Cant Buy Me Green A Review of Consumer Perceptions of and Behavior Toward The Price of Organic Food

2015 1
COMMENTARY
JESSICA ASCHEMANN-WITZEL AND STEPHAN ZIELKE

Can’t Buy Me Green? A Review of Consumer
Perceptions of and Behavior Toward the Price
of Organic Food
Support for organic farming is a promising policy for improving sus-
tainability in the food sector. Further consumer demand, however, is
hindered by high prices. We review research from 2000 to 2014 on the
role of perceived price, income, price knowledge, willingness to pay, and
reactions to price changes on organic food. We find that price is the
major perceived barrier to purchase. Income is only a partial explana-
tory factor and is superseded by psychographic variables. Willingness
to pay a premium is around 30% (ranging from 0% to 105%) and
depends on consumer segments and product category. Price knowl-
edge is vague, and organic consumers’ price sensitivity is relatively
lower than that of occasional or nonorganic consumers. The results sug-
gest that further market differentiation in terms of organic consumer
segments and food categories is necessary. Furthermore, we discuss
detailed implications for public policy and practice and present a future
research agenda.
The global food sector is faced with a considerable challenge of provid-

ing food security to an increasing population under the threat of climate
change and environmental degradation (Foley et al. 2011; Godfray et al.
2010). This situation calls for stakeholder and policy action to transform
the food system in a sustainable way (Garnett 2014). A crucial issue
to be tackled is the type and scale of consumption. Thus, policies are
called for that induce consumers to shift to more sustainable and less
resource-intensive choices (Reisch, Eberle, and Lorek 2013; Thøgersen
2014).
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(1999) acknowledges the potential of organic farming to contribute to
Jessica Aschemann-Witzel (jeaw@mgmt.dk) is an Associate Professor at MAPP Cen-
tre – Research on Value Creation in the Food Sector, Department of Management, Aarhus
University, Denmark and Stephan Zielke (zielke@wiwi.uni-wuppertal.de) is a Professor at University
of Wuppertal, Germany.
The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 2015

DOI: 10.1111/joca.12092
Copyright 2015 by The American Council on Consumer Interests
2 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
sustainability goals. Practices typical in organic farming are the building

blocks of a future sustainable and equitable food system (Godfray et al.
2010). Consistent with this finding, many European countries have set
an ambitious goal of increasing the share of organic farming on their
agricultural land, which is also accompanied by appeals to consumers for
more sustainable food consumption (Reisch, Eberle, and Lorek 2013; see
also Oxfam 2009). “Organic” (Lockeretz 2007) can be regarded as an
established product category well known by consumers in a number of
developed countries1 ; thus, this recommendation might be relatively easy
to put into practice if consumers have certain knowledge of its impact and
can identify organic foods in the marketplace. However, while the land
farmed according to organic principles has more than tripled since the
turn of the millennium (11 million hectare in 1999; Willer, Lernoud, and
Kilcher 2013), organic farming is still practiced on less than 1% of the
world’s agricultural land. Even in countries with a large market share of
organic food, that share has not yet exceeded 10% (Willer, Lernoud, and
Kilcher 2013).
The question therefore remains: What is hindering further growth of
markets for sustainable foods in general and organic foods in particular?
There is a growing tendency for consumers to be concerned about potential
side effects of modern agricultural production (e.g., Dickson-Spillmann,
Siegrist, and Keller 2011) in terms of health (Devcich, Pedersen, and
Petrie 2007) and sustainability (e.g., Pino, Peluso, and Guido 2012). Con-
sumers translate these concerns into actions primarily as positive buying of
what might be called “alternative,” “ethical,” or “green” products, whose
side effects are deemed more favorable (Grant 2007; Harrison, Newholm,
and Shaw 2005).2 However, a gap exists between favorable attitudes and
intentions on the one hand and actual purchase on the other hand (GMA
and Deloitte 2009; Vermeir and Verbeke 2006). Economic reasons are
expressed as major barriers to further ethical purchase behavior (Eck-
hardt, Belk, and Devinney 2010), and research observes that consumer
responses to green marketing efforts occur primarily among the more
wealthy consumers (Gilg, Barr, and Ford 2005; Thøgersen 2014).
1. For example, in Denmark, although the market share for organics is still at 8%, 96% of consumers
know the Danish organic label (Organic Denmark 2015), and panel data indicate that only 10% never
buy organic food (in 2001) (Wier et al. 2008).
2. For example, in a representative Eurobarometer survey in 2009, adult European respondents were
asked “Which actions have the greatest impact on solving environmental problems?” Thirty percent
selected “minimizing waste and recycling,” 21% chose “buying products produced by eco-friendly
methods,” and 19% selected “buying energy-efficient home appliances” (European Commission
2009, 7).
2015 3
Policymakers wanting to increase organic consumption as one element

of more sustainable diets (an explicit goal in some European countries)
need to tackle the crucial issue of price as a barrier to expanding and
upscaling demand among both current and future organic consumers.
Research concludes that pricing of organic food is a multifaceted and
even paradoxical issue (Hughner et al. 2007) because consumers desire
low prices but, at the same time, might interpret low prices as a cue of
undesirably low quality. Prices play a role in consumers’ purchase behavior
depending on factors such as economic background, price consciousness,
and sensitivity, the trade-off between price and value, and willingness to
pay (WTP) (Aertsens et al. 2009). Some of these factors are particularly
important from a public policy standpoint. When price is perceived as a
barrier especially for consumers with budget constraints, a large consumer
group is excluded from sustainable consumption. Furthermore, consumers
may lack knowledge about prices of organic food and overestimate the
price level. Thus, inaccurate consumer knowledge and lack of information
hinder purchases of organic food. To fully understand why and under
which conditions price is a barrier to purchasing organic food, insight into
customers’ WTP and their reactions to price changes is necessary.
A wealth of consumer research has accompanied the development of
the organic sector, much of it supported by institutionally funded research.
We argue that, given the extant literature and the importance of price as a
barrier to further development of organic consumption, there is a need for a
synthesizing review. Solving parts of the puzzle for the category of organic
food might also allow generalizations to other categories of “ethical” or
sustainable foods.
We address five research questions relevant for understanding the role of
price as a barrier to the consumption of organic food, when possible, high-
lighting the differences between consumers who frequently buy organic
and those who do not or only occasionally do so:
Q1. How important is price as a perceived barrier to organic food
choice?
Q2. What is the role of income in the purchase of organic food?
Q3. How exact is consumers’ price knowledge of organic food?
Q4. How high is consumers’ WTP for organic food?
Q5. How do consumers react to pricing measures for organic food
in the marketplace?
In the remainder, we provide a theoretical framework based on general
behavioral pricing research and explain the methodology applied in our
literature review. Then, we describe the findings regarding the five research
questions. Finally, we provide implications for policymakers and market

actors and offer future research directions.
BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Price is an important decision criterion for purchase behavior. However,

the relevance of price depends on the role that consumers assign to it. In
their negative role, high prices mean that a sacrifice must be made, while in
their positive role, high prices signal quality (Völckner and Hofmann 2007;
Zeithaml 1988) and status (Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer 1993).
Thus, consumers’ WTP for organic food depends on the strength of the
negative and positive roles. When consumers have limited budgets because
of lower income, they likely weight the negative role stronger, leading to
lower WTP and the perception of price as a barrier. Several studies have
shown that lower income increases price search behavior (Urbany, Dick-
son, and Kalapurakal 1996) and price consciousness (Ailawadi, Neslin, and
Gedenk 2001).
Furthermore, preferences for organic products may not result in pur-
chase behavior when customers overestimate the price difference to
conventional products. Research on price knowledge shows that cus-
tomers have relatively modest price knowledge (Dickson and Sawyer
1990; Vanhuele and Drèze 2002) and that they tend to overestimate
prices (Evanschitzky, Kenning, and Vogel 2004). Therefore, they perceive
prices as high. However, price knowledge is higher for customers with
lower incomes (Gaston-Breton and Raghubir 2013; Wakefield and Inman
1993) and higher price consciousness (Mägi and Julander 2005). Thus,
lower-income customers may not buy organic products because of their
price consciousness, while higher-income customers may not buy organic
products because they overestimate the price.
Income and the resulting price consciousness are closely related to con-
sumers’ WTP for organic products. Controlling for these effects when
measuring WTP is difficult because research tends to be based on stated
preferences or hypothetical purchase decisions that may lead to overesti-
mation of WTP (Wertenbroch and Skiera 2002). WTP also differs between
product categories (Sethuraman and Cole 1999). Thus, price is a barrier to
purchasing organic food when perceived prices exceed consumers’ WTP
in a specific product category.
Companies can influence the difference between WTP and actual prices
through price changes. Customer reactions to price changes depend on
price elasticity, which also differs among product categories, customer
characteristics, and the competitive environment (Hoch et al. 1995). For
2015 5
FIGURE 1
Framework for the Research Questions on Organic Consumers and Price
example, price sensitivity may be higher in locations with a high share

of ethnic groups, larger families, and stronger competition but lower in
locations with a high share of people with higher education, expensive
houses, and low competition. Within categories, high-priced brands also
gain shares from competing high- and low-priced brands when they reduce
prices (Blattberg and Wisniewski 1989; Sivakumar 2000). Thus, lower
prices for organic products may not only attract buyers from higher price
ranges.
Figure 1 presents a framework derived from general pricing research
that structures influencing factors of price as a barrier to organic food
consumption and also incorporates the five research questions (Q1–Q5). It
shows that income and budget constraints can negatively influence WTP,
while low price knowledge and a tendency to overestimate price increase
the perceived price. Furthermore, the perceived price is influenced by price
changes. In their purchase decisions, customers compare their WTP with
the perceived price. The outcome of this comparison determines purchase
behavior in general and the perception of price as a barrier in particular.
METHODOLOGY
For the literature review, we searched databases such as Organic Eprints,

Science Direct, Business Source Complete, ABI Inform, and Web of
Science for the search terms “organic,” “price,” and “consumer” in titles
and abstracts. Furthermore, we consulted the references of the relevant
articles. We applied three criteria for inclusion in the review. First, we

focused on research published between 2000 and 2014 because, around
the turn of the millennium, supermarkets became increasingly aware of and
engaged in the organic sector (Aschemann et al. 2007; Jones et al. 2001).
This has repeatedly been linked to lower prices, smaller price premiums,
and better availability (Hamm, Gronefeld, and Halpin 2002; Michelsen
et al. 2001; Wier et al. 2008). Studies before 2000 were conducted in a
different market environment and thus were less relevant. Second, we
selected studies conducted in either Europe3 or North America. Both
represent the largest markets in terms of market share, and they are the
most established and evolved (Aschemann et al. 2007; Willer, Lernoud,
and Kilcher 2013). Third, because relevant research is mostly published
in English, we primarily considered research written in English, with the
exception of German-language research. Reasons to include the latter are
that organic agriculture research is especially sizable in German-speaking
countries and several documents are only accessible in German.
This approach resulted in 79 articles and four reviews (Aertsens et al.
2009; Hamm et al. 2012; Hughner et al. 2007; Yiridoe et al. 2005). Of
the articles, 41 were published from 2010 onward, 17 were conducted
in Canada or the United States and 15 in Germany, and 23 differentiated
between organic consumer types or focused on occasional organic con-
sumers.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION PER RESEARCH QUESTION

Q1. How Important Is Price as a Perceived Barrier to Organic Food
Choice?
Aertsens et al. (2009) and Hughner et al. (2007) conclude that price is
a major barrier to organic food choice, and Padel and Midmore (2005)
and O’Doherty Jensen, Denver, and Zanoli (2011) indicate that high
prices are a major constraint to future demand development. Price as the
primary barrier is commonly highlighted in the introductory section of
research articles in the field. Although price as a mere cost is and will
remain a barrier, we argue that the perceived importance of price must be
confirmed by comparing it with the perceived importance of other factors.
Thus, we focused on research findings on price as a barrier, compared
with the importance of other factors, specifically searching for either (1)
self-reported importance (or qualitative consumer elaborations that allow
3. European Union at its 2004 enlargement, plus Norway and Switzerland.

2015 7
inferring on it) or (2) statistically assessed influence of perceived price and

price orientation on self-reported or actual organic purchase behavior.
With regard to the first point, we identified 16 studies (see Table 1, Panel
A). Of these, 12 studies—both quantitative and qualitative research—show
that consumers report price as the primary barrier to the purchase of organic
food. However, the results of four studies contradict this. They indicate that
unavailability (Fotopoulos and Krystallis 2002), lack of information and
̇
identification (Zakowska-Biemans 2011), taste and appearance (Hamm
and Buder 2011), and poor assortment (O’Doherty Jensen, Denver, and
Zanoli 2011) are factors overriding price as the major barrier. The first two
studies were conducted among nonusers of organics in Greece (in 2002)
and Poland (in 2011), in which organic markets were at a relatively early
stage of development. We could explain this by arguing that unavailability
and lack of information are of special relevance from the start and that
nonusers have not even arrived at the stage of awareness of price premium.4
The latter two studies pertain to regular organic consumers on established
organic markets. It seems reasonable to assume that quality and assortment
width gain in relevance after a consumer has begun buying organic.
The more recent studies increasingly focus on organic consumer sam-
ples or distinguish between segments. Several indicate that the price barrier
is more strongly expressed by nonregular or price-sensitive consumers
(Buder, Feldmann, and Hamm 2014; O’Doherty Jensen, Denver, and
Zanoli 2011; Padel and Foster 2005; Zanoli and Naspetti 2002), discount
buyers (Gottschalk and Leistner 2012), and students (Aschemann-Witzel
and Niebuhr Aagard 2014). Nevertheless, regular consumers also report
high prices as a problem (Padel and Foster 2005; Zanoli and Naspetti
2002). Exploring this in more detail from the side of organic consumers,
studies indicate that high prices are perceived as a disadvantage (Gottschalk
and Leistner 2012), have a negative association (Padel and Foster 2005;
Zanoli and Naspetti 2002), and are considered temporary rather than per-
manent barriers (Aschemann-Witzel and Niebuhr Aagard 2014).
With regard to the second point, we identified seven studies (see Table 1,
Panel B). These studies find that perceptions of organic food prices as
high or expensive (Briz and Ward 2009; Verhoef 2005), price orientation
in food shopping (Gracia and Magistris 2008; Padilla Bravo et al. 2013;
̇
Zakowska-Biemans 2011), or being characterized as price deal searchers
4. Nevertheless, a study in Italy from the same time frame found that price was a major problem
(Zanoli and Naspetti 2002). The organic market in Italy, though, developed earlier than the Greek
market. Furthermore, Akgüngör, Miran, and Abay (2010) find that Turkish consumers, surveyed in
2007, were largely unaware of high organic prices.
TABLE 1
Q1. How Important Is Price as a Perceived Barrier to Organic Food Choice?
Methodology, sample, category

Nr. References Country (if specific) and findings
A) Self-reported relative assessment of price as a barrier to purchase

1 Spiller (2001) Germany Sample of 715, survey, nonusers of organic.—With
57% (vs. 25% for the 2nd important barrier) “too
expensive” ranges as the most important barrier.
2 Fotopoulos and Greece Sample of 1612, face-to-face survey.—With 40 vs.
Krystallis 81%, high price is less important compared to low
(2002) availability, according to nonusers aware of
organic products.
3 Hill and United Focus groups, users and nonusers of organic
Lynchehaun Kingdom products, milk.—Before taste, price is mentioned
(2002) as primary reason for not buying organic food.
4 O’Donovan and Ireland Sample of 250 consumers, survey, meat.—Among
McCarthy nonusers of organic meat, 43% mention “too
(2002) expensive” as the major reason while 28%
mention lack of availability.
5 Zanoli and Italy Laddering interviews, RC and OC.—Negative
Naspetti (2002) ladders mainly about cost or availability, 66% vs.
87% of RC / OC mention high prices.
6 Soil Association United Representative face-to-face consumer survey with
(2004) Kingdom panel members, panel data analysis.—Among
nonusers, price is the main barrier to purchase,
mentioned by app. 50%.
7 Padel and Foster United Focus groups and laddering interviews, RC and
(2005) Kingdom OC.– One-third of associations of RC were
negative, in particular in relation to high prices
(“expensive” but also “elitist”) and appearance.
OC mostly see a low food budget as the main
barrier.
8 Zepeda et al. United States Focus groups with RC and OC or nonusers.—OC
(2006) and nonusers mention price as the second most
important food shopping criteria after taste, and
price most often as the reason not to buy organic,
while RC do not mention price as important.
Afro-American consumers are more WTP, but
report more problems with accessibility.
9 Kalogeras et al. NL Survey and contingent valuation, sample of 290,
(2009) olive oil.—Consumers potentially willing to buy
organic expressed high price to be the main
barrier.
10 Mesías Díaz et al. Spain Survey and contingent valuation, sample of 361,
(2012) tomatoes.—Price is stated as the main barrier.
Three groups of consumers are found: RC or OC
with good knowledge and nonusers with lack of
knowledge, RCs show highest WTP, mean WTP
at 45%.
2015 9
TABLE 1
Continued

11 ̇
Zakowska- Poland Sample of 1010, CATI survey.—Nonusers of organic
Biemans (2011) reported lack of information about how to
recognize and where to find organic as a barrier (to
a greater extent than price).
12 Jensen et al. (2011) DK, IT, United Qualitative interviews and observations, panel data
Kingdom analysis, RC, OC, and nonusers.—Among regular
consumers, most common reason for choosing
conventional was poor or nonexistent assortment.
Occasional consumers appeared to be price
sensitive.
13 Gottschalk and Germany Sample of 231, online survey, organic
Leistner (2012) consumers.—Disadvantages of organic: “too
expensive” highest agreement (M 3.1 on 5-point
scale) before “no difference” (M 1.9).
14 Timmins and Blunt United Sample of 702, survey and qualitative focus groups,
(2013) Kingdom Wales.—Only a quarter of respondents agree that
organic is “good value for money”; the major
barrier is price.
15 Buder et al. (2014), Germany Computer-aided personal store intercept study,
(earlier: Hamm and sample of 871, Germany, regular organic
Buder (2011)) consumers, 35 product categories with low organic
market share.—Equally most important reasons
for not buying organic were taste and appearance,
availability, price. Relative importance differs for
categories and consumer segments. Price-sensitive
versus fresh food oriented segments were
identified.
16 Aschemann-Witzel Denmark Qualitative accompanied shopping interviews,
and Niebuhr Denmark, young, occasional organic
Aagaard (2014) consumers.—Price is discussed as the main
barrier, and young consumers state that they will
postpone organic purchase to a later stage in life.
B) Statistical analysis of the influence of importance of (organic/general) food price on
(self-reported/actual) purchase of organic
1 Verhoef (2005) NL Sample of 269, postal survey, meat.—Price
perception of organic meat negatively influences
choice and frequency; concluded that price is
particularly significant.
2 Gracia and Italy Sample of 200, intercept survey.—Results show that
Magistris (2008) the more importance consumers attach to price
when shopping, the lower the level of organic
consumption.
3 Briz and Ward Spain Representative CATI survey.—Self-reported use of
(2009) organic foods found to be influenced by awareness
of organic, perception of prices, and assessment of
its nutritional status. Demand declines when
organic foods are perceived to be more expensive.
TABLE 1
Continued

4 ̇
Zakowska-Biemans Poland Sample of 1010, CATI survey.—Consumers that
(2011) expressed an importance of convenience and price
orientation for their food choices were less
inclined to buy organic products.
5 Buder (2011) Germany Panel data analysis 2005–2008.—Price deal searcher
less likely to purchase organic.
6 Zagata (2012) Czech Representative face-to-face survey, OC (buying at
least once a month).—Perceived expensiveness
and availability only moderate barriers to
purchase.
7 Padilla Bravo et al. Germany Representative CAPI survey.—Perceived importance
(2013) of price when shopping for food negatively
influences perceived importance of organic and
organic choice.
Note: RC = regular organic consumers, OC = occasional organic consumers.
(Buder 2011) negatively influence self-reported or actual organic purchase

or purchase frequency. The only seemingly contradictory study (Zagata
2012) finds that price is only a moderate barrier, which might be due to the
sample consisting of occasional organic consumers.
We also found several notable observations. The first is the poten-
tial influence of self-justification in both nonusers and users of organ-
ics. Bruhn (2002) suggests that especially occasional organic consumers
use high prices to justify their continuing purchase of nonorganic food
items. For example, consumers “commented on the financial control of
supermarkets: ‘they make the products more expensive but do not pay
enough to farmers’” (Padel and Foster 2005, 620), or tend to argue that
they will buy organic when they are in a more favorable financial situa-
tion (Aschemann-Witzel and Niebuhr Aagard 2014). In contrast, regular
consumers tend to elaborate on the value of organics (Padel and Foster
2005) or emphasize health outcomes to rationalize their ethically moti-
vated choices (Thøgersen 2011). Furthermore, price is assessed in terms
of the value received in return, but little is known about the heuristics
used to do so. Studies indicate that consumers use prices as cues for qual-
ity (e.g., a low price hints at suboptimal quality of organics) (Marian and
Thøgersen 2013).
Regarding Q1, we conclude that the majority of studies unequivocally
confirm “price” as the primary perceived barrier. Furthermore, the few
contradicting results (which find availability, information/knowledge,
2015 11
quality, and assortment breadth most important) come from studies that
either surveyed markets in an early development stage or focused on
(regular) organic consumers in mature markets.
Q2. What Is the Role of Income in the Purchase of Organic Food?
With price as an important perceived barrier, income should prove to be

an explanatory factor for differences in consumers’ organic food choice.
Aertsens et al. (2009) conclude that higher income explains organic food
purchase, though sociodemographic variables are generally less useful
as predictors than psychographic variables. Hamm et al. (2012) find that
income is an explanatory value, but Hughner et al. (2007) and Yiridoe
et al. (2005) suggest that results are mixed. Income is rarely in the scope of
the primary research question, and thus the relationship between income
and organic purchase is often not reported in great detail. Therefore, we
included all studies commenting on the relationship between income and
(1) self-reported purchase intention or WTP for organics and (2) revealed
preferences (panel data and scanner data) observed as organic purchase,
frequency, and budget share.
Table 2 shows 37 studies, 23 pertaining to the first point and 14 to the
second. Sixteen studies find that income is significantly and positively
related to preference for organic food, while 13 do not find significant
results, similarly spread across stated and revealed preference data. Other
studies show mixed findings, leading to the question whether any notice-
able differences exist between the studies finding and not finding a signifi-
cant effect. The studies do not allow for comparison of the role of income
for occasional versus regular organic consumers, but an exploration of
country, product category, and methodology is possible.
Aertsens et al. (2009, 1150) conclude that “income seems to play a
significant positive role in explaining organic food purchases in Europe,
while in the United States several studies did not find this relation to be
significant.” However, other studies do not support the conclusion of a
country difference in the importance of income. Some US studies confirm
an effect of income (Lopez and Lopez 2009; Loureiro and Hine 2002;
Smith, Huang, and Lin 2009; van Loo et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2009),
while others disconfirm this effect (Batte et al. 2007; Dhar and Foltz 2005;
Sridhar, Bezawada, and Trivedi 2012; Zepeda and Li 2007).
Regarding product categories, various studies on milk and fresh fruits
and vegetables exist, but these also do not show a clear picture. For
milk, for which consumers are expected to have better price knowledge
(Spiller, Plaßmann, and Hamm n.d), purchase simulation experiments with
TABLE 2
Q2. What Is the Role of Income in the Purchase of Organic Food?

A) Analysis of the influence of income on stated preference for organic

1 Gil et al. (2000) Spain Sample of 400, consumer face-to-face
survey.—Organic consumers do not show special
socioeconomic profiles compared to the so-called
“unlikely” consumers of organic.
2 Chinnici et al. Italy Sample of 188, face-to-face intercept survey,
(2002) organic consumers.—Regular consumers (having
bought organic for two years) are characterized
by higher income.
3 Fotopoulos and Greece Sample of 1,612, face-to-face survey.—Users of
Krystallis (2002) organic food are characterized by significantly
lower share of low income respondents as
compared to nonusers.
4 Loureiro and Hine United States Sample of 437, intercept choice test,
(2002) potatoes.—Respondents belonging to the “upper
class” (income, education) are significantly more
willing to pay a premium.
5 O’Donovan & Ireland Sample of 250 consumers, survey,
McCarthy (2002) meat.—Respondents from higher socioeconomic
groups were more likely to state that they would
be willing to pay for organic meat.
6 Soler et al. (2002) Spain Sample of 120, experimental auction, olive oil.—No
main effect of income on WTP, but interaction
between income and interest in health labels has a
significant effect. Effect of “labeling factor”
increases with income, but is negative for highest
income.
7 Krystallis and Greece Sample of 164, face-to-face intercept survey.—No
Chryssohoidis statistically significant differences regarding
(2005) socioeconomic profiles (including income) and
WTP for organics (question of how much more
(if any) they were willing to pay to buy for
organic, for 16 categories).
8 Verhoef (2005) NL Sample of 269, postal survey, meat.—Having an
income around the average has a negative effect
on stated intention to buy organic meat.
9 Batte et al. (2007) United States Sample of 301, consumer intercept survey,
cereals.—Income has no significant influence on
WTP a premium (“ … how much more would you
be willing to pay for each of the following
characteristics?”) for several cereal attributes and
percentage of organic.
10 Zepeda and United States Sample of 956, postal and CATI survey.—Find that
Li (2007) income and food expenditure do not characterize
organic consumers vs. nonusers.
2015 13
TABLE 2
Continued

11 Gracia and Italy Sample of 200, intercept survey.—Low income is

Magistris (2008) significantly and negatively influencing
consumers’ decision to buy organic food, but
sociodemographic characteristics do not.
12 Janssen et al. (2009) Germany Sample of 143, purchase simulation, organic
consumers, milk, yoghurt, apples.—No
significant differences between the
sociodemographic characteristics (incl. income)
with differing choice behavior in terms of organic
or other attributes.
13 Tranter et al. (2009) EU Sample of 1,527 in five countries, CATI survey,
carrots, chicken.—Those with a WTP for organic
conversion did not show clear trends in
sociodemographics including income.
14 Bartels and Reinders United States, Representative consumer online survey.—Income
(2010) United significantly and positively influences
Kingdom, self-reported organic purchase in the United
Germany States and Germany, but not in the United
Kingdom (“How much money do you spend each
month on organic food?” 5 answer categories).
15 Olesen et al. (2010) Norway Sample of 115, non-hypothetical laboratory choice
experiment, salmon.—No effect found of income
on WTP.
16 Nie and Zepeda United States Sample of 956, nationwide consumer
(2011) survey.—Cluster analysis shows that the highest
income groups fall into two consumer segments:
one that was a regular organic or local food
shopper (rational), and one that was not (careless).
17 Plassmann-Weidauer Germany Sample of 642, observation and face-to-face survey,
(2011) organic consumers.—Consumers characterized
by a higher income are stating a higher WTP for
organic (“What is the maximum you would pay
for this item?”).
18 Stolz et al. (2011) CH, DE Sample of 293, purchase simulation, milk, apple,
yoghurt.—Sociodemographics including income
influences choice of organic in Germany, but not
in Switzerland.
19 van Loo et al. (2011) United States Sample of 976, online choice experiment,
chicken.—WTP is higher among respondents
with higher household income levels.
20 ̇
Zakowska-Biemans Poland Sample of 1,010, CATI survey.—Two segments
(2011) showed higher interest: one characterized by low
income (“Traditionalists”) and one by high
income (“Conscious”). No differences in the
perception of barriers to buy organic in terms of
sociodemographic characteristics.
TABLE 2
Continued

21 Marette et al. France Sample of 114, laboratory elicited WTP experiment,

(2012) apples.—Income negatively influences WTP for
organic, however, the effect is weak.
22 Padilla Bravo Germany Representative CAPI survey.—Small households,
et al. (2013) women, older, with higher societal status and
living in the south are more likely to choose
organic with a higher frequency.
23 Rousseau and Belgium Sample of 226, online choice test, apples.—WTP
Vranken (2013) for organic apples is neither found to be
influenced by income, nor is a number of other
sociodemographic variables.
B) Analysis of the influence of income on revealed preference for organic
1 Dhar and Foltz United States Scanner data analysis, 1997–2002, milk.—It is
(2005) found that higher per capita expenditure is not
associated with increased organic milk purchases.
2 Jonas and Roosen Germany Panel data analysis, 2000–2003, milk.—Income
(2008) significantly and positively impacted the budget
share allocated to organic milk and branded milk.
3 Wier et al. (2008) DK and United Panel data analysis and panel survey,
Kingdom 1997–2003.—Organic budget shares are highest
in middle income class but lower in highest
income class. In DK, it increases with higher
disposable income. In United Kingdom,
propensity to purchase organic increases with
social status.
4 Lopez and Lopez United States Scanner and census data, milk.—Specialty milk
(2009) products such as organic are more likely chosen
by high-income consumers with no children.
5 Dettmann and United States Panel data analysis, 2004, vegetables.—Income
Dimitri (2009) influences whether organic vegetables are
purchased, but not that expenditure is
proportional to high vegetable expenditure.
6 Monier et al. France Panel data analysis, 2005, milk and eggs.—Organic
(2009) consumer demographic profile is not related to
income, age or family size, but to the educational
level.
7 Smith et al. (2009) United States Panel data analysis, 2006, fruit and vegetables.
Being characterized as a regular vs. occasional
consumer or nonuser is positively correlated with
household income.
8 Zhang et al. United States Panel data (2003) study, tomatoes and
(2009) apples.—Price premium is at 22 and 24%, with
seasonal variation. Higher premiums are
explained by higher income, but not by education;
influence of household size or presence of
children differs for categories.
2015 15
TABLE 2
Continued

9 Michels and Hamm Germany Panel data analysis, 2004–2008.—Results show that
(2010) 2010 organic consumers are not statistically different
from nonusers regarding household income or
education level.
10 Buder (2011) Germany Panel data analysis, 2005–2008.—Income overall
has no significant influence on actual organic
purchase. However, regular organic consumers
are significantly more likely to have a higher
income, with the opposite for non-buyers.
11 Ngobo (2011) France Panel data analysis, 2004–2009.—Most predisposed
to buy organic products are the households where
the head has a high-level occupation, with higher
income, a college education, the older families
and the families with the presence of a working
female.
12 Schröck (2012) Germany Panel data analysis, 2004–2008, Milk.—Regular
consumers of organic milk are characterized by
larger average income, smaller household size
and number of children, but more likely have
children below 7 years. High income is
significantly, and to a greater extent than with
other types of milk, related to purchase of
organic. Organic costs 55%–64% more than
private label, conventional branded 33%. Organic
buyers are price insensitive.
13 Sridhar et al. (2012) United States Scanner data analysis and panel survey,
2006–2011.—It is found that demographics,
including income, do not have a significant effect
on choice of organic.
14 van Herpen et al. NL Scanner data analysis and store checks, 60
(2012) outlets.—Higher sales of sustainable products are
found in areas where the neighborhood is
characterized by higher age and higher education;
no finding of differences in income level.
occasional consumers showed no relationship (Janssen et al. 2009) or

indicated an effect of income in one country but not in the other (Stolz
et al. 2011). Scanner data analysis shows that consumers with high per
capita spending on food are not more likely to buy organic (Dhar and
Foltz 2005) and that organic milk consumers do not have higher incomes
(Monier et al. 2009). However, other studies find income effects on organic
budget share (Jonas and Roosen 2008), that regular organic consumers
have higher incomes (Schröck 2012), and that high-income consumers are
more likely to buy organic milk (Lopez and Lopez 2009). For fruits and
vegetables, stated preference studies on carrots (Tranter et al. 2009) and
apples (Janssen, Heid, and Hamm 2009; Marette, Messéan, and Millet
2012; Rousseau and Vranken 2013; Stolz et al. 2011) find no, mixed,
or weak income effects. However, US panel data analyses show that
consumers with higher purchase frequency have higher incomes (Smith,
Huang, and Lin 2009), higher price premiums are related to high income
(Zhang et al. 2009), and higher-income respondents are more likely to try
organics (Dettmann and Dimitri 2009).
Studies show a wide range of methods and different measures of income:
self-reported income prevails, but there are also scanner data-based studies
using indicators such as per capita expenditure (Dhar and Foltz 2005) and
neighborhood income level (van Herpen, van Nierop, and Sloot 2012).
Confirming or disconfirming results appear in studies using all research
methods. However, we find that studies based on methodology more
adequate for that purpose tend to identify an income effect. That is, the
stated preference studies that indeed find an effect of income5 tend to
be based on relatively larger sample sizes, and the five studies with the
largest samples confirm a significant influence of income (Bartels and
Reinders 2010; Fotopoulos and Krystallis 2002; Padilla Bravo et al. 2013;
̇
van Loo et al. 2011; Zakowska-Biemans 2011). Furthermore, six of the
10 panel data studies, which we consider the best approach to detecting a
relationship between income and organic food purchase behavior, identify
such effects (Jonas and Roosen 2008; Ngobo 2011; Schröck 2012; Smith,
Huang, and Lin 2009; Wier et al. 2008), while only two do not confirm this
relationship (Michels and Hamm 2010; Monier et al. 2009).
The literature also yields several observations on sociodemographic
variables that appear to intervene in the relationship between income and
organic purchase. First, Yiridoe et al. (2005) conclude this interrelationship
for education. Research finds that education can be a greater discrimi-
nating factor than income (Fotopoulos and Krystallis 2002; Monier et al.
2009). Consequently, some researchers combine income and education into
a single measure of social class (Loureiro and Hine 2002). Second, studies
indicate that the number and age of children in a household are relevant,
probably because of budget constraints. Some studies find that the likeli-
hood of organic purchase is lower for households with a child (Jonas and
Roosen 2008; Loureiro and Hine 2002; van Loo et al. 2011; Zepeda and
5. This also holds when excluding the studies with exceptionally large samples (Fotopoulos and
Krystallis 2002; Padilla Bravo et al. 2013). We divided sample sizes in studies across several countries
by the number of participating countries.
2015 17
Li 2007), while other studies exploring the variable child in more detail
indicate that organic purchase is higher for households with young chil-
dren but lower for households with children of higher age and in greater
number (Schröck 2012; Wier et al. 2008). Third, in their US study, Zepeda
and Li (2007, 27) raise the issue of a relationship between income and
accessibility, arguing that “access to organic might be easier in areas of the
higher income segment.”
However, a large number of studies contend that sociodemographics
lack explanatory power (Bartels and Reinders 2010; Gracia and Mag-
istris 2008; Krystallis and Chryssohoidis 2005; Michels and Hamm 2010;
̇
Zakowska-Biemans 2011) and fall behind psychographic factors (Aert-
sens et al. 2009; Padilla Bravo et al. 2013; Tranter et al. 2009). Padilla
Bravo et al. (2013, 68) argue that sociodemographics should be understood
as determinants of psychographics: “socio-demographic variables seem
to play a role as background factors by having an impact on those con-
structs determining attitude towards organic food purchase and the behav-
ior itself.”
Last, some studies report suggestions on how income level affects
organic purchase behavior. Yiridoe et al. (2005) report on older studies
that find that income positively influences organic purchase only up to a
given level. Buder (2011) finds that the lowest income group in the panel
data showed significantly less organic purchase incidents, while the income
level did not seem to matter in the remaining groups. Wier et al. (2008)
note that organic budget share results are highest for the middle class,
not the upper class. Dettmann and Dimitri (2009, 88) observe that “higher
income households were more likely to try organic vegetables, but unlikely
to consistently devote a large share of their expenditures toward organic
vegetables.” These observations reveal that relatively higher income levels
remove the economic barrier to trying organic, but from there on, other
factors mainly determine whether consumers are motivated to continue
buying organic.
Regarding Q2, we conclude that though there are generally mixed find-
ings, income indeed seems to play a significant role. However, the sociode-
mographic variables education and children intervene in the relationship,
and the relationship weakens at a certain income level, at which psycho-
graphics then offer better explanatory power for organic purchase behav-
ior. Thus, study results indicate that income only removes the barrier of
high prices; it does not explain organic purchases at higher income levels.
Instead, psychographics determining favorable beliefs about and attitudes
toward organics and, thus, respective motives and preferences seem to be
far better explanatory variables.
Q3. How Exact Is Consumers’ Price Knowledge of Organic Food?
The importance of price as a barrier and the influence of income result

in high consumer attention to organic food prices and organic price pre-
miums, contributing to price knowledge, especially among consumers
potentially disposed to organic food purchase. We found only six stud-
ies, however, in which the authors surveyed or even commented on con-
sumer knowledge of organic food prices (see Table 3). Focus groups in
the United Kingdom found that nonusers were aware of the extent of
the price premium for milk (Hill and Lynchehaun 2002), while US users
and nonusers were aware of but could hardly assess the price difference
(Zepeda et al. 2006). Work in Germany found that nearly all respon-
dents expect the premium to be at 20% (Spiller 2001) and that occasional
organic consumers underestimate the premium to be paid for organic oat
flakes (Spiller, Enneking, and Lüth 2004), while a Dutch experimental
survey showed that consumers overestimate prices for organic chicken,
milk, and fish (Hoogland, Boer, and Boersema 2007), an observation that
Plassmann-Weidauer (2011) also confirms. She interviewed organic con-
sumers before entering a store about their price expectations and maximum
WTP and then unobtrusively observed their choices. She concludes that
consumer price knowledge is rather fuzzy and observed consumers pur-
chasing above their stated WTP. Knowledge was more exact for consumers
who purchased frequently, compared prices, and stated price as impor-
tant and lower for higher-income consumers and those working full time
(Plassmann-Weidauer 2011).
We also found several notable observations. Spiller, Enneking, and
Lüth (2004) conclude that consumers apply a general expectation of
the organic premium in all categories. Similarly, Hoogland, Boer, and
Boersema (2007, 55) note that “because the participants were never
in the position to compare the prices directly, their own associations
and inferences must have shaped their ratings.” Thus, internal knowl-
edge and previously formed expectations are of high relevance for con-
sumers’ knowledge or assessment of price. Hamm, Aschemann, and Riefer
(2007) even argue that, given consumers’ continuous mention of price
as a major barrier even though the market situation has changed con-
siderably (with organic prices at a similar level to premium conven-
tional food), consumers general price knowledge is outdated and organ-
ics have a persistent “high-price image,” which might explain the asso-
ciation with “elitist” and expensive (Padel and Foster 2005; Zanoli and
Naspetti 2002).
2015 19
TABLE 3
Q3. How Exact Is Consumers’ Price Knowledge of Organic Food?

1 Spiller (2001) Germany Methodology and sample size not mentioned.—90%

of consumers expect a 20% premium.
2 Hill and United Kingdom Focus groups, users and nonusers of organic
Lynchehaun products, milk.—Nonusers are aware of the price
(2002) premium of 25%.
3 Spiller et al. Germany Sample of 1,150, CATI survey, occasional organic
(2004) consumers.—Analyzing the example of oat
flakes, it is shown that the organic price premium
is under-estimated.
4 Zepeda et al. United States Focus groups with RC and OC or nonusers.—All
(2006) are aware of the premium, but while some assess
it to be 2–3 times higher, most cannot estimate it.
5 Hoogland, Boer, NL Sample of 371, written survey, chicken, milk,
and Boersema fish.—Product with logo and information
(2007) considered as more expensive, although the prices
were similar.
6 Plassmann- Germany Sample of 642, observation and face-to-face survey,
Weidauer organic consumers.—Consumers have little price
(2011) knowledge and overestimate organic prices. Price
knowledge found to be influenced by purchase
frequency, frequency of price comparisons, stated
importance of low price, but negatively influenced
by occupation (full-time) and high income level.
An important question regarding further development of the market is

how market expansion and the introduction of organics as retail private
labels in large chains (e.g., Walmart) and in discounters—discussed in
the scope of the so-called conventionalization (Darnhofer et al. 2010)
of organic farming—affect consumers’ expectations and knowledge of
organic food prices. A recent study shows that low-priced organic chicken
made Danish consumers infer that the product was of inferior quality
(Marian and Thøgersen 2013). Ngobo (2011, 100) remarks that consumers
“may have negative image that repulses them from buying organic foods
from those stores [major retailers],” while a small-scale online survey
in Germany finds that organic consumers appreciate the availability of
organic food in the discounter (Gottschalk and Leistner 2012).
Regarding Q3, we conclude that knowledge of organic food prices is
low and inexact. It is influenced by general expectations and a use of sim-
plifying heuristics and characterized by overestimations of the premium.
Detailed research on organic food price knowledge is scarce, though.
Q4. How High Is Consumers’ WTP for Organic Food?
Income level, disposable income, and perceptions of the role of price

all influence WTP for organic price premiums. WTP has been researched
quite extensively; however, because of the diversity of research designs
and differences in the way results are reported, a comparison should be
done with caution. We sorted findings by type of methodology: (1) studies
exploring WTP for organic food using stated WTP measures (direct or
dichotomous choice question, single or several statements) and (2) studies
exploring WTP for organic food using elicited WTP measures (conjoint
analysis, choice test, auctions). We found 37 studies, 21 corresponding to
the first point and 16 to the second (see Table 4).
Several studies find that most consumers state (Canavari et al. 2002;
Fearne and Bates 2003; O’Donovan and McCarthy 2002) or show
(Akaichi, Nayga, and Gil 2012; Soler, Gil, and Sanchez 2002) a general
WTP more for organics. This also holds for two studies focusing on
organic consumers and organics in general (Chinnici, D’Amico, and
Pecorino 2002; Hamzaoui-Essoussi 2012). However, a Swedish study
on organic consumers found that half did not state they were willing to
pay more for organic bread (Kihlberg and Risvik 2007), and in a Dutch
study on occasional organic consumers, more than half did not state a
willingness to do so for organic olive oil (Kalogeras et al. 2009).
Among the studies reporting the degree of WTP, or where this percent-
age can be deduced from the results presented, it does not seem that the type
of methodology affected the results (e.g., measurements of stated WTP do
not result in higher WTP than elicited). The degree of WTP in the major-
ity of the studies ranges from 1% to 10% (for meat in Ireland; O’Donovan
and McCarthy 2002) to 50% (for wine in Germany; Wiedmann et al. 2014)
or from 1% to 5% (for milk in Denmark; Denver and Christensen 2014)
to 35–105% (for chicken in the United States; van Loo et al. 2011). The
average reported WTP appears to be approximately 30%. Only few studies
report specifically on the degree of organic consumers’ WTP. However, we
note that two of these find that organic consumers’ WTP was higher than
the current market price (for beef in Italy; Napolitano et al. 2010) and that
the premium they actually paid was higher than what they stated before
purchase (in Germany; Plassmann-Weidauer 2011). In contrast, several
studies on consumers in general find that the WTP stated (O’Donovan and
McCarthy 2002; Islam 2014) or elicited (Soler et al. 2002; Spiller 2001) is
below the price of organics.
The great variation in WTP might be due to several factors influencing
the degree of WTP. Several studies across categories find that WTP is
2015 21
TABLE 4
Q4. How High Is Consumers’ WTP for Organic Food?

A) Stated WTP method

1 Gil et al. (2000) Spain Sample of 400, face-to-face survey and contingent
valuation, several categories.—WTP measured
with dichotomous choice (DC) question and a
maximum WTP. WTP 15%–25% for consumers
with likely/actual purchase. Category and
regional differences in WTP.
2 Bruhn (2002) Germany Representative repeated consumer survey
(1984–2001).—WTP measured with single
statement (how much more WTP). WTP
decreasing: 21% in 1989 but 13% in 2001.
3 Canavari et al. (2002) Italy Sample of 346, intercept survey, apples.—WTP
measured with single statement. More than 90%
state a WTP for organic, 80% state not to be
influenced by price in organic purchase decision,
55% express WTP of 17%, 35% a WTP of 35%.
4 Chinnici et al. (2002) Italy Sample of 188 consumers, face-to-face intercept
survey, organic consumers.—WTP assessed by
asking whether they are willing to pay a
premium; Premium is stated to be 20%–30%.
Organic consumers in the survey overall are
willing, at the 20%–30% premium.
5 O’Donovan and Ireland Sample of 250 consumers, survey, meat.—WTP
McCarthy (2002) measured with single statement, 87% express a
WTP: 44% at 1%–5%, 29% at 6%–10%, 3% at
26%–50%, and 1% above 50%.
6 Fearne and Bates United Survey, sample of 1,200, United Kingdom,
(2003) Kingdom milk.—86% are WTP, but maximum premium at
∼12%.
7 Soil Association United Representative face-to-face consumer survey with
(2004) Kingdom panel members, panel data analysis.—According
to the survey, organic “median buyers” are WTP a
37% premium.
8 Krystallis and Greece Sample of 164, face-to-face intercept survey.—WTP
Chryssohoidis measured with single statement (whether and how
(2005) much more WTP for organic). On average 37% of
consumers are WTP a premium of 30%; varies
considerably for categories. U-shape for certain
categories.
9 Batte et al. (2007) United States Sample of 301, consumer intercept survey,
cereals.—WTP measured with single statement
for several characteristics. Consumers are WTP a
premium, even with less than 100% organic
ingredients. Specialty store consumers higher
WTP.
TABLE 4
Continued

10 Kihlberg and Risvik Sweden Sample of 184, consumer acceptance test, bread,
(2007) organic consumers.—WTP assessed with single
statement (“I would never buy organic products
that are more expensive than conventional
products”). Slightly less than half agreed had no
WTP for organic.
11 Ureña, Bernabéu, and Spain Survey and contingent valuation, sample of 464,
Olmeda (2008) Spain, several categories.—WTP differs for
product categories and lies at a maximum of 17%.
Men are willing to pay more than women, while
women express more positive attitudes.
12 Kalogeras et al. NL Survey and contingent valuation, sample of 290,
(2009) olive oil.—57% of consumers potentially willing
to buy organic expressed WTP a premium.
Previous experience with organic purchase
explains a higher WTP.
13 Tranter et al. (2009) 5 EU Sample of 1,527 in five countries, CATI survey,
countries carrots and chicken.—WTP elicited by a single
dichotomous choice that varied between-subjects
in 6 price levels. WTP for organic conversion lies
between organic and conventional, at 50%–75%
of the organic premium.
14 Mesias Diaz et al. Spain Survey and contingent valuation, sample of 361,
(2012) Spain, tomatoes.—Mean WTP at 45%. Three
consumer groups found; knowledge about organic
related to purchase and WTP.
15 Perrini et al. (2010) Italy Sample of 183, intercept survey,
yoghurt.—Three-statement measure of WTP on
7-point Likert scale. WTP positively influenced
by high consumer trust in organic private-label.
16 Plassmann-Weidauer Germany Sample of 642, observation and face-to-face survey,
(2011) organic consumers.—Consumers were observed
to purchase above their stated WTP. WTP was
45%–53%.
17 van Doorn and NL Surveys and experiments with student and consumer
Verhoef (2011) samples, categories categorized as “vice” and
“virtue.”—WTP for organic is relatively lower for
vice compared to virtue.
18 Bauer et al. (2013) Germany Sample of 630, online experiment and survey,
cereals.—WTP increases for local, global, and
private brand when the product package
highlights it is organic and does not differ
between the three brands in the organic label
condition.
2015 23
TABLE 4
Continued

19 Hamzaoui- Canada Personal survey, sample of 324, Canada, organic

Essoussi (2012) consumers.—Three segments are identified and
called true, sporadic, and inexperienced organic
consumers. Most are WTP up to 45%, but “true”
are more WTP (up to 120%) than sporadic or
inexperienced.
20 Islam (2014) Canada Survey and store checks, sample of 646,
Canada.—Average premium is 69% which is less
than expressed WTP: 45% would pay a maximum
of 20%, only 4% a premium of 40%.
21 Wiedmann et al. Germany Experiment with blind test and stated WTP, sample
(2014) of 66, Germany, wine.—Information “organic”
influences taste, perceived quality,
recommendation behavior and WTP, with a
premium of 50%. Results suggest a signaling
effect; organic as a favorable quality cue.
B) Elicited WTP method
1 Spiller (2001) Germany Sample of 450, conjoint analysis, nine
categories.—Only 12% are WTP the 20%
premium, on average 10% WTP found, differs
depending on category.
2 Loureiro and Hine United States Sample of 437, intercept choice experiment,
(2002) potatoes.—WTP expressed in bid intervals. WTP
for organic is 6.6%, higher than for GMO-free
(5.6%), lower than locally (9.4%).
3 Soler et al. (2002) Spain Sample of 120, experimental auction, olive
oil.—70% are WTP a premium, but only 5% are
WTP a price that is equivalent to or higher than
current market price. WTP depending on attitudes
toward the environmental impact and
socioeconomic variables; WTP higher in presence
of information on organic agriculture or
conventional reference price.
4 Tagbata and Sirieix France Sample of 102, tasting and experimental auction,
(2008) chocolate.—Two of three consumer clusters are
WTP, for one of these depending on the taste.
WTP a premium of 20%–30%.
5 Janssen et al. (2009) Germany Sample of 143, purchase simulation, 2007, organic
consumers, milk, yoghurt, apples.—So-called
“low-input” products appear to attract consumers
who usually buy the conventional ones. Purchase
frequency was not influenced by different relative
prices; premiums close to those for organic may
be realized for low-input products.
TABLE 4
Continued

6 Bernabéu, Díaz, and Spain Survey and conjoint analysis, sample of 420, Spain,
Olmeda (2010) cheese.—For the case of Manchego cheese, it is
found that WTP for the organic attribute is
negative, and that origin is the preferred attribute
for all 3 consumer segments identified.
7 Napolitano et al. Italy Sample of 95, tasting and Vickrey auction, beef,
(2010) occasional organic consumers.—WTP more
dependent on information than on product
sensory properties and is higher than market
price, indicating that information about organic
system may increase WTP.
8 Olesen et al. (2010) Norway Sample of 115, non-hypothetical laboratory choice
experiment, salmon.—WTP at 15% for organic or
welfare-labeled, if of the same color as
conventional. Pale color of organic reduces WTP
to below that of the conventional and
welfare-labeled.
9 van Loo et al. (2011) United States Sample of 976, online choice experiment,
chicken.—Consumers are WTP for organic
chicken breast, valuing the USDA certified
organic label higher (104%) than the general
organic label (35%). Regular consumers are WTP
a 244% premium.
10 Akaichi et al. (2012) Spain Vickrey auctions, sample of 78, Spain, milk.—Only
5% are not WTP. WTP for the first unit is 62%
and decreases with every further unit (23% for the
sixth). Perceived price gains importance as a
barrier with further units.
11 Aprile et al. (2012) Italy Choice test, sample of 200, Italy, olive oil.—It is
found that consumers express higher WTP for
PDO (Protected Designations of Origin) than for
organic farming, but more for organic than for
PGI (Protected Geographical Indications).
12 Janssen and Hamm 6 Europe Sample of 2,441, choice experiment and survey,
(2012) eggs and apples.—Significant positive WTP for
all organic products with an organic certification
logo versus without, with considerable
differences between the logos, ranging from 0%
to 105% premium.
13 Marette et al. (2012) France Sample of 114, laboratory elicited WTP experiment,
apples.—Sequence of choices and revelation of
information in between. Revealing that one
choice option is organic increases WTP by 48%,
further information on health effects and pesticide
use by 72%.
2015 25
TABLE 4
Continued

14 Mauracher et al. Italy Sample of 336, intercept choice experiment,

(2013) fish.—Attributes: price, organic production, size
and geographic origin. Differences in WTP
between consumer segments: first segment with
double the WTP compared to average, second
focusing mostly on origin, and a third focusing on
price only. 45% of the sample is not WTP an
organic premium.
15 Rousseau and Belgium Sample of 226, online choice test, apples.—WTP
Vranken (2013) increases in presence of organic label and roughly
doubles when more detailed information on
organic agriculture is provided.
16 Denver and DK Online survey and choice test, sample of 849,
Christensen (2014) Denmark, fruit, vegetables, milk.—Consumers
who categorize food according to
organic/conventional before categorizing after
product type are more favorable toward organic,
more likely RC and WTP for organic milk
characteristics (such as grazing, etc.).
dependent on the category in question (Chryssohoidis and Krystallis 2005;

Gil, Grazia and Sanchez 2000; Ureña, Bernabéu, and Olmeda 2008), with
van Doorn and Verhoef (2011) suggesting that “virtue” food categories
have a higher WTP for organics. Another factor is the extent to which the
product is “organic.” Studies find that WTP is lower for organic conversion
food (Tranter et al. 2009), is higher for products with a higher share of
organic ingredients according to the US labeling system (Batte et al 2007;
van Loo et al. 2011), and varies from 0% to 105% depending on the
organic certification logo (Janssen and Hamm 2012). WTP is similarly
high for “low-input” food that communicates characteristics similar to
those of organic food (Janssen et al. 2009). Especially notable is that local
origin or specific food specialties can be more important to consumers than
organics: WTP for local potatoes was found to be higher in the United
States (Loureiro and Hine 2002), and origin labeling elicited higher WTP
for Mediterranean food categories in Southern Europe (Aprile, Caputo, and
Nayga 2012; Bernabéu, Díaz, and Olmeda 2010; Mauracher, Tempesta,
and Vecchiato 2013), while undesirable color of salmon decreased organic
WTP in Norway (Olesen et al. 2010). Consumer segments might differ in
their priorities for organic versus other quality characteristics (Mauracher,
Tempesta, and Vecchiato 2013; Tagbata and Sirieix 2008). Moreover,
several studies show that consumers’ past experiences (Kalogeras et al.

2009), trust (Perrini et al. 2010), and level of knowledge (Mesías Díaz
et al. 2012), as well as the experimental provision of information (Marette,
Messéan, and Millet 2012; Napolitano et al. 2010; Rousseau and Vranken
2013; Soler, Gil, and Sanchez 2002), are positively related to or increases
WTP for organic food.
Regarding Q4, we conclude that results vary to a great extent (from 0%
to 105%), with an average of approximately 30% premium, and that there
is no obvious difference in the degree of WTP resulting from stated versus
elicited preferences. In addition, the influential factors on the degree of
WTP include product category, the extent to which the product is of organic
quality (in terms of share of ingredients or certification), information about
organic benefits, and “competition” from local origin or specialty foods.
Q5. How Do Consumers React to Pricing Measures for Organic Food

in the Marketplace?
We expect that WTP and price perceptions influence purchase behavior.

It is therefore important to analyze how customers react to price changes
which influence the difference between WTP and the perceived price.
Several panel and scanner data studies have explored the extent to which
consumers purchase organic food, depending on its price in relation to
conventional food and price changes. We included 16 studies, six of which
were conducted in the United States and four in Germany. Six studies
focused on milk alone (see Table 5).
The studies indicate both rather high and relatively low price response
or price sensitivity to organic food. This also holds for the US studies only
and for the studies focusing solely on milk data. For example, in an early
scanner data analysis for milk in the United States, Glaser and Thompson
(2000) find a considerable consumer response to price changes at the
retailer, in that consumers substituted branded for organic milk and vice
versa, while using milk scanner data in the United States, Dhar and Foltz
(2005) find that price changes led consumers to switch more to organic
than back to conventional. A panel data study from Germany reports that
own-price elasticity for organic milk is higher than that for conventional
milk (Jonas and Roosen 2008), while another German study concludes that
demand for organic milk is price inelastic (Schröck 2012).
Recent studies from 2010 onward increasingly report on different
types of organic purchase patterns among consumers. These studies
indicate differences between regular and occasional buyers and organic
and nonorganic buyers. Regular consumers have a more stable share of
2015 27
TABLE 5
Q5. How Do Consumers React to Pricing Measures for Organic Food in the Marketplace?

1 Glaser and United States Scanner data analysis, 1996–1999, milk.—Considerable

Thompson response to price changes. Branded and organic are
(2000) substitutes, but price of the branded affects organic
more than vice versa. When expenditure for milk is
low, likelihood of buying organic is greater.
2 Dhar and Foltz United States Scanner data analysis, 1997–2002, milk.—Consumers
(2005) more likely to switch to organic or rBST milk than
back; expenditure elasticity for organic milk is low.
3 Bunte et al. NL In-store pricing experiment, 2006, in one retailer, ten
(2010) communities and eight categories.—Price elasticity
of demand for organic lies at −1 and −2, thus a
decrease by 10% triggers demand to go up
10%–20%. Cross-price elasticity of 0.15–0.90
indicates that when conventional price increases by
10%, demand for organic increases by 1.5%–9.0%.
Conclude demand for organic food is sensitive to
price changes when premium is high.
4 Jonas and Roosen Germany Panel data analysis, 2000–2003, milk.—Results show a
(2008) high own-price elasticity for organic milk (in absolute
value at −10.166), suggesting consumers shop for
organic milk if it is reasonably low priced. Price
elasticity for conventional milk is lower (around −1).
A household was less likely to purchase organic if it
consumed organic milk in the previous
period—unclear whether this indicates dissatisfaction
or switching to specialized shops.
5 Lopez and Lopez United States Scanner and census data, United States, milk.—Organic
(2009) shows greater price elasticity.
6 Monier et al. France Panel data analysis, 2005, milk and eggs.—Marginal
(2009) variations in the organic price have no effect on the
probability of purchasing organic vs. conventional.
Consumers buying one category are also more likely
to buy the other in organic.
7 Michels and Germany Panel data analysis, 2004–2008.—Organic price
Hamm (2010) changes influence purchase quantity of apples and
tomatoes, while extent of the premium influences
quantity for carrots and sweet pepper. Relation
between price or premium and quantity is not as close
as expected. 17% of the organic consumers contribute
to 80% of turnover.
8 Jensen et al. EU 3: DK, I, Panel data analysis in three countries, different time
(2011) United frames 2001–2006, several categories.—Households
Kingdom pertaining to the group of regular consumers had the
most stable share of expenditure for organic among
all organic consumer groups, they also account for
the majority of the market turnover. Occasional
consumers reacted more price-sensitive.
TABLE 5
Continued

9 Ngobo (2011) France Panel data analysis, 2004–2009, several categories,

comparing two retailers.—It is found that price
and quantity purchased follows an inverted
U-shape. Consumers are more likely to buy
organic private label brands than organic national
brands, but the extent of this reaction depends on
household type; furthermore, they are less likely
to buy organic in concentrated categories (large
number of brands) and where products are often
promoted. It is concluded that sales promotion
and distribution breadth should not be expected to
contribute to organic market growth, while
organic private label brands do.
10 Bezawada and United States Scanner and panel data analysis, 2004–2010, several
Pauwels (2012) categories.—Sales elasticity for assortment
change and regular price change is higher for
organic, the contrary is observed for promotional
activities. Higher sensitivity for promotions in
categories of high purchase frequency, virtue
nature, and less processed. Organic consumers,
including “core,” are sensitive to pricing,
enduring actions like assortment and regular price
changes most effective.
11 Brümmer et al. Germany Scanner data analysis of specialized organic shops,
(2012) organic consumers, milk.—Price elasticity
decreased between 2005 and 2007. Organic
consumers in specialized shops show
price-inelastic demand for milk. This holds
especially for smaller shops. No differences found
for producer brands versus private label brands.
12 Hsieh and Stiegert United States Panel data analysis, 2004–2008, several
(2012) categories.—The organic consumers show less
(but not significant) degree of format switching in
response to price discounts.
13 Schröck (2012) Germany Panel data analysis, 2004–2008, Milk.—Probability
elasticity indicates that as the price premium of
organic private label increases by 1%, probability
of purchase decreases by 0.3%. Price sensitivity
differs substantially between brand and
private-label for both conventional and organic.
RC are less price-sensitive with respect to organic
price than non-buyers and occasional buyers.
Concludes that demand is “absolutely price
inelastic.”
2015 29
TABLE 5
Continued

14 Sridhar et al. United States Scanner panel data analysis and survey, one retailer,
(2012) 2006–2011, six categories.—Elasticities are
highest for produce and lowest for processed. For
produce, organic price change impacts
conventional sales more than for processed
categories. Consumers show cross-category
learning in terms of certainty about product
quality.
15 van Herpen et al. NL Scanner data analysis and store checks in one
(2012) region, several categories.—Organic consumers
show only minor reactions to price promotions,
similar to fair trade consumers. Extent of the
price difference to the leading brand appears not
to be relevant for organic.
16 Marian et al. Denmark Panel data, 2011, Denmark.—In the organic
(2014) category, as opposed to the conventional, repeat
purchase is less prevalent in the high price tier
than in the lower price tier. There is a small
segment of RC who repeatedly buy organic in the
high price tier.
expenditure for organics over time (O’Doherty Jensen, Denver, and Zanoli
2011), repeatedly buy even in high price tiers (Marian et al. 2014), are
less price sensitive than occasional buyers (Schröck 2012), and buy milk
in specialized organic shops, showing a price-inelastic demand (Brümmer
et al. 2012). Furthermore, overall, organic consumers react differently to
pricing measures: they show less store switching in reaction to price
promotions than nonusers, according to a US panel data study (Hsieh and
Stiegert 2012). They also show only minor reactions to price promotions
in a Dutch study based on scanner data and store checks (van Herpen, van
Nierop, and Sloot 2012). Although Bezawada and Pauwels (2012) state
that all organic consumer groups are somewhat price sensitive, they find
that these consumers are nevertheless different, in that they react more to
“enduring” actions, such as changes in assortment or regular price levels,
but less so to promotional activities. An in-store pricing experiment from
2006 in the Netherlands reveals that “consumer demand for organic food
is sensitive to price changes when the price gap is high” (Bunte et al.
2010, 10).
However, Monier et al. (2009) conclude that organic price changes
do not affect the general decision to buy organic, which is observed
across several categories, probably because organic price changes are

marginal compared with the price gap of organic versus conventional
food. Moreover, evidence shows that price sensitivity differs between
product categories. US scanner data indicate that elasticities are highest for
produce and lowest for processed categories (Sridhar et al. 2012). On the
basis of French panel data, Ngobo (2011, 99) concludes that consumers
are less likely to buy organics in categories typically price promoted
because “in promotional categories, consumers are price-sensitive.” He
also finds that consumers are less likely to buy organics in “concentrated
categories”—that is, categories with many brands and, thus, also strong
conventional brands. Bezawada and Pauwels (2012) also find a higher
sensitivity to promotions for organic products in categories with high
purchase frequency and less processed categories. In a Dutch study, though,
the price premium of the leading brand was not relevant (van Herpen,
van Nierop, and Sloot 2012), which seems to contradict Bezawada and
Pauwels’s results.
Regarding Q5, we conclude that organic consumers are less reactive
than conventional consumers but nevertheless are responsive to pricing
and that regular consumers differ specifically from occasional consumers.
In addition, although scant research has explored reactions to pricing
measures, results indicate that reactions are in line with research on general
consumer price behavior (reactions are stronger in unprocessed, frequently
bought, and promotional categories).
Additional research yields notable observations that might indicate how
consumers adapt their views on and reactions to price levels over time: For
example, research has uncovered how an “organic mind-set” or purchase
practice evolves (Hjelmar 2011; Naspetti and Zanoli 2014), with regular
versus occasional consumers consequently characterized by lifestyle dif-
ferences (Goetzke and Spiller 2014; Hamzaoui-Essoussi and Zahaf 2009).
Research has also explored how media reports differently affect regular
versus occasional consumers (Mørch Andersen and Bøker Lund 2013;
Smed and Mørch Andersen 2012) and how more targeted advertising mes-
sages can communicate the price–value relationship (Kareklas et al. 2014).
Moreover, studies have examined the effects of store layout, food cate-
gories, and pricing strategies on reaction to prices. Denver and Christensen
(2014) find that consumers who categorize fresh produce according to
“organic/conventional” before categorizing it into fruits and vegetables are
more likely to be regular consumers with higher WTP, thus indicating that
they might favor organic products presented as store-in-store. Daunfeldt
and Rudholm (2014) show that shelf labels highlighting prices affect sales
depending on the category in question. Finally, Soler, Gil, and Sanchez
2015 31
(2002) find that providing conventional reference prices increases WTP for
organics, and Akaichi, Nayga, and Gil (2012) observe that WTP decreases
with every further unit chosen.
IMPLICATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
From a consumer policy perspective, the existence of price as a barrier

to purchasing organic food calls for action. First, consumers with limited
budgets (e.g., due to low income or children) are more likely to be hindered
from consuming organic food. Here, public policy could work to democ-
ratize organic consumption by offering organic food in schools, cafeterias,
and so on, in what can be regarded as green public procurement (which is
on the agenda of some European countries6 ). Second, public policy could
address the issue of limited price knowledge and the impact of organic
knowledge, experience, and trust by providing more consumer informa-
tion about price gaps, costs of organic production, and benefits of organic
food. Greater knowledge and interest could also be raised by facilitating
citizens’ experiences with food and farming through, for example, com-
munity gardens. Third, because price sensitivity differs between consumer
segments, price variations in different channels and through different lev-
els of organic quality or added value could better meet consumer needs;
if so, more differentiated certification, labeling, or branding would be
required.
Furthermore, public policy can influence and support the development
of organic food markets by altering the macroenvironmental context (e.g.,
revising agricultural subsidy schemes and environmental legislation), as
this might affect the price differential between conventional and organic
food. Moreover, policy can also influence the agenda of food sector stake-
holders in their corporate social responsibility strategies. Retailers such as
Walmart in the United States or Coop in Denmark have begun supporting
the organic market development. Another policy consideration also might
be of relevance in light of the sustainability challenge (Reisch, Eberle,
and Lorek 2013; Thøgersen 2014): If organic consumption relates to a
certain lifestyle, the question is whether support and further development
of this trend can contribute to improve healthful eating or favor more
climate-friendly food categories (Dagevos and Voordouw 2013; Godfray
et al. 2010).
6. For example, in Denmark the respective ministry provides funding to support the increased share
of organic food in public kitchens and has stated that preferably all military cafeterias will serve 100%
organic by 2020 (FVM 2015).
For companies aiming to support organic consumption, we suggest that

changing consumer’ perceptions of organic price level and price role is
important for a larger share of consumers to buy organic more frequently
and in greater quantity (Hamm, Aschemann, and Riefer 2007). Premiums
should not exceed 30%, which, given the future expectation of decreasing
organic prices (O’Doherty Jensen, Denver, and Zanoli 2011), should not be
unrealistic. However, the lack of price knowledge indicates that consumers
might not necessarily notice a decreased premium when observing price
tags alone. Higher-income-level consumers may still overestimate price
differentials to conventional food, and regular consumers might have neg-
ative price–quality inferences of lower-priced organic products. Results
indicate that organic food marketing needs to further differentiate product
categories as well as consumer segments. Thus, different organic product
lines should address consumers at different income levels, family life-stage
composition, and regular versus occasional consumer characteristics, com-
bined with respective product category-specific communication of benefits
and pricing strategies. For example, families in particular seem to forgo
costly organic quality when their quantity needs increase, which raises the
question whether organic marketers can do more to steer families through
this phase and retain them as consumers through, for example, price promo-
tions targeted at families (e.g., targeted coupons, discounts on family pack-
ages). Depending on the consumer segments’ price importance (Hjelmar
2011; O’Doherty Jensen, Denver, and Zanoli 2011), retailers could com-
municate more strongly the extent of the price gaps across categories to
provide consumers with an “‘update” for their heuristic and organic price
expectations (Soler, Gil and Sanchez 2002). In accordance with the con-
sumer segments’ major motive (Pino, Peluso, and Guido 2012), differential
communication highlighting the extent of organic quality, benefits, and fur-
ther special characteristics should help justify the choice and enhance WTP.
These public policy and market actor suggestions should assist in further
organic market growth and facilitate consumers’ actual buying behavior of
organics as a green consumption alternative.
As a future research agenda, we suggest that the following perspectives
should be considered:
1. As existing research partly found contradicting results, future
research should focus more strongly on moderators such as prod-
uct category characteristics, organic quality dimensions, labeling of
products, retail channels, and consumer characteristics.
2. Consumer characteristics should combine sociodemographics with
psychographic variables, where the latter can serve as relevant
2015 33
segmentation variables in the marketplace and support targeted

communication appealing to differences in motives.
3. Study designs should differentiate consumer segments in terms of
occasional versus regular consumers in different categories to allow
for a more thorough view on price perceptions, knowledge, WTP,
choice, and reactions to price changes and promotions.
4. Further research should explore the mechanisms underlying con-
sumers’ price perceptions and the price-related heuristics they use
to justify choice and infer quality, especially using methods other
than self-reports. It would be particularly worthwhile to examine
how consumers weight the negative (price as sacrifice) versus the
positive (price as a signal of quality and prestige) price role and
which factors influence this weighting (e.g., branding; Anisimova
and Sultan 2014).
5. Research should further uncover the development process of reg-
ular consumers and the transformation from occasional to regular
consumers across the life stage, including analyzing the role of
psychographics, to pinpoint crucial barriers, trade-offs, and action
points over time in this process.
6. In terms of market trends, an emerging issue is the mainstreaming of
organic sales in conventional retail and, especially, discount stores,
including the related discussion of what constitutes organic “values”
(Kröger and Schäfer 2014) and the potential overlap with and
competition from health foods (Aschemann-Witzel, Maroscheck,
and Hamm 2013), specialty foods, and local foods, which might
appeal to similar motives. It would be fruitful to investigate how
these trends affect the price image of organics or consumers’ price
knowledge, value perceptions, WTP, and price sensitivity in the
marketplace.
As a final note, we acknowledge that we were unable to explain all
contradictory findings in the body of literature examined. These might
have been caused by the large variations in methodologies and charac-
teristics of data sets and measures, as well as differences in researchers’
expectations and interpretations. Thus, the overall results must focus on
what can be generalized with the necessary caution, and readers should
compare any single study results with the respective comparably char-
acterized studies in the review. However, apart from the general find-
ings, important observations emerged that can serve as a rich source for
the further development of the organic market and consumer interest in
organics.
REFERENCES
Aertsens, Joris, Wim Verbeke, Koen Mondelaers, and Guido van Huylenbroeck. 2009. Personal Deter-
minants of Organic Food Consumption: A Review. British Food Journal, 111 (10): 1140–1167.
Akaichi, Faical, Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr., and José M. Gil. 2012. Assessing Consumers’ Willingness to
Pay for Different Units of Organic Milk: Evidence from Multiunit Auctions. Canadian Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 60 (4): 469–494.
Akgüngör, Sedef, Bulent Miran, and Canan Abay. 2010. Consumer Willingness to Pay for Organic
Food in Urban Turkey. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 22 (3–4):
299–313.
Ailawadi, Kusum L., Scott A. Neslin, and Karen Gedenk. 2001. Pursuing the Value-conscious
Consumer: Store Brand Versus National Brand Promotions. Journal of Marketing, 65: 71–89.
Anisimova, Tatiana and Parves Sultan. 2014. The Role of Brand Communications in Consumer
Purchases of Organic Foods: A Research Framework. Journal of Food Products Marketing,
20 (5): 511–532.
Aprile, Maria Carmela, Vencencina Caputo, and Rodolfo M. Nayga. 2012. Consumers’ Valuation
of Food Quality Labels: The Case of the European Geographic Indication and Organic Farming
Labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36: 158–165.
Aschemann, Jessica, Ulrich Hamm, Simona Naspetti, and Raffele Zanoli. 2007. The Organic Market.
In Organic Farming – An International History, edited by William Lockeretz (123–151). Walling-
ford: CABI.
Aschemann-Witzel, Jessica, Nicole Maroscheck, and Ulrich Hamm. 2013. Are Organic Consumers
Preferring or Avoiding Foods With Nutrition and Health Claims? Food Quality and Preference,
30 (1): 68–76.
Aschemann-Witzel, Jessica and Emilie Marie Niebuhr Aagaard. 2014. Elaborating on the
Attitude-behaviour Gap Regarding Organic Products: Young Danish Consumers and In-store
Food Choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38 (5): 550–558.
Bartels, Jos and Machiel Reinders. 2010. Social Identification, Social Representations, and Consumer
Innovativeness in an Organic Food Context: A Cross-national Comparison. Food Quality and
Preference, 21 (4): 347–352.
Batte, Marvin T., Neal Hooker, Tomothy C. Haab, and Jeremy Beaverson. 2007. Putting Their Money
Where Their Mouths Are: Consumer Willingness to Pay for Multi-ingredient, Processed Organic
Food Products. Food Policy, 32 (2): 145–159.
Bauer, Hans H., Daniel Heinrich, and Daniela Schäfer. 2013. The Effects of Organic Labels on Global,
Local, and Private Brands. Journal of Business Research, 66: 1035–1043.
Bernabéu, Rodolfo, Monica Díaz, and Miguel Olmeda. 2010. Origin vs Organic in Manchego Cheese:
Which Is More Important? British Food Journal, 112 (8): 887–901.
Bezawada, Ram and Koen Pauwels. 2012. What Is Special About Marketing Organic Products? How
Organic Assortment, Price and Promotions Drive Retailer Performance. Journal of Marketing, 77:
31–51.
Blattberg, Robert C. and Kenneth J. Wisniewski. 1989. Price-induced Patterns of Competition.
Marketing Science, 8: 291–309.
Briz, Teresa and Ronald W. Ward. 2009. Consumer Awareness of Organic Products in Spain: An
Application of Multinominal Logit Models. Food Policy, 34 (3): 295–304.
Bruhn, Maike. 2002. Die Nachfrage nach Bioprodukten – Eine Langzeitstudie unter Besonderer
Berücksichtigung von Verbrauchereinstellungen [The Demand for Organic Food – A Long-term
Study with a Focus on Consumer Attitudes]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Brümmer, Bernhardt, Anneke Hellberg-Bahr, Martin Pfeuffer, and Archim Spiller. 2012. A Pricing
Along a Value Chain Fraught with Risks: Innovative Approach to Fair Pricing in the Organic Milk
Sector: FKZ: 08OE127. http://www.orgprints.org/21387/.
Buder, Fabian. 2011. Das Kaufverhalten bei Öko-Lebensmitteln. Kausalanalytische Untersuchung
der Determinanten der Nachfrage nach ökologisch Erzeugten Lebensmitteln [Buying Behavior of
Organic Food. An Analysis of Determinants of Demand]. Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.
2015 35
Buder, Fabian, Corinna Feldmann, and Ulrich Hamm. 2014. Why Regular Buyers of Organic Food
Still Buy Many Conventional Products. British Food Journal, 116 (3): 390–404.
Bunte, Frank, Michiel A. van Galen, Erno W. Kuiper, and Gemma Tacken. 2010. Limits to Growth in
Organic Sales. De Economist, 158 (4): 387–410.
Canavari, Maurizio, Guido Maria Bazzani, Roberta Spadoni, and Domenico Regazzi. 2002. Food
Safety and Organic Fruit Demand in Italy: A Survey. British Food Journal, 104: 220–232.
Chinnici, Gaetano, Mario D’Amico, and Beagio Pecorino. 2002. A Multivariate Statistical Analysis
on the Consumers of Organic Products. British Food Journal, 104: 187–199.
Chryssohoidis, George M. and Athannasios Krystallis. 2005. Organic Consumers’ Personal Values
Research: Testing and Validating the List of Values LOV Scale and Implementing a Value-based
Segmentation Task. Food Quality and Preference, 16 (7): 585–599.
Dagevos, Hans and Jantine Voordouw. 2013. Sustainability and Meat Consumption: Is Reduction
Realistic? Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 92: 60–69.
Darnhofer, Ika, Thomas Lindenthal, Ruth Bartel-Kratochvil, and Werner Zollitsch. 2010. Convention-
alisation of Organic Farming Practices: From Structural Criteria Towards an Assessment Based on
Organic Principles. A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 30 (1): 67–81.
Daunfeldt, Svend-Olov and Niklas Rudholm. 2014. Does Shelf-labeling of Organic Foods Increase
Sales? Results from a Natural Experiment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21 (5):
804–811.
Denver, Sigrid and Tove Christensen. 2014. Consumers’ Grouping of Organic and Conventional
Food Products—Implications for the Marketing of Organics. Journal of Food Products Marketing,
20 (4): 408–428.
Dettmann, Rachael L. and Carolyn Dimitri. 2009. Who’s Buying Organic Vegetables? Demographic
Characteristics of U.S. Consumers. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 16 (1): 79–91.
Devcich, Daniel A., Irene K. Pedersen, and Keith J. Petrie. 2007. You Eat What You Are: Modern
Health Worries and the Acceptance of Natural and Synthetic Additives in Functional Foods.
Appetite, 48 (3): 333–337.
Dhar, Tirtha and Jeremy D. Foltz. 2005. Milk by Any Other Name … Consumer Benefits From
Labeled Milk. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87 (1): 214–228.
Dickson, Peter R. and Alan G. Sawyer. 1990. The Price Knowledge and Search of Supermarket
Shoppers. Journal of Marketing, 54: 42–53.
Dickson-Spillmann, Maria, Michael Siegrist, and Carmen Keller. 2011. Attitudes Toward Chemicals
Are Associated with Preference for Natural Food. Food Quality and Preference, 22 (1): 149–156.
Fearne, Andrew and Stephen Bates. 2003. What Price a “Pinta”? Differentiating the Market for Liquid
Milk: Results of Consumer Research in the UK Dairy Sector. British Food Journal, 105 (10–11):
756–770.
EC. 2009. Europeans’ Attitudes Towards the Issue of Sustainable Consumption and Production:
Analytical Report, Flash Eurobarometer Series No. 256. European Commission. http://ec.europa.
eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_256_en.pdf.
Eckhardt, Giana M., Russell Belk, and Timothy M. Devinney. 2010. Why Don’t Consumers Consume
Ethically? Journal of Consumer Behavior, 96: 426–436.
Evanschitzky, Heiner, Peter Kenning, and Verana Vogel. 2004. Consumer Price Knowledge in the
German Retail Market. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 13: 390–405.
Foley, Jonathan A., Navin Ramankutty, Kate A. Brauman, Emily S. Cassidy, James S. Gerber, Matt
Johnston, Nathaniel D. Mueller, Christine O’Connell, Deepak K. Ray, Paul C. West, Christian
Balzer, Elena M. Bennett, Stephen R. Carpenter, Jason Hill, Chad Monfreda, Stephen Polasky,
Johan Rockstrom, John Sheehan, Stefan Siebert, David Tilman, and David P. M. Zaks. 2011.
Solutions for a Cultivated Planet. Nature, 478: 337–342.
FAO. 1999. Organic Agriculture: COAG/99/9 Rev. 1, Food and Agricultural Organisation, Committee
on Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/X0075e.htm.
Fotopoulos, Christos and Athanasios Krystallis. 2002. Organic Product Avoidance: Reasons for
Rejection and Potential Buyers Identification in a Countrywide Survey. British Food Journal,
104 (9): 233–260.
FVM. 2015. Økologiplan Danmark – sammen om mere økologi [Organic Plan Denmark. Together
for More Organic]. Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri [Ministry for Food, Agricul-
ture and Fishery]. http://fvm.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/FVM.dk/Dokumenter/Landbrug/Indsatser/
Oekologi/OekologiplanDanmark.pdf.
Garnett, Tara. 2014. Three Perspectives on Sustainable Food Security: Efficiency, Demand Restraint,
Food System Transformation. What Role for Life Cycle Assessment? Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion, 73: 10–18.
Gaston-Breton, Charlotte and Priya Raghubir. 2013. Opposing Effects of Sociodemographic Variables
on Price Knowledge. Marketing Letters, 24: 29–42.
Gil, José M., Azucena Grazia, and M. Sanchez. 2000. Market Segmentation and Willingness to Pay for
Organic Products in Spain. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3: 207–226.
Gilg, Andrew, Steward Barr, and Nicolas Ford. 2005. Green Consumption or Sustainable Lifestyles?
Identifying the Sustainable Consumer. Futures, 37 (6): 481–504.
Glaser, Lewrene K., and Gary D. Thompson. 2000. Demand for Organic and Conventional Beverage
Milk: Paper Presented at the Western Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings,
Vancouver, BC, June 29-July 1.
GMA/Deloitte. 2009. Finding the Green in Today’s Shoppers. Sustainability Trends and New Shopper
Insights. Grocery Manufacturers Association and Deloitte. http://www.gmaonline.org/downloads/
research-and-reports/greenshopper09.pdf.
Godfray, H. Charles J., John R. Beddington, Ian R. Crute, Lawrence Haddad, David Lawrence, James
F. Muir, Jules Pretty, Sherman Robinson, Sandy M. Thomas, and Camilla Toulmin. 2010. Food
Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science, 327 (5967): 812–818.
Goetzke, Beate Irene and Achim Spiller. 2014. Health-improving Lifestyles of Organic and Functional
Food Consumers. British Food Journal, 116 (3): 510–526.
Gottschalk, Ingrid and Tabea Leistner. 2012. Consumer Reactions to the Availability of Organic Food
in Discount Supermarkets. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37 (23): 136–142.
Gracia, Azucena and Tiziana de. Magistris. 2008. The Demand for Organic Foods in the South of Italy:
A Discrete Choice Model. Food Policy, 33 (5): 386–396.
Grant, John. 2007. The Green Marketing Manifesto. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hamm, Ulrich, Jessica Aschemann, and Angelika Riefer. 2007. Sind die Hhohen Preise für
Öko-Lebensmittel Wirklich das Zentrale Problem für den Absatz? [Are the High Prices for Organic
Food Really the Main Problem Regarding Sales?]. Berichte über Landwirtschaft, 85 (2): 252–270.
Hamm, Ulrich, and Fabian Buder. 2011. Dynamik des Kaufverhaltens im Bio-Sortiment. [Dynamics
of Purchase Behavior for Organic Products.]: Runs 2009–2010. Project Leaders: Hamm, Prof.
Dr. Ulrich and Buder, Dipl.-Soz Fabian, Universität Kassel, D-Witzenhausen. http://orgprints.org/
15931/.
Hamm, Ulrich, F. Gronefeld, and D. Halpin. 2002. Analysis of the European Market for Organic Food.
Aberystwyth: University of Wales Aberystwyth.
Hamm, Ulrich, Sarah Hemmerling, Rosa Schleenbecker, Achim Spiller, Salome Wägeli, Anette
Cordts, Inna Hermann, Inga Sonntag, and Victoria Kary. 2012. Consumer Purchase and Con-
sumption Behaviour Regarding Organic Food. Analysis of the State of the Art—Final Report.
http://www.orgprints.org/20055/.
Hamzaoui-Essoussi, Leila and Mehdi Zahaf. 2009. Exploring the Decision-making Process of Cana-
dian Organic Food Consumers. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 12 (4):
443–459.
Hamzaoui-Essoussi, Leila. 2012. Canadian Organic Food Consumers’ Profile and Their Willingness
to Pay Premium Prices. Journal of International Food, 24 (1): 1–21.
Harrison, Rob, Terry Newholm, and Deirde Shaw, eds. 2005. The Ethical Consumer. Los Angeles:
Sage.
Hill, Helene and Fidelma Lynchehaun. 2002. Organic Milk: Attitudes and Consumption Patterns.
British Food Journal, 104 (7): 526–542.
Hjelmar, Ulf. 2011. Consumers’ Purchase of Organic Food Products. A Matter of Convenience and
Reflexive Practices. Appetite, 56 (2) 336–344.
2015 37
Hoch, Stephen J., Byong-Do Kim, Allan L. Montgomery, and Peter E. Rossi. 1995. Determinants of
Store-level Price Elasticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 32: 17–29.
Hoogland, Carolien T., Joop de Boer, and Jan J. Boersema. 2007. Food and Sustainability: Do
Consumers Recognize, Understand and Value On-package Information on Production Standards?
Appetite, 49 (1): 47–57.
Hsieh, MingFeng and Kyle W. Stiegert. 2012. Store Format Choice in Organic Food Consumption.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 94 (2): 307–313.
Hughner, Renee Shaw, Pierre McDonagh, Andrea Prothero, Clifford J. Shultz, and Julie Stanton. 2007.
Who Are Organic Food Consumers? A Compilation and Review of Why People Purchase Organic
Food. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 62: 94–110.
Islam, Shahidul. 2014. Marketing Organic Foods through Conventional Retail Outlets. Journal of
Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 8 (1): 98–112.
Janssen, Meike and Ulrich Hamm. 2012. Product Labelling in the Market for Organic Food: Consumer
Preferences and Willingness-to-Pay for Different Organic Certification Logos. Food Quality and
Preference, 25 (1): 9–22.
Janssen, Meike, Astrid Heid, and Ulrich Hamm. 2009. Is There a Promising Market ‘In Between’
Organic and Conventional Food? Analysis of Consumer Preferences. Renewable Agriculture and
Food Systems, 24 (3): 205–213.
Jonas, Astrid and Jutta Roosen. 2008. Demand for Milk Labels in Germany: Organic Milk, Conven-
tional Brands, and Retail Labels. Agribusiness, 24 (2): 192–206.
Jones, Peter, Colin Clarke-Hill, Peter Shears, and David Hillier. 2001. Case Study: Retailing Organic
Foods. British Food Journal, 103: 358–363.
Kalogeras, Nikos, Stella Valchovska, George Baourakis, and Prodromos Kalaitzis. 2009. Dutch Con-
sumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic Olive Oil. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness
Marketing, 21 (4): 286–311.
Kareklas, Iioannis, Jeffrey R. Carlson, and Darrel D. Muehling. 2014. “I Eat Organic for My Benefit and
Yours”: Egoistic and Altruistic Considerations for Purchasing Organic Food and Their Implications
for Advertising Strategists. Journal of Advertising, 43 (1): 18–32.
Kihlberg, Iwona and Einer Risvik. 2007. Consumers of Organic Foods – Value Segments and Liking
of Bread. Food Quality and Preference, 18 (3): 471–481.
Kröger, Melanie and Martina Schäfer. 2014. Between Ideals and Reality: Development and Implemen-
tation of Fairness Standards in the Organic Food Sector. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics, 27 (1): 43–63.
Krystallis, Athanasios and George Chryssohoidis. 2005. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic
Food – Factors That Affect It and Variation per Organic Product Type. British Food Journal, 107:
320–343.
Lichtenstein, Donald R., Nancy M. Ridgway, and Richard G. Netemeyer. 1993. Price Perceptions and
Consumer Shopping Behavior: A Field Study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30: 234–245.
Lockeretz, William, ed. 2007. Organic Farming—An International History. Wallingford: CABI.
Lopez, Elena and Rigoberto A. Lopez. 2009. Demand for Differentiated Milk Products: Implications
for Price Competition. Agribusiness, 25 (4): 453–465.
Loureiro, Maria L. and Susan Hine. 2002. A Comparison of Consumer Willingness to Pay for a Local
Colorado-grown, Organic, and GMO-free Product. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics,
34 (3): 477–487.
Mägi, Anne W. and Claes-Robert Julander. 2005. Consumer’s Store-level Price Knowledge:
Why Are Some Consumers More Knowledgeable than Others? Journal of Retailing, 81:
319–329.
Marette, Stephan, Antoine Messéan, and Guy Millet. 2012. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for
Eco-friendly Apples Under Different Labels: Evidences From a Lab Experiment. Food Policy,
37 (2): 151–161.
Marian, Livia and John Thøgersen. 2013. Direct and Mediated Impacts of Product and Process
Characteristics on Consumers’ Choice of Organic vs. Conventional Chicken. Food Quality and
Preference, 29 (2): 106–112.
Marian, Livia, Polymeros Chrysochou, Athanasios Krystallis, and John Thøgersen. 2014. The Role of
Price as a Product Attribute in the Organic Food Context: An Exploration Based on Actual Purchase
Data. Food Quality and Preference, 37: 52–60.
Mauracher, Christine, Tiziano Tempesta, and Daniel Vecchiato. 2013. Consumer Preferences Regard-
ing the Introduction of New Organic Products. The Case of the Mediterranean Sea Bass Dicentrar-
chus Labrax in Italy. Appetite, 63: 84–91.
Mesías Díaz, Francisco J., Federico Martínez-Carrasco Pleite, Jose Miguel Martínez Paz, and Paula
Gaspar García. 2012. Consumer Knowledge, Consumption, and Willingness to Pay for Organic
Tomatoes. British Food Journal, 114 (3): 318–334.
Michels, Paul and Ulrich Hamm. 2010. Dynamik des Kaufverhaltens im Bio-Sortiment. [Dynamics of
Purchasing Behavior for Organic Products.]: Runs 2007–2009. Project Leaders: ZMP GmbH in
Zusammenarbeit mit der Universität Kassel. http://orgprints.org/16983/.
Michelsen, Johannes, Kenneth Lynggaard, Susanne Padel, and Carolyn Foster. 2001. Organic Farming
Development and Agricultural Institutions in Europe: A Study of Six Countries. In Organic
Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, edited by Stephan Dabbert, Nicolas Lampkin, Johannes
Michelsen, Hiltrud Nieberg, and Raffaele Zanoli, vol. 9, (1–201). Stuttgart-Hohenheim: University
of Hohenheim.
Monier, Sylvette, Daniel Hassan, Veronique Nichèle, and Michel Simioni. 2009. Organic Food
Consumption Patterns. Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization, 7 (2): 1–25.
Mørch Andersen, Laura and Thomas Bøker Lund. 2013. Digging Deeper: How Do Different Types
of Organic Consumers Influence the Increasing Organic Market Share? British Food Journal,
116 (1): 16–29.
Napolitano, Fabio, A. Braghieri, E. Piasentier, S. Favotto, Simona Naspetti, and Rafaelle Zanoli. 2010.
Effect of Information About Organic Production on Beef Liking and Consumer Willingness to Pay.
Food Quality and Preference, 21 (2): 207–212.
Naspetti, Simona and Rafaelle Zanoli. 2014. Organic Consumption as a Change of Mind? Exploring
Consumer Narratives Using a Structural Cognitive Approach. Journal of International Food &
Agribusiness Marketing, 26 (4): 258–285.
Ngobo, Paul Valentin. 2011. What Drives Household Choice of Organic Products in Grocery Stores?
Journal of Retailing, 87 (1): 90–100.
Nie, Cong and Lydia Zepeda. 2011. Lifestyle Segmentation of US Food Shoppers to Examine Organic
and Local Food Consumption. Appetite, 57 (1): 28–37.
O’Doherty Jensen, Katherine, Sigrid Denver, and Raffaele Zanoli. 2011. Actual and Potential Devel-
opment of Consumer Demand on the Organic Food Market in Europe. NJAS—Wageningen Journal
of Life Sciences, 58 (3–4): 79–84.
O’Donovan, P. and Mary McCarthy. 2002. Irish Consumer Preference for Organic Meat. British Food
Journal, 104 (3–5): 353–370.
Olesen, Ingrid, Frode Alfnes, Mia Benzser Røra, and Kari Kolstad. 2010. Eliciting Consumers’
Willingness to Pay for Organic and Welfare-labelled Salmon in a Non-hypothetical Choice
Experiment. Livestock Science, 127 (2–3): 218–226.
Organic Denmark. 2015. Organics in Denmark. http://organicdenmark.dk/organics-in-denmark.
Oxfam. 2009. 4-a-week: Changing Food Consumption in the UK to Benefit People and Planet. Oxfam
GB. http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/4-a-week-changing-food-consumption-in-
the-uk-to-benefit-people-and-planet-114037.
Padel, Susanne and Carolyn Foster. 2005. Exploring the Gap Between Attitudes and Behavior:
Understanding Why Consumers Buy or Do Not Buy Organic Food. British Food Journal,
107 (8): 606–625.
Padel, Susanne and Peter Midmore. 2005. The Development of the European Market for Organic
Products: Insights From a Delphi Study. British Food Journal, 107 (8): 626–646.
Padilla Bravo, Carlos, Cordts Anette, Birgit Schulze, and Achim Spiller. 2013. Assessing Determinants
of Organic Food Consumption Using Data from the German National Nutrition Survey II. Food
Quality and Preference, 28 (1): 60–70.
2015 39
Perrini, Francesco, Sandro Castaldo, Nicola Misani, and Antonio Tencati. 2010. The Impact of
Corporate Social Responsibility Associations on Trust in Organic Products Marketed by Main-
stream Retailers: A Study of Italian Consumers. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19 (8):
512–526.
Pino, Giovanni, Alessandro M. Peluso, and Guido Gianluigi. 2012. Determinants of Regular and
Occasional Consumers’ Intentions to Buy Organic Food. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 46 (1):
157–169.
Plassmann-Weidauer, Sabine. 2011. Die Bedeutung des Preises beim Kauf von Öko-Lebensmitteln.
Preiskenntnis und Zahlungsbereitschaft bei Öko-Konsumenten [The Importance of Price in
Organic Food Purchase. Price Knowledge and Willingness to Pay of Organic Consumers]. Ham-
burg: Dr. Kovac.
Reisch, Lucia, Ulrike Eberle, and Sylvia Lorek. 2013. Sustainable Food Consumption: An
Overview of Contemporary Issues and Policies. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 92:
7–25.
Rousseau, Sandra and Liesbeth Vranken. 2013. Green Market Expansion by Reducing Information
Asymmetries: Evidence for Labeled Organic Food Products. Food Policy, 40: 31–43.
Schröck, Rebecca. 2012. The Organic Milk Market in Germany Is Maturing: A Demand System
Analysis of Organic and Conventional Fresh Milk Segmented by Consumer Groups. Agribusiness,
28 (3): 274–292.
Sivakumar, K. 2000. Understanding Price-tier Competition: Methodological Issues and Their Manage-
rial Significance. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9: 291–303.
Smed, Sinne and Laura Mørch Andersen. 2012. Information or Prices, Which Is Most Powerful in
Increasing Consumer Demand for Organic Vegetables? International Business Research, 5 (12):
175–194.
Smith, Travis A., Chung L. Huang, and Biing-Hwan Lin. 2009. Does Price or Income Affect Organic
Choice? Analysis of U.S. Fresh Produce Users. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics,
41 (3): 731–744.
Soil Association. 2004. Organic Food: Understanding the Consumer and Increasing Sales [review].
http://orgprints.org/10858/1/TNS2004eng.pdf.
Soler, Francisco, José M. Gil, and Mercedes Sanchez. 2002. Consumers’ Acceptability of Organic
Food in Spain. British Food Journal, 104: 670–687.
Spiller, Achim. 2001. Preispolitik für ökologische Lebensmittel: Eine Neo-institutionalistische Anal-
yse [Price Policy for Organic Food: A Neo-institutional Analysis]. Agrarwirtschaft, 50 (7):
451–461.
Spiller, Achim, Ulrich Enneking and Maren Lüth. 2004. Analyse des Kaufverhaltens von Selten-
und Gelegenheitskäufern und ihrer Bestimmungsgründe für/gegen den Kauf von Öko-Produkten
[Infrequent and Occasional Buyers of Organic Products]. http://orgprints.org/4201/.
Spiller, Achim, Sabine Plaßmann, and Ulrich Hamm. n.d. Preispolitik [Price Policy]. Praxishandbuch
Bio-Lebensmittel [Handbook Organic Food]. VI chapter 4. Hamburg: Behr’s Verlag.
Sridhar, Karthik, Ram Bezawada, and Minakshi Trivedi. 2012. Investigating the Drivers of Consumer
Cross-category Learning for New Products Using Multiple Data Sets. Marketing Science, 31 (4):
668–688.
Stolz, Hanna, Matthias Stolze, Meike Janssen, and Ulrich Hamm. 2011. Preferences and Determinants
for Organic, Conventional and Conventional-plus Products – The Case of Occasional Organic
Consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 22 (8): 772–779.
Tagbata, D. and Lucie Sirieix. 2008. Measuring Consumer’s Willingness to Pay for Organic and Fair
Trade Products. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32: 479–490.
Thøgersen, John. 2011. Green Shopping: For Selfish Reasons or the Common Good? American
Behavioral Scientist, 55 (8): 1052–1076.
Thøgersen, John. 2014. Unsustainable Consumption. Basic Causes and Implications for Policy.
European Psychologist, 19 (2): 84–95.
Timmins, Chris, and Adam Blunt. 2013. Consumer Attitudes towards Organic Food: 2013 – Final
Report [review], B01322/September 2013. Organic Centre for Wales.
Tranter, R. B., R. M. Bennett, L. Costa, C. Cowan, G. C Holt, P. J. Jones, M. Miele, M. Sottomayor,

and J. Vestergaard. 2009. Consumers’ Willingness-to-pay for Organic Conversion-grade Food:
Evidence from Five EU Countries. Food Policy, 34 (3): 287–294.
Urbany, Joe E., Peter R. Dickson, and Rosemary Kalapurakal. 1996. Price Search in the Retail Grocery
Market. Journal of Marketing, 60: 91–104.
Ureña, Félix, Rodolfo Bernabéu, and Miguel Olmeda. 2008. Women, Men and Organic Food:
Differences in Their Attitudes and Willingness to Pay. A Spanish Case Study. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 32 (1): 18–26.
Vanhuele, Marc and Xavier Drèze. 2002. Measuring the Price Knowledge Shoppers Bring to the Store.
Journal of Marketing, 66: 72–85.
van Doorn, Jenny and Peter C. Verhoef. 2011. Willingness to Pay for Organic Products: Differ-
ences Between Virtue and Vice Foods. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28 (3):
167–180.
van Herpen, Erica, Erjen van Nierop, and Laurens Sloot. 2012. The Relationship Between In-store
Marketing and Observed Sales for Organic Versus Fair Trade Products. Marketing Letters, 23 (1):
293–308.
van Loo, Ellen J., Vincenzina Caputo, Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jean-Francois Meullenet, and Steven C.
Ricke. 2011. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic Chicken Breast: Evidence From Choice
Experiment. Food Quality and Preference, 22 (7): 603–613.
Verhoef, Peter. 2005. Explaining Purchases of Organic Meat by Dutch Consumers. European Review
of Agricultural Economics, 32: 245–267.
Vermeir, Iris and Wim Verbeke. 2006. Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer
“Attitude – Behavioral Intention” Gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19 (2):
169–194.
Völckner, Franziska and Julian Hofmann. 2007. The Price-perceived Quality Relationship:
A Meta-analytic Review and Assessment of Its Determinants. Marketing Letters, 18 (3):
181–196.
Wakefield, Kirk L. and J. Jeffrey Inman. 1993. Who Are the Price Vigilantes? An Investigation of
Differentiating Characteristics Influencing Price Information Processing. Journal of Retailing, 69:
216–233.
Wertenbroch, Klaus and Bernd Skiera. 2002. Measuring Consumers’ Willingness to Pay at the Point
of Purchase. Journal of Marketing Research, 39: 228–241.
Wier, Mette, Kathrine O’Doherty Jensen, Laura M. Andersen, and Katrin Millock. 2008. The Character
of Demand in Mature Organic Food Markets: Great Britain and Denmark Compared. Food Policy,
335: 406–421.
Wiedmann, Klaus-Peter, Nadine Hennigs, Stefan Henrik Behrens, and Christiane Klarmann. 2014.
Tasting Green: An Experimental Design for Investigating Consumer Perception of Organic Wine.
Willer, Helga, Julie Lernoud, and Lukas Kilcher. 2013. The World of Organic Agriculture, Statistics
and Emerging Trends 2013. Bonn: Frick.
Yiridoe, Emmanuel K., Samuel Bonti-Ankomah, and Ralph C. Martin. 2005. Comparison of Con-
sumer Perceptions and Preference Toward Organic Versus Conventionally Produced Foods:
A Review and Update of the Literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20 (4):
193–205.
Zagata, Lukas. 2012. Consumers’ Beliefs and Behavioral Intentions Towards Organic Food. Evidence
From the Czech Republic. Appetite, 59 (1): 81–89.
̇
Zakowska-Biemans, Sylwia. 2011. Polish Consumer Food Choices and Beliefs About Organic Food.
Zanoli, Raffaele and Simona Naspetti. 2002. Consumer Motivations in the Purchase of Organic Food.
A Means-end Approach. British Food Journal, 104 (8): 643–653.
Zeithaml, Valarie A. 1988. Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model
and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52: 2–22.
2015 41
Zepeda, Lydia, Hui-Shung Chang, and Catherine Leviten-Reid. 2006. Organic Food Demand: A
Focus Group Study Involving Caucasian and African-American Shoppers. Agriculture and Human
Values, 23 (3): 385–194.
Zepeda, Lydia and Jinghan Li. 2007. Characteristics of Organic Food Shoppers. Journal of Agricultural
and Applied Economics, 39 (1): 17–28.
Zhang, Feng, James E. Epperson, Chung L. Huang, and Jack E. Houston. 2009. Organic Price
Premiums Paid for Fresh Tomatoes and Apples by U.S. Households: Evidence from Nielsen
Homescan Data. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 40 (3): 105–114.

Cant Buy Me Green A Review of Consumer Perceptions of and Behavior Toward The Price of Organic Food

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Cant Buy Me Green A Review of Consumer Perceptions of and Behavior Toward The Price of Organic Food

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2015 1

JESSICA ASCHEMANN-WITZEL AND STEPHAN ZIELKE

The global food sector is faced with a considerable challenge of provid-

The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 2015

sustainability goals. Practices typical in organic farming are the building

Policymakers wanting to increase organic consumption as one element

questions. Finally, we provide implications for policymakers and market

BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Price is an important decision criterion for purchase behavior. However,

example, price sensitivity may be higher in locations with a high share

For the literature review, we searched databases such as Organic Eprints,

articles. We applied three criteria for inclusion in the review. First, we

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION PER RESEARCH QUESTION

3. European Union at its 2004 enlargement, plus Norway and Switzerland.

inferring on it) or (2) statistically assessed influence of perceived price and

Methodology, sample, category

A) Self-reported relative assessment of price as a barrier to purchase

Methodology, sample, category

Methodology, sample, category

Note: RC = regular organic consumers, OC = occasional organic consumers.

(Buder 2011) negatively influence self-reported or actual organic purchase

Q2. What Is the Role of Income in the Purchase of Organic Food?

With price as an important perceived barrier, income should prove to be

Methodology, sample, category

A) Analysis of the influence of income on stated preference for organic

Methodology, sample, category

11 Gracia and Italy Sample of 200, intercept survey.—Low income is

Methodology, sample, category

21 Marette et al. France Sample of 114, laboratory elicited WTP experiment,

Methodology, sample, category

occasional consumers showed no relationship (Janssen et al. 2009) or

Q3. How Exact Is Consumers’ Price Knowledge of Organic Food?

The importance of price as a barrier and the influence of income result

Methodology, sample, category

1 Spiller (2001) Germany Methodology and sample size not mentioned.—90%

An important question regarding further development of the market is

Q4. How High Is Consumers’ WTP for Organic Food?

Income level, disposable income, and perceptions of the role of price

Methodology, sample, category

A) Stated WTP method

Methodology, sample, category

Methodology, sample, category

19 Hamzaoui- Canada Personal survey, sample of 324, Canada, organic

Methodology, sample, category

Methodology, sample, category

14 Mauracher et al. Italy Sample of 336, intercept choice experiment,

dependent on the category in question (Chryssohoidis and Krystallis 2005;

several studies show that consumers’ past experiences (Kalogeras et al.

Q5. How Do Consumers React to Pricing Measures for Organic Food

We expect that WTP and price perceptions influence purchase behavior.

Methodology, sample, category

1 Glaser and United States Scanner data analysis, 1996–1999, milk.—Considerable

Methodology, sample, category

9 Ngobo (2011) France Panel data analysis, 2004–2009, several categories,

Methodology, sample, category

across several categories, probably because organic price changes are

IMPLICATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

From a consumer policy perspective, the existence of price as a barrier

For companies aiming to support organic consumption, we suggest that

segmentation variables in the marketplace and support targeted

Tranter, R. B., R. M. Bennett, L. Costa, C. Cowan, G. C Holt, P. J. Jones, M. Miele, M. Sottomayor,

Potrebbero piacerti anche