-in-multi-brand-retail-other-big-bang-reforms-trinamool-wants-
decision-withdr-267499#globalbar (accessed April 3, 2013).
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.
Strašek, R. (2011), “The structural model of relations between country of origin and the perceived
brand name value”, World’s Poultry Science Journal, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 59-71.
Timmer, C.P. (2005), “Agriculture and pro-poor growth: an Asian perspective”, CGD Working
Paper No. 63, Centre for Global Development, Washington DC.
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).
Vukasovič, T. (2010), “Buying decision-making process for poultry meat”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 125-139.
Vukasovič, T. (2011), “The importance of national chicken meat origin in central and
South-Eastern Europe”, World’s Poultry Science Journal, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 237-242.
 Winter, M.A. (2008), “Traditional meat shop in India”, available at: www.foodindustryindia.com/ Study of
newfood/detailnews.jsp?n ¼ Traditional þ Meat þ Shops þ in þ India&id ¼ 496 (accessed
March 3, 2012). consumers’
Yadav, Y. and Kumar, S. (2006), “The food habit of a nation”, The Hindu, September 14, p. 1. behavior
Further reading
Pujari, A.K. (2004), “Analyzing household consumption pattern in Orissa”, SSRN, pp. 1-15, 77
available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract¼647824; http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.647824
(accessed March 3, 2012).
Reardon, T. and Berdegué, J.A. (2007), “The retail-led transformation of agrifood systems
and its implications for development policies”, a background paper prepared for the
World Bank’s World Development Report 2008, Agriculture for Development, Rimsip and
MSU, Washington, DC, January.

About the authors

Professor Niraj Kumar is a Faculty of Rural Management at the Xavier Institute of Management,
Bhubaneswar (India), and a Doctorate in Extension Education. His areas of interest are
agri-business, and rural marketing communication. Professor Niraj Kumar is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: niraj@ximb.ac.in
Dr Sanjeev Kapoor holds PhD in Rural Banking and Agriculture Economics and currently
is a Faculty at the Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow (India). His current research areas
are agriculture marketing and rural finance.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats