Purchasing Motives

7/30/2019 Purchasing Motives

1/36

BFJ104,9

730

British Food Journal,Vol. 104 No. 9, 2002, pp. 730-765.# MCB UP Limited, 0007-070XDOI 10.1108/00070700210443110

Purchasing motives and profileof the Greek organic consumer:

a countrywide surveyChristos Fotopoulos

Department of Farm Management, University of Ioannina,Agrinio, Greece, and

Athanasios KrystallisAgricultural Economics and Social Research Institute, Athens, Greece

Keywords Consumer behaviour, Organic food, Purchasing, Motivation, Greece

Abstract The present study attempts to offer more insights into the Greek organic market. Itexamines the organic products as ` eco-products'', suitable for ` green'' consumers, who areecologically/environmentally ecology-aware and who are concerned with health and quality-of-lifeissues. Analysing a countrywide sample, the survey concludes that three consumer types exist interms of attitude towards, purchase intention and awareness of organic products: the `ùnaware'',the `àware non-buyers'', and the ``(aware) buyers'' (or simply buyers) of organic food products.

After developing a detailed profile of the first two, the `àware buyers'' type is segmented in termsof five groups of personality and behavioural factors, defined in the international literature as thedriving forces of organic purchasing.

IntroductionEnvironmental protection issues have become popular in Europe since themid-1980s (Greenan et al., 1997), while in the USA such matters and issues of

health protection worried consumers since the 1960s (Klonsky and Tourte,1998). Davis et al. (1995) point out the ``sudden increase of the interest'' inenvironmental issues in Europe since 1986, when citizens started mentioningthe issue of environmental protection in various studies as priority issues forgovernmental policies. Environmentalism has been quoted as one of thebiggest issues facing business and the public in the 1990s, a decade which hasbeen called ``the decade of environment'' (Pujari and Wright, 1996). Numerouswell-documented surveys have found that environmental challenge is sure tobe one of the central issues of the twenty-first century (Czinkota andRonkainen, 1995).

The question of ``consumerism'', its influence on human health and on thelong-term maintenance and renewal of the planet's resources is addressed here(Sylverstone, 1993). According to Browne et al. (2000), the growing interest in`èthical'' production (in which they include organic) have been both consumerand trade driven. Consumer theory places ethical consumerism in a ``fourthwave'' of consumerism, which seeks to reaffirm the moral dimension ofconsumer choice (Browne et al., 2000).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the Greek Ministry of Agriculture for its financialsupport provided for the accomplishment of this survey.


2/36


3/36


4/36

The Greeorgan

consum

73

characterised as higher income, young to middle aged, better educated, female(for a wider literature review on the profile of the ` greens'' see Rice et al., 1996).

It is worth mentioning here the results of a survey by Davis et al. (1995).They classified UK consumers according to their willingness to buyenvironmentally friendly products in ` light green'', ``dark green'' and ` green ofthe armchair''. The ``dark greens'' comprised 39 per cent of the sample and werethose who mentioned actively seeking to buy environmentally friendlyproducts. They were mainly women with children, who are more influenced byquality rather than by price and are guided by the ``green'' specifications whenthey decide what to buy. Only a tenth of the consumers were not interested atall in the environment, without factors such as ignorance or confusionconcerning the environmentally friendly products influencing their behaviour.The final conclusion was that the more earnest consumers of such products arewomen in the age range 35-44, of a higher socio-economic and culturallevel, who purchase at supermarkets and have children over six years old(Davis et al., 1995).

The growth of certification programs around the world also suggests a risein consumer preference for a variety of environmentally friendly products, fromapples (Blend and van Ravenswaay, 1999) and seafood (Wessells et al., 1999) totextile (Nimon and Beghin, 1999). The need for industry to participate as apartner in this process has been widely endorsed both at governmental leveland by firms' institutional bodies (Hussain, 2000). Reinhardt (1999) suggeststhat managers should make environmental investments for the same reasonsthey make other investments: ``because they expect them to deliver positivereturns or to reduce risks''. Furthermore Teils et al. (1999) point out that, from a

business perspective, eco-labelling may allow firms that use environmentallypreferred production methods to gain market share and maximise any value-added rents.

Hence, ``green'' consumerism might be characterised as a shift in tastes inresponse to firms' marketing claims, stimulating an increase in theconsumption of those products perceived as environmentally friendly, ceteris

paribus; it is assumed to act as a driver to stimulate the ``greening'' of industry.However, in order for this to happen, it is a necessary condition that ``green''consumers can, first, differentiate between competing products or processes onthe basis of their environmental characteristics, and, secondly, that the marketallows ` green'' consumers to reveal their preferences (Hussain, 2000).

While enough attention has been given to the general preferences forenvironmentally friendly products, Sriram and Forman (1993) and Teils et al.(1999) claim that our knowledge regarding the nature and the degree of``sacrifice'' that consumers are willing to make for this matter is limited. Blendand van Ravenswaay (1999) argue that different opinion poll data do notaccount for economic factors such as prices and income that affect the demandfor eco-labelled products, or for the effect of variation in the attributes of eco-labels, such as how much environmental improvement is promised or whetherit is certified by an independent third party. Also missing, until recently, has


5/36

BFJ104,9

734

been the opportunity for consumers to cast meaningful votes in the market, todifferentiate among products on the basis of environmentally soundproduction/management techniques. Because consumers cannot know howgoods are produced, information problems may result in inefficiencies andsocial welfare loss (Erickson and Kramer-LeBlanc, 1991).

As a result, Hussain (2000) concludes that, even though most people considerenvironmental issues to be of significance, this does not necessarily translatedirectly into ``green'' consumerism. Although van Dam (1991) proposed earlierthat this is not necessarily inconsistent behaviour, since consumers might facetrade-offs between environmental friendliness and other product attributes,there are also opposite opinions to environmentalism. Troy (1994, in Tilikidouand Zotos, 1999) argues that consumer purchases do not seem to reflect theirintentions as measured by environmental surveys. Thompson and Kidwell(1998) claim that the expected growth in the market share especially of freshorganic produce in US supermarkets failed to materialise in the early 1990s asconsumer concerns apparently did not translate into changes in purchasingbehaviour. Peattie (1995) suggests that such observed differences are usuallyblamed upon an over-reporting of environmental concern and not purchase.Reinhardt (1999) argues that environmental problems do not automaticallycreate opportunities to make money. Simultaneously, the opposite stance thatit never pays for a company to invest in improving its environmentalperformance is also incorrect.

The organic consumerOne type of environmental but also wider quality and health-conscious

expression is the purchase of organic products. ``Organically grown'' is indeedthe original eco-label, the prototype for all efforts to market an environmentalvalue (Lipson, 1998). Growth in organic farming in the EU has consistentlybeen around 25 per cent per year for the past ten years (AgraEurope, 1999) andsimilar expansion is reported in the US (Worner and Meier-Ploeger, 1999). Asthere is no indication of any change in the EU trend, the sector could expandfrom the 1998 level of 2 per cent of the utilisable agricultural area (2.8 millionhectares and 113,000 holdings) to 10 per cent by 2005 and 30 per cent by 2010(Lampkin, 1999). This level of growth has tremendous implications for theprovision of training, advice and other information to farmers, as well as for thedevelopment of inspection and certification procedures, the reforming of the

organic supply chain and the need for consumer knowledge.The retail sales value of organic food and beverages in Western Europe, the

USA, Canada, Australia, Japan and China was a total of US$12 billion in 1997,increased to more than 22 billion in 1998. Over this period, sales raised fromUS$4.2 to 8 billion in the USA, from 1.8 to 2.5 billion in Germany, from 0.8 to 1.2billion in France, from 0.75 to 1.1 billion in Italy and from 0.45 to 0.9 billion inthe UK (AgraEurope, 1999) and reached 1.7 billion in Japan, 1.2 billion in China,68 million in Canada and 60 million in Australia (Lohr, 1998). Consumercommitment to organics is strong throughout the EU, with 20-38 per cent


6/36

The Greeorgan

consum

73

regularly or occasionally purchasing organic foods. Denmark has set the targetfor organic food sales to be 20 per cent of the total food sector in the next fewyears (Worner and Meier-Ploeger, 1999). Retail price premiums in Europeaverage from 10 per cent to 50 per cent above conventional products. Importshares are highest in Germany, the UK and The Netherlands (Lohr, 1998). Atotal of 130 countries are now producing certified organic food, 90 of which aredeveloping countries, with ideal environmental and production conditions forthe development of a satisfactory organic produce. As the retail value of the EUorganic sector should reach 25-35 billion EURO by 2005, the sector progressesfrom niche to mainstream status (Lampkin, 1999).

In the short to medium term, lack of supply will be the main problem ratherthan lack of demand. This could open up opportunities for producers andexporters in developing countries. Nevertheless, there are two potential riskfactors: other forms of environmentally friendly and sustainable agriculturecould provide stiffer competition in the future and it would be very dangerousto assume that producers will always have price premiums. On the other hand,most developing countries are still faced with a lack of technical know-how andmarket information, market access and finance (AgraEurope, 1999), withGreece being one of them. However, as more organic products becomeavailable, more marketers anticipate that in the near future the organic``concept'' will be similar to the conventional in terms of general philosophy(Duram, 1998). In addition, the organic producer will tend ever more towardsthe model of the businessman (Dobbs, 1998). More and more processed organicfood is demanded. Customers, especially those shopping in supermarkets, wantconvenient and ``easy to prepare'' products with organic ingredients, similar

in appearance and ` quality'' to their conventional counterparts. Thecomparability of organic food with the conventional product line is certainlyone of the reasons for the increasing acceptance of organic food in the so-calledmass market (Worner and Meier-Ploeger, 1999).

Factors affecting the demand for organic produceVarious studies concerning consumer behaviour vis-a -vis the organic productshave been conducted in many countries, including the USA, UK, Netherlands,Ireland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Italy (see the more recent work byDavis et al., 1995; Roddy et al., 1996, Hutchins and Greenhalg, 1997; Reicks etal., 1997; Latacz-Lohmann and Foster, 1997; Kyriakopoulos and Oude Ophuis,

1997; Thompson, 1998; Michelsen et al., 1999; Worner and Meier-Ploeger, 1999;Santucci et al., 1999). For a wider review of the US organic consumer surveyssee Thompson and Kidwell (1998). Recently, the same trend can be observed inEastern European countries as well (see for example Kucharska and Prus, 2001;Lubieniechi, 2001; Krmpotic et al., 2001). To a limited extent in terms of samplesize or geographical distribution, organic consumer surveys have also beenconducted in Greece (Patsis and Papadopoulos, 1994; Fotopoulos, 1996; Kaldisand Gardelli, 1996; Zotos et al., 1999; Tzimitra-Kalogianni et al., 1999;Chryssochoidis, 2000).


7/36

BFJ104,9

736

Those studies designate how consumers perceive the organic concept,examining issues related to the demand for organic produce, consumers'attitudes and the factors that facilitate or hinder the acceptance of theseproducts. As Worner and Meier-Ploeger (1999) put it:

It seems that the ``typical'' organic consumer, the long-haired freak with a beard or the hippiemother with three children does not really exist. The demand for organic products is moreand more based on value concepts, living situation and access to information instead ofsocio-demographic factors.

The organic purchasing motives should be attributed to some kind ofenvironmental/ethical, quality/health consciousness and exploratory foodbuying behaviour, as well as to specific product attributes such as nutritionvalue, taste, freshness, and price (Tregear et al., 1994; Grunert and Juhl, 1995;Davis et al., 1995; Roddy et al., 1996; Reicks et al., 1997; Zanoli, 1998; Zotos et al.,1999; Worner and Meier-Ploeger, 1999; Chryssochoidis, 2000; Browne et al.,

2000). Some consumer surveys also reveal a variety of other organicpurchasing reasons that seem to reflect national interests, such as ``support toorganic farmers'' for the German consumers (Worner and Meier-Ploeger, 1999)or ``animal welfare'' for the British (Meier-Ploeger and Woodward, 1999). Notsurprisingly, the main reasons for organic purchase that the European retailers(Greek included) cite when marketing organic foods are: health, environmentalprotection, taste and animal welfare, demonstrating a kind of marketorientation of the retailing towards organic food (Michelsen et al., 1999).

The organic product purchase is, as we have seen, a matter of lifestyle choiceby environmentally conscious consumers (Sriram and Forman, 1993). Buyers oforganic products are proved to be among the most fanatically devoted ``green''

consumers. Davis et al. (1995) note that only 6.8 per cent of organic consumersare limited into only the purchase of organic products. In contrast, 44 per centof them go forward into more acts of environmental sensitivity, such as thepurchase of environmentally friendly detergents or a conscious recycle of paperor glass. Hartman (1998) claims that 48 per cent of the American populationindicates that they have a tremendous interest in purchasing environmentallysound products. In addition, ethical and organic trading are beginning toincreasingly overlap. A rising number of fairly traded goods are also organicand the organic movement is moving towards including social rights and fairtrade in its standards (Browne et al., 2000).

The matter of increased health care through proper nutrition is a key factor

influencing consumption choice. The impact of the recent food safety scandalson public opinion (e.g. BSE crisis) plays an important role in the organic foodpurchase choice. The appearance of such scandals had been pointed out earlyenough in the international literature. For example, Lacey (1992) mentions 12important cases in the UK in a period of three years 1988-1991. On the otherside of the Atlantic, concerns over chemical residues have existed for quitesome time but it was not until the Alar-sprayed apples incident in 1989 thatchemical residue issues received widespread attention (Texas A&MUniversity, 2000) The result is a lack of trust on behalf of consumers vis-a -vis


8/36


9/36


10/36

The Greeorgan

consum

73

It is worth noting that, according to Kyriakopoulos and Oude Ophuis (1997),environmental, health and quality-conscious strategies, which ignore theconsumer as a moving force of competition, risk being static over time. To tracethe views of Greek consumers is a challenge that can be a critical parameter ofsuccess. Innovative products based on consumers' needs and demands can be asolution, providing producers with clear directional lines concerning thepreferences and motives of the ` eco-product'' purchasers.

MethodologyA study of the procedure through which the Greek consumers evaluate theorganic products is, therefore, necessary and valuable. In the present study acountrywide stratified sample is used in order to examine the differencesbetween three hypothesised Greek consumer subgroups: the unaware, theaware non-buyers and the (aware) buyers of organic products. Our main

objective is to analyse further the organic buyers by identifying possibleclusters (using cluster and discriminant analysis) in terms of their quality,health and environmental consciousness, their price sensitivity, and theirexploratory buying behaviour, according to previous surveys identified in theinternational literature and presented herein. A number of these surveysoffered valuable insights for the development of the questionnaire used in thepresent case.

Sample selectionMost of the previously mentioned organic consumer studies measure attitudesregarding the purchase of organic produce rather than actual purchase choices

or behaviour (Thompson and Kidwell, 1998). The present survey is exploratoryin nature, assuming that no prior knowledge exists about the general Greekpopulation's attitudes towards the organic products. Thus, we attempt toanalyse both Greek consumers' attitudes and actual organic choice.

Regarding the more recently conducted surveys of the Greek organicconsumer, Chryssochoidis (2000) used a convenience sample of 888 foodshoppers at major supermarkets in eight cities around the country; Tzimitra-Kalogianni et al. (1999) used a convenience sample of 104 shoppers at five health-food shops in the area of Thessaloniki (second largest city of Greece); and Zotoset al. (1999) used a random sample of 1,035 consumers in the same area.

In our case, the population under investigation can be defined as:

Food purchase decision-makers (mostly females), in the age between 18 and 70, residents ofurban areas of continental Greece and the island of Crete.

Thus, the geographic location of the survey includes the two larger cities ofAthens (20.7 per cent of the sample) and Thessaloniki (12.1 per cent), as well aseight large (20.1 per cent) and 15 smaller (47.1 per cent) cities within the above-defined geographic area. A stratified sample of 1,612 respondents has beenused and distributed according to national population data and in a way thatreflects the real geographical distribution of the Greek population. Athens'


11/36

BFJ104,9

740

representativeness has been lower, though, a fact that was necessary in order toinclude in the sample as many areas as possible and, at the same time, maintainits size at an easily manageable level. The method of personal interviews atrespondents' places was selected, each one of which lasted 30-40 minutes,during the period January-April 2000. Questionnaire pre-testing and theresulting improvements took place during November-December 1999.

The questionnaire first includes an introductory ``food purchase behaviour'',``dietary habits'' and ``media use'' part. Then, the ``filter questions'' part makes thediscrimination between the three organic subgroups possible. The ` organic-related personality factors'' part follows (` environmental, health and qualityconsciousness'' measurement, together with ` exploratory food purchasebehaviour'' and ``attitudes towards organic food''), coupled with the ``non-organic-related personality factors'' part (attitude towards ` ethnocentrism'',` traditionalism'', ` convenience'', ` advertisement'' and ` food price''). These twoparts offer the possibility of analysing the behaviour of each subgroup andfurther segmenting the ``organic buyers'' type using five-point Likert agreementscales. The final part includes the socio-demographic selection strata, which aid infurther explaining the behaviour and enriching the identified consumer profiles.

Sample descriptionIt is worth mentioning that 73.8 per cent of the sample are women, justifying thecriterion of inclusion in the sample of the main food purchase decision-maker ofthe household. In terms of the socio-demographic selection strata, an attempthas been made to follow as closely as possible the 1998 National StatisticalService of Greece (NSSG) survey distribution for the overall population

(percentages in brackets, NSSG, 2000). Indeed, 18.8 per cent (15 per cent) of thesample have a university degree, 37.8 per cent (37 per cent) of the women workout-of-home and 34.6 per cent (35.9 per cent) of the sample are in the upper-average income level of US$10-20,000. In addition, 76.3 per cent (79.4 per cent)are married and 58.9 per cent (63.6 per cent) have one or two children. Regardingtheir profession, 37.8 per cent are state or private employees (scientists and non-scientists), 25.9 per cent are self-employed (scientists and non-scientists),including firm owners and superior and average level managers, and 11 per centare all education level pensioners. Finally, 22 per cent of the sample belong tothe 18-30 age group, 28.9 per cent are from 31-40, 18.9 per cent from 41-50 andanother 30.2 per cent belong to the 51-70 age group.

A number of ` food purchase behaviour'', ` diet habits'' and ` mediaconsumption'' variables were included at this stage of the research (see Table I).

It is interesting that the majority of the respondents: purchase food at leastonce per week (66.3 per cent); spend at least US$50 per week on food (83.2 percent); and most frequently shop at supermarkets (80.9 per cent) and openmarkets (75.1 per cent) with only 2.4 per cent of the sample frequentlypurchasing food at specialty shops. Only 55.1 per cent claim to follow abalanced diet. The majority of the sample are heavy TV watchers, averageradio listeners and light newspaper and magazine buyers.


12/36

The Greeorgan

consum

74

TableFood purcha

behaviour, dietapatterns and med

consumption, oversample, n = 1,6

n

Food purchase behaviourI usually purchase food (per cent)

Once/week 55.1More than once 11.2Less than once 33.7

I usually spend for food weekly (per cent) $75 37.2

I purchase at local stores (per cent)Frequently 22.3Rarely 40.6Never 36.2No answer 0.9

I purchase at supermarkets (per cent)Frequently 80.9Rarely 14.1Never 4.6No answer 0.4

I purchase at hypermarkets (per cent)Frequently 22.8Rarely 25.4Never 51.1No answer 0.7

I purchase at specialty shops (per cent)Frequently 2.4Rarely 7.4

Never 89.3No answer 0.9

I purchase at open markets (per cent)Frequently 75.1Rarely 14.3Never 10.4No answer 0.1

Diet habits (per cent)I usually have the time to eat three times/day

Strongly agree 7.9Agree 34.8Neither . . . nor . . . 17.2Disagree 33.8Strongly disagree 6.2

I consume small quantities of food frequently during the dayStrongly agree 3.9Agree 19.8Neither . . . nor . . . 24.7Disagree 44.3Strongly disagree 7.3

(continued)


13/36

BFJ104,9

742

Table I.

n

I usually eat once during the day, at home, due to my daily jobStrongly agree 4.5Agree 18.7Neither . . . nor . . . 19.4Disagree 46.9Strongly disagree 10.4

I generally believe that I follow a balanced dietStrongly agree 6.3Agree 48.8Neither . . . nor . . . 23.4Disagree 19.2Strongly disagree 2.2

Fruits and vegetables are always included in my daily dietStrongly agree 14.8

Agree 58.4Neither . . . nor . . . 16.6Disagree 8.9Strongly disagree 1.1

Media consumption (per cent)In weekdays, I watch TV for:

2 hours 63.9> 2 hours 24.9< 2 hours 10.7No answer 0.5

In weekends, I watch TV for:3 hours 56.6

> 3 hours 34.6< 3 hours 7.9Not answer 1

I listen to the radio:Every day 47Some days 33.5Never 19.5

I buy newspapers:Every day 19Some days 24.3Weekends only 15Never 41.6No answer 0.1

I buy magazines:Every week 24.6Every month 17.6Occasionally 13Never 43.1No answer 1.8

Note: a US$1: 390GRD, as in September 2000


14/36

The Greeorgan

consum

74

Analysis and empirical resultsDiscrimination between organic ` unaware'', ` aware non-buyers'' and ` (aware)buyers''In the beginning of the questionnaire a series of filter questions were included,in order to discriminate between the users and the non-users of the organicproducts (see Table II).

It is clear that stated awareness of organic products is very high among therespondents. However, when asked to provide a definition of the term, only halfof them (54 per cent) gave the accurate definition, with another approximately

Table Filter questions used

discriminate betwebuyers and non-buye

(n = 1,61

Yes aware (%) n

No unaware (%) n

1. Have you ever heard of the term

``organic products''? 81.5 1314 18.5 298

2. Could you provide a definition ofthe term?

Without chemicals 54.0Natural/pure food 9.8Healthy food 5.1No-pollution related food 3.4vsFood related to GM or chemicals 2.9Detergents 1.6Other 9.2Do not know/answer 14.0

3. What is the first thought that theterm ``organic'' brings into mind?

Healthiness 18.8 Healthiness 8.3Traditional cultivation 16.0 Traditional cultivation 4.3` Cleaner'' food 6.3 ` Cleaner'' food 10.4Without chemicals 3.5 Without chemicals 5vs vsProcessed residuals 14.7 Processed residuals 7.7Canned food 8.5 Animal products only 4.7Animal products only 4.0 Greenhouse products 6.7Greenhouse products 3.3

Do not know/answer 34.5Other 14.7

Do not know/answer 10.2

4. Those aware of the organicproducts, usually purchase them(per cent in the overall sample):

> Once per week 0.7Once per week 2.8Once per month 4.6Never 73.1Not answer 0.3


15/36


16/36

The Greeorgan

consum

74

In line with the previous findings the non-buyers exhibit (statisticallysignificant) lower education levels compared with the buyers. Both theirincome level and purchase frequency at speciality shops are lower (asexpected). Their overall diet habits seem less health-oriented, a fact that mayindicate that their profession is not as demanding as that of the buyers in termsof time devoted. In addition, they exhibit a lighter newspaper use.

Regarding the reasons for not purchasing organic food, they (strongly) agreethat the main reason is its very low availability (80.6 per cent), in line with Zotos etal. (1999), and second is its high price (40 per cent), as was the case in the US ten

Table IStatistically significa

differences (2 aone-way ANOV

between the unawa(n = 298) and the awa

consumer subgrou

Aware Unaware

Education (per cent)*Elementary 56 39.8

High school or technical school 30.5 39.6University 13.1 19.3Post-graduate 0.3 1.2

Area of residence (per cent)**Athens 16.4 21.7Thessaloniki 19.1 10.5North Greece 36.2 25.1Central Greece 12.8 17.7South Greece 16.5 24.1

Food purchase behaviour (per cent)I purchase at hypermarkets*

Frequently 18.2 24

Rarely 17.8 27.4Never 64 48.6

I purchase at specialty shops**Frequently 1 2.8Rarely 4.4 8.2Never 94.6 89.1

Media use (per cent)At weekends, I watch TV**

3 hours 66.7 55> 3 hours 26.5 36.8< 3 hours 6.8 8.2

I buy newspapers*

Every day 12.4 20.6Some days 20.5 25.2Weekends only 18.8 14.2Never 48.3 40.1

I buy magazines**Every week 19 26.4Every month 16 18.4Occasionally 14.3 13Never 50.7 42.3

Notes: * Significant for p < 0.001; ** significant for p


17/36

BFJ104,9

746

years ago (Jolly et al., 1989, in Zotos et al., 1999). Then, 29 per cent claimsatisfaction with conventional food, and not having any reason to try organic. It isencouraging that only 18.8 per cent and 6.7 per cent of the non-buyers find poorappearance and poor quality respectively as reasons of rejecting organic food andonly 9.8 per cent argue that these products have nothing special to offer to them.

Table IV.Statistically significantdifferences (2 andone-way ANOVA)between the aware

non-buyer (n = 1,184)and the buyerconsumer subgroups

Aware Unaware

Education (per cent)*Elementary 41.3 26.2

High school or technical school 39.2 43.8University 18.5 26.9Post graduate 1 3.1

Income in US$**< 10,000 14.1 3.910-20,000 42.6 49.2> 20,000 8.2 19.9Not answer 35 26.9

Food purchase behaviour (per cent)*I purchase at specialty shops

Frequently 1.5 15Rarely 6.4 24.4

Never 92.2 60.6

Diet habits (per cent)I usually eat once during the day, at home, due to my daily job*

Strongly agree 4.5 6.2Agree 18 29.5Neither . . . nor . . . 19.8 21.7Disagree 47.3 30.2Strongly disagree 10.1 12.4

I generally believe that I follow a balanced diet*Strongly agree 5.8 12.3Agree 48.1 57.7Neither . . . nor . . . 24.2 16.2

Disagree 19.9 21.7Strongly disagree 1.9 0Fruits and vegetables are always included in my diet*

Strongly agree 13.6 23.8Agree 59.3 61.5Neither . . . nor . . . 16.8 8.5Disagree 9.1 5.4Strongly disagree 1.3 0.8

Media use (per cent)I buy newspapers*

Every day 19.2 33.1Some days 24.6 30.8Weekends only 14.3 13.1

Never 41.9 23.1

Notes: * Significant for p < 0.001; ** significant for p


18/36

The Greeorgan

consum

74

The ``aware buyers'' (8.1 per cent or 130 respondents)With the use of the 4th filter question it is possible to establish a frequency oforganic products' purchase. Thus, 0.7 per cent (11 respondents) buy organic morethan once per week, 2.8 per cent (45) once per week, and 4.6 per cent (74) once per

month or less. We have already seen buyers' statistically significant characteristicsin comparison with the non-buyers. It is worth mentioning that 30 per cent of thebuyers are younger than 40 and another 23.8 per cent are between 40 and 50. Alsoof note 76.9 per cent are women and 50.8 per cent of the women work out-of-home;83.8 per cent are married and 59.2 per cent have one or two children; 30 per centhave a university degree, 49.2 per cent are in the upper-average income level ofUS$10-20,000 and another 19.9 per cent belong to the upper >US$20,000 incomegroup. Regarding their profession, 38.5 per cent are state or private employees(scientists and non-scientists), 27.7 per cent are self-employed (scientists and non-scientists), including firm owners and superior and average level managers and13.1 per cent are all education level pensioners. Finally, almost half of them (41.5per cent) live in cities and towns of southern Greece, 18.5 per cent in Thessaloniki,and only 13.1 per cent of the buyers live in Athens.

The majority of them follow the overall sample in terms of food purchasebehaviour, yet they show the highest of all sample preference towards specialtyshops (14.6 per cent). Regarding their diet habits, they exhibit a health-conscious orientation, yet it seems that their time-consuming jobs do not givethem the opportunity to follow a more healthy nutrition pattern, at least interms of meal frequency and quantity. Finally, they exhibit the heaviestconsumption of all the printed media under examination (see Table VI).

A number of additional questions tried to offer a more detailed buyer profile.

The most frequently purchased organic foods, in accordance with Tzimitra-Kalogianni et al. (1999) and Zotos et al. (1999), are tomatoes (50.8 per cent), andother vegetables such as green salads (10 per cent). Not surprisingly, thepreferences of the Greek consumers coincide with those of other Europeans, suchas the German and the British, who also mostly prefer organic fresh vegetables(65 per cent and 40 per cent respectively, Meier-Ploeger and Woodward, 1999)and whose preferences are similar to those of the US consumers a decade ago.

Table Reasons for n

purchasing organproducts, awa

non-buyer subgro(n = 1,18

Stronglyagree Agree

Neither. . . nor Disagree

Stronglydisagree

Noanswer

The reason why I do not purchaseorganic products is (per cent)Their high price 10.7 29.3 26 25.3 5.8 2.9Their poor appearance 2.5 16.3 26.6 43.8 8.2 2.5Their low availability 42.7 37.9 10 6.5 0.8 2Their poor quality 2.5 4.1 15.8 56.8 18.2 2.5That they do not have anything

special to offer3 6.8 19.9 54.1 14.3 1.9

That I am satisfied with thecommon products

3 26 36.4 27.3 5.7 1.7


19/36

BFJ104,9

748

Table VI.Socio-demographicprofile of the buyersubgroup (n = 130)

n

Food purchase behaviourI usually purchase food (per cent)

Once/week 56.2More than once 16.9Less than once 26.9

I usually spend for food weekly (per cent) 75$ 36.2

I purchase at local stores (per cent)Frequently 18.5Rarely 48.5Never 30.8No answer 2.3

I purchase at supermarkets (per cent)Frequently 75.4Rarely 17.7Never 4.6No answer 2.3

I purchase at hypermarkets (per cent)Frequently 22.3Rarely 42.3Never 33.1No answer 2.3

I purchase at specialty shops (per cent)Frequently 14.6Rarely 23.8

Never 59.2No answer 2.3

I purchase at open markets (per cent)Frequently 76.9Rarely 18.5Never 4.6No answer 0

Diet habits (per cent)I usually have the time to eat three times/day

Strongly agree 4.6Agree 24.6Neither . . . nor . . . 21.5

Disagree 44.6Strongly disagree 4.6

I consume small quantities of food frequently during the dayStrongly agree 3.1Agree 18.5Neither . . . nor . . . 27.7Disagree 30.2Strongly disagree 12.3

(continued)


20/36

The Greeorgan

consum

74

See, for example, the 1989 national survey appearing in the Packer Focus, where34 per cent of the organic consumers purchase tomatoes and another 28 per centvarious other fresh vegetables (Texas A&M University, 2000).

Therefore, the Greeks prefer olives and olive oil (8.5 per cent), oranges,potatoes, wine, fruit juices and pasta (all 3.8 per cent), other fruits (2.3 per cent),

Table V

n

I usually eat once during the day, at home, due to my daily jobStrongly agree 6.2Agree 29.2Neither . . . nor . . . 21.5Disagree 30Strongly disagree 12.4

I generally believe that I follow a balanced dietStrongly agree 12.3Agree 57.7Neither . . . nor . . . 16.2Disagree 13.8Strongly disagree 0

Fruits and vegetables are always included in my daily dietStrongly agree 23.8Agree 61.5

Neither. . .

nor. . .

8.5Disagree 5.4Strongly disagree 0.8

Media consumption (per cent)Every weekday, I watch TV for:

2 hours 57.7> 2 hours 33.1< 2 hours 9.2No answer 0

Every weekend, I watch TV for:3 hours 44.6> 3 hours 47.7< 3 hours 7

I listen to the radio:Every day 54.6Some days 27.7Never 17.7

I buy newspapers:Every day 33.1Some days 30.8Weekends only 13.1Never 23.1

I buy magazines:Every week 30Every month 18.5Occasionally 18.5Never 33.1

Note: a US$1: 390GRD, as in September 2000


21/36


22/36


23/36


24/36


25/36

BFJ104,9

754

organic buyers appear willing to try new dishes and combinations, althoughanother one third of them seem sceptical or even reluctant.

While the majority of the organic buyers disagree with the statement thatthe advertising messages are always true, they also seem sceptical about the

opposite (that the advertising messages are always ``lies''). They rather agreethat advertising messages always tend to exaggerate. In addition, only onethird of them pay attention to the food products' in-store promotional activities,and another one third claim not to pay attention to the advertisements thataccompany foods, indicating a lack of interest in, or even confidence for theadvertisement campaigns, a fact that has serious strategic implications andneeds further analysis.

Segmenting the Greek organic marketIn order to identify in more detail the Greek organic market, a number ofpersonality factors related to the organic products' purchasing decision wereused, such as: the ` exploratory food purchasing behaviour'', the ` quality'',` price'', ` healthiness'' factors and the ` environmental and ethical concerns'',measured on a five-point agreement scale (1: ` totally agree'' to 5: ` totallydisagree''). A quick clustering approach (SPSS 10.0, k-means clustering) wasselected, with the options of 3, 4 and 5 clusters, given the size of the buyers' sub-group. The choice of four clusters (43 per cent, 22 per cent, 12 per cent and 23per cent of the users) was finally preferred, due to the greater number ofdiscriminating between-cluster variables and the more straightforward profiledevelopment. Discriminant analysis established clusters' accurate selection(Wilks' lambda 0.005 and F= 0.001), with 100 per cent of the cases correctlyclassified (see Figure 1).

The discriminating (between the four clusters) power of the 53 experimentalvariables can be seen in Table IX, together with a numerical description of thefour clusters (the result of the cross-tabulation between the 1: ``totally agree''and 2: ` agree'' scores of the 53 experimental variables and the cluster-membership variable). It is clear that the great majority of these variables (83per cent) can be used as between-cluster discriminating factors, a fact thatincreases their selection accuracy. The ``health'' and ``quality'' factors seem tobe the most powerful, followed by the ` exploratory buying behaviour'',` environmental sensitivity'' and ` price sensitivity'' factors.

Then, the profile of the four clusters is developed based on these and the

statistically significant variables of Tables V, VII and VIII, seen in part F ofTable IX. It has to be noted that all clusters exhibit high percentages of (strong)agreement regarding all the experimental statements and that the organicproducts' purchase frequency does not statistically differ among the clusters:

. Cluster 1 (43 per cent). It is constituted by ``highly exploratory, married,older female buyers'' (or simply ``explorers''). They exhibit the secondhighest, after cluster 3, exploratory buying behaviour, the secondhighest, after cluster 4, price sensitivity and their quality, healthinessand ethical organic purchasing motives are average. Their overall good


26/36

The Greeorgan

consum

75

opinion about the organic products is also average. Their choice ofsuperior healthiness and environmental friendliness as organicpurchasing reasons and their involvement in the purchasing process arelow. They are of higher education and higher income levels compared to

the non-buyers, yet, within the buyers' subgroup, they are considered ofaverage to low education. The percentage of females and married amongthem is the second highest of all clusters. Finally they exhibit the highestfood purchase frequency (together with cluster 4) and weekdays' TVuse.

. Cluster 2 (22 per cent). It is constituted by ``environmentally conscious,very educated, young to middle-aged buyers'' (or simply ``greens''). Theyexhibit the highest environmental consciousness, which is their onlyorganic purchase motive (``green'' consumers). They exhibit the lowestpercentages regarding their exploratory buying behaviour, the quality,

price and healthiness as purchasing motives, and their price sensitivityand involvement in the purchasing process. Their overall good opinionabout the organic products is average. They are of higher education andhigher income levels compared with the non-buyers, yet, within thebuyers' sub-group, they are of the highest education of all. Thepercentage of females and married among them is the lowest of allclusters, almost equally dividing them between the two sexes andmarital statuses. They finally exhibit the lowest food purchasefrequency and very low weekdays' TV use.

Figure Graphical result

discriminant analysfour-cluster soluti

(n = 13


27/36


28/36

The Greeorgan

consum

75

Explorers

(42%)

``Greens''

(22%)

Motivated

(12%)

Pr

ice-sensitive

(23%)

Variables

Sig.

Strongly

agree(%)

Strongly

agree(%)

Strongly

agree(%)

Strongly

agree(%)

C.

Price:Tome,itisimportantthatthefoodIeateverydayis:

26Notexpensive

*

19.6

7.7

11.1

27Cheap

n.s.

11.8

3.8

3.7

28``valueformoney''priced

n.s.

39.2

30.8

50

37

29Ialwayscomparethepric

edifferenceswhenchoosinganoutlet

n.s.

29.4

30.8

14.3

37

30Ialwayspayattentionto

thepricereductionsinsidetheoutlets

**

25.5

23.1

21.4

44.4

D.

Health:Tome,itisimportantthatthefoodIeateverydayis:

31Richinvitamins

*

23.5

15.4

100

85.2

32Richinproteins

*

23.5

11.5

78.6

85.2

33Richinfibre

*

15.7

11.5

92.9

81.5

34Nutritional

*

23.5

11.5

92.9

92.6

35Poorincalories

*

15.7

3.8

100

85.2

36Helpingmecontrolmyweight

*

9.8

3.8

100

92.6

37Poorinfat

*

19.6

7.7

100

96.3

38Helpingmecontrolmystress

*

92.9

92.6

39Helpingmeinmyday

*

5.9

92.9

92.6

40Helpingmerelax

*

2

100

88.9

41Keepingmeawake

*

92.9

88.9

42Makingmymood

*

3.9

92.9

88.9

E.

Ethics:Tome,itisimportantthatthefoodIeateveryday:

43Hasitscountryoforiginclearlywrittenonthelabel

**

29.4

30.8

92.9

40.7

44Itisproducedinanenvironmentallyfriendlyway

*

39.2

42.3

100

37

45Itispackedinrecycledm

aterial

*

37.3

42.3

100

40.7

46Doesnotcontainchemicalresiduals

**

41.2

50

100

51.9

47Iamalwaysverywellinformedabouttheacidrainproblem

n.s.

11.8

3.8

64.3

18.5

48Iamalwaysverywellinformedaboutthewaterpollution

**

21.6

3.8

71.4

14.8

49Iamalwaysverywellinformedabouttheozoneproblem

n.s.

15.7

15.4

78.6

14.8

50Iamalwaysverywellinformedaboutthenuclearwastesproblem

*

13.7

7.7

71.4

11.1

(continued)

Table IX


29/36


30/36


31/36

BFJ104,9

760

consumers do not have a particularly innovative behaviour regarding theirfood selection, preparation and purchase. An interesting extension here wouldbe to test the uni-dimensionality of the relevant statements used in Table IX foreach of the constructs. This would provide a more interesting insight and couldbe used to evaluate whether certain buyer clusters are more traditional,ethnocentric etc.

In addition, the Greek organic buyers appear indifferent towardsadvertisements, whose messages they seem to mistrust. The fact that theysought information on organic products mainly from (possibly misleading)sources such as their friends and family and the almost complete lack of anyorganised state or private promotional campaign (a fact also identified byearlier pan-European studies; see, for example, Michelsen et al., 1999) shouldalarm us. The responsibility to educate the public is a complicated andcorporate task of the state, producers, firms, retailers involved and

specialists, whose absence is a common finding in many nutrition and healthsurveys of the EU public (see, for example, Shine et al., 1997 and Lappalainenet al., 1998).

Despite the declared high awareness of the organic concept, the fact thatalmost half of the aware consumers could not give its exact definition andanother 25 per cent were totally mislead is discouraging. An interestinganalysis here would be to examine the exact distribution of that 25 per centamong the three subgroups. Among the buyers, for example, 32 per cent seemconfused as to the discrimination between the organic and the conventionalfood and 16 per cent are unable to explain the difference between them. Thisconclusion, in line with earlier surveys of more ``mature'' organic markets (see,

for example, Peattie, 1990), indicates that the Greek organic market, althoughmore mature five to eight years ago, is still lagging a decade behind the rest ofthe developed organic markets (in terms of size, for example, it is 12 yearsbehind the US organic market). An additional indication of the lack of realawareness, in spite of the high percentages stated, is the correlation betweenawareness and proximity to the organic producing areas of the country; and allthis despite the previous finding that education is the key factor thatdifferentiates the users from the non-buyers.

It is also very important to stress that the major cause of organic products'non-purchase is their very low availability in the Greek market, directly stated

by the non-buyers and in line with previous Greek surveys. Indirectly, the sameholds for the buyers through their stated low purchase frequency at all theusual organic retail outlets and their confusion regarding the almost non-existence in the Greek market of organic branded products and well knownorganic brand names. This is despite the fact that the biggest value of an eco-label is information. According to Lipson (1998):

. . . the real path-breaking message of the organic label is that it stood for the ability of theconsumer to reliably know how a given item of food is produced. This is a subtle quality ofthe organic label, and not an overt part of its marketing approach . . . .


32/36


33/36

BFJ104,9

762

Low real awareness, consumers' contradictory perceptions, lack of anyeducational/communication activity, low availability and high prices have beenidentified as the major causes of the observed low penetration of the organicproducts in the Greek market. The fact that quality, healthiness, tastiness andappearance are not included in the organic product disadvantages stated by thelarger subgroup of the aware buyers is the most encouraging output of oursurvey. The problems of Greek organic agriculture in the market do not stemfrom the product per se, but rather are of a third-party nature and, thus, arereversible provided there is open-minded co-operation of all the partiesinvolved. For the organic sector to achieve the predicted level of growth, a highdegree of confidence building is required, due to the perceived financial, socialand psychological barriers to conversion. The right policy signals fromgovernment and other policy-related institutions are required, in addition tomarket signals from consumers and the food industry, access to information

and the removal of all institutional barriers or antagonisms. A furthersegmentation of the aware non-buyer subgroup in terms of the same fiveorganic purchase behaviour variables will provide a more detailed picture ofthe non-buyers, further explain the organic rejection reasons revealed in thepresent study and possibly identify potential organic product buyers.

Note

1. All data from national sources, reported in Michelsen et al. (1999).

References

AgraEurope (1999),Euro-Organics '99, Conference, 26 November, pp. 8-10.

Beharrell, B. and Crockett, A. (1992), ``New age food, new age consumer'', British Food Journal,Vol. 94 No. 7, pp. 5-13.

Blend, J.R. and van Ravenswaay, E.O. (1999), ``Measuring consumer demand for ecolabeledapples'',American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 1072-7.

Browne, A.W., Harris, P.J.C., Hofny-Collins, A.H., Pasiecznic, N. and Wallace, R.R. (2000),``Organic production and ethical trade: definition, practice and links'', Food Policy, Vol. 25,pp. 69-89.

Chase, D. and Smith, T.K. (1992), ``Consumers keen on green but marketers don't deliver'',Advertising Age, Vol. 29, June, pp. S2-4.

Chryssochoidis, G. (2000), ` Repercussions of consumer confusion for late differentiatedproducts'',European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 5/6, pp. 705-22.

Conklin, N. and Thompson, G. (1993), ``Product quality in organic and conventional produce: isthere a difference?'',Agribusiness, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 295-307.

Czinkota, M.R. and Ronkainen, L.A. (1995), ``Global marketing 2000: a marketing survival guide'',Readings in Global Marketing, The Dryden Press, Fort Worth, TX.

Davis, A., Titterington, A.J. and Cochrane, C. (1995), ``Who buys organic food? A profile of thepurchasers of organic food in N. Ireland'',British Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 10, pp. 17-23.

Dobbs, T.L. (1998), ` Price premiums for organic crops'', Choices, 2nd quarter.

Duram, L. (1998), ``Organic agriculture in the US: current status and future regulation'', Choices,2nd quarter.


34/36

The Greeorgan

consum

76

Erickson, A. and Kramer-LeBlanc, C.S. (1991), ` Ecolabels: the link between environmentalpreferences and green practices?'', in Caswell, J.A. and Cotterill, R.W. (Eds), Strategy and

Policy in the Food System, NE-165 Conference Proceedings, Washington, DC.

Follows, S.B. and Jobber, D. (1999), ` Environmentally responsible purchase behavior: a test of a

consumer model'',European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 5/6, pp. 723-46.Fotopoulos, C. (1996), ``Strategic planning for expansion of the market for organic products'',

Agricoltura Mediterranea, Vol. 126, pp. 260-9.

Fotopoulos, C. and Krystallis, A. (2001), ``Defining the organic consumer and his willingness topay for selected food products in Greece: a countrywide survey'', paper presented at the51st Atlantic Economic Society Conference, 13-20 March, Athens.

Greenan, K., Humphreys, P. and McIvor, R. (1997), ` The green initiative: improving quality andcompetitiveness'',European Business Review, Vol. 97 No. 5, pp. 208-14.

Grunert, C.S. and Juhl, J.H. (1995), ``Values, environmental attitudes and buying of organic foods'',Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 39-62.

Hartman, H. (1998), ``Consumer and retailer interest in eco labeling'', Eco Labeling for CaliforniaWinegrapes: Working Conference Proceedings, pp. 11-14, 4 February, Sacramento,available at: www.sarep.ucdavis.edu

Hussain, S.S. (2000), ` Green consumerism and eco-labeling: a strategic behavioral model'',Journalof Agricultural Economics, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 77-89.

Hutchins, R.K. and Greenhalg, L.A. (1997), ` Organic Confusion: Sustaining CompetitiveAdvantage'',British Food Journal, Vol. 99 No. 9, pp. 336-8.

Kaldis, P. and Gardelli, C. (1996), ``Market and marketing aspects of organic farming products ofGreece'', in Mattas, K., Papanagiotou, E. and Galanopoulos, K. (Eds), Agro-Food SMEs in a

Large Integrated Economy, Wissenschauftsverlag Vauk, Kiel.

Klonsky, K. and Tourte, L. (1998), `Òrganic agricultural production in the US: debates anddirections'',American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 80 No. 5, pp. 1119-24.

Krissoff, B. (1998), `Èmergence of US organic agriculture can we compete: discussion'', paper

presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, SaltLake City, UT, 2-5 August.

Krmpotic, T., Musnaic, G., Ivancevic, S. and Birovljef, J. (2001), ` Consumer behavior and attitudesregarding agricultural and organic food products in Jugoslavia'', paper presented at the72nd EAAE Seminar, 7-10 June, Chania.

Kucharska, T. and Prus, P. (2001), ``Consumer approach to ecological food market in Poland acase study'', paper presented at the 72nd EAAE Seminar, 7-10 June, Chania, Crete.

Kyriakopoulos, K. and Oude Ophuis, A.M. (1997), `À pre-purchase model of consumer choice ofbiological foodstuff'', Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 8No. 4, pp. 37-53.

Lacey, R. (1992), ``Scares and the British food system'', British Food Journal, Vol. 94 No. 7,pp. 26-30.

Lampkin, N. (1999), ``From niche to mainstream for EU organic farming'', Euro-Organics '99AgraEurope Conference Proceedings, London.

Lappalainen, R., Kearney, J. and Gibney, M. (1998), `À pan-EU survey of consumer attitudes tofood, nutrition and health: an overview'',Food Quality and Preference, Vol.9 No. 6,pp. 467-78.

Latacz-Lohmann, U. and Foster, C. (1997), ` From niche to mainstream. Strategies for marketingorganic food in Germany and the UK'',British Food Journal, Vol. 99 No. 8, pp. 275-82.

Lipson, M. (1998), ``The first èco label': lessons from the organic experience'', Eco Labeling forCalifornia Winegrapes: Working Conference Proceedings, pp. 11-14, 4 February,Sacramento, available at: www.sarep.ucdavis.edu


35/36

BFJ104,9

764

Lohr, L. (1998), `Ìmplications for organic certification for market structure and trade'', AmericanJournal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 80 No. 5, pp. 1125-9.

Lubieniechi, S. (2001), ``The Romanian consumer behaviour regarding organic food'', paperpresented at the 72nd EAAE Seminar, 7-10 June, Chania.

McCloskey, J. and Maddock, S. (1994), ` Environmental management: its role in corporatestrategy'',Management Decision, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 27-32.

Meier-Ploeger, A. and Woodward, L. (1999), ``Trends between countries'', Ecology and Farming,Vol. 20, January-April, p. 15.

Michelsen, J., Hamm, U., Wynen, E. and Roth, E. (1999), The European Market for OrganicProducts: Growth and Development, Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy,Vol. 7, Hohenheim.

Mikkelsen, B.E. (1993), `Òrganic foods in catering'', Nutrition and Food Science, Vol. 3, May-June,pp. 10-14.

National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG) (2000), Official Data Series, NSSG, Athens.

Nimon, W. and Beghin, J. (1999), `Ècolabels and International trade in the textile and apparel

market'',American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 1078-83.OECD (1997), ` Uses of food labelling regulations GD(97)150'', OECD, Paris.

Ottam, J.A. (1992), Green Marketing, NTC, Lincolnwood, IL.

Pantzios, C. and Tzouvelekas, V. (1999), `Òrganic agriculture in Greece'', in Fotopoulos, C. (Ed.),The Production System of the Organic Agriculture as an Alternative for the Development ofGreek Rural Areas, ETHIAGE Publications, Athens (in Greek).

Patsis, G. and Papadopoulos, K. (1994), `Òrganic products from the consumers' aspect'', 3rdHellenic Agricultural Economic Society (ETAGRO), Conference Proceedings, Athens (inGreek).

Peattie, K. (1990), ``Painting marketing education (or how to recycle old ideas)'', Journal ofMarketing Management, Vol. 6 No. 2,pp. 105-25.

Peattie, K. (1995),Environmental Marketing Management, Pitman Publishing, London.Pujari, D. and Wright, G. (1996), ``Developing ènvironmental' new products: an integrative

review, conceptualisation and research proposition'', Marketing in an Expanding Europe,25th EMA Conference Proceedings, Budapest, May.

Reicks, M., Splett, P. and Fishman, A. (1997), ``Shelf labeling of organic foods: effects on customerperceptions and sales'', Working Paper 97-03, The Retail Food Industry Center, Universityof Minnesota, St Paul, MN.

Reinhardt, F.L. (1999), ``Bringing the environment down to earth'', Harvard Business Review,Vol. 78, July-August, pp. 149-57.

Rice, G., Wongtada, N. and Leelakulthanit, O. (1996), `Àn investigation of self-efficiency andenvironmentally concerned behaviour of Thai consumers'', Journal of InternationalConsumer Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-19.

Roddy, G., Cowan, C.A. and Hutchinson, G. (1996), ` `Consumer attitudes and behaviour to organicfoods in Ireland'',Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 41-63.

Santucci, F.M., Marino, D., Schifani, G. and Zanoli, R. (1999), ``The marketing of organic food inItaly'',Medit, No. 4, pp. 8-14.

Shine, A., O'Reilly, S. and O'Sullivan, K. (1999), ``Consumer attitudes to nutrition labelling'',British Food Journal, Vol. 99 No. 8, pp. 283-9.

Sriram, V. and Forman, A.M. (1993), ` The relative importance of products' environmentalattributes: a cross-cultural comparison'', International Marketing Review, Vol. 10 No. 3,pp. 51-70.


36/36

The Greeorgan

consum

76

Stare, F.J. (1993), ``Nutrition labeling vs nutrition education a perspective'', Nutrition Today,Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 36-7.

Sylverstone, R. (1993), `Òrganic farming: food for the future?'', Nutrition and Food Science, Vol. 5,September-October, pp. 10-14.

Teils, M.F., Roe, B. and Levy, A.S. (1999), Ècocertification: why it may not be a `field of dreams''',American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 1066-71.

Texas A&M University (2000), A Guide to Marketing Organic Produce, available at: http://extension-horticulture.tamu.edu

Thompson, G.D. (1998), ``Consumer demand for organic foods: what we know and what we needto know'',American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 80 No. 5,pp. 1113-8.

Thompson, G.D. and Kidwell, J. (1998), `Èxplaining the choice of organic produce: cosmeticdefects, prices, and consumer preferences'', American Journal of Agricultural Economics,Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 277-87.

Tiilikainen, A. and Huddleston, P. (2000), `Èffect of environmental soundness on consumers'food evaluation, and willingness to buy'', Journal of International Food and Agribusiness

Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 23-43.

Tilikidou, I. and Zotos, Y. (1999), `Ècological consumer behaviour: review and suggestions forfuture research'',Medit, No. 1/99, pp. 14-21.

Tregear, A., Dent, J.B. and McGregor, M.J. (1994), ``The demand for organically-grown produce'',British Food Journal, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 21-5.

Trognon, L., Bousset, J-P., Brannigan, J. and Lagrange, L. (1999), ``Consumers' attitudes towardsregional food products. A comparison between five different European countries'', 67th

EAAE Seminar Proceedings, 28-30 October, Le Mans, France.

Tzimitra-Kalogianni, I., Papadaki-Klaudianou, A. and Tsakiridou, E. (1999), ` Consumerbehaviour and information on organic and hygiene products'',Medit, No. 2/99, pp. 10-15.

van Dam, Y.K. (1991), `À conceptual model of environmentally conscious consumer behaviour'',20th EMA Conference Proceedings, University College, Dublin.

Wessells, C.R., Johnston, R.J. and Donath, H. (1999), ` Assessing consumer preference forecolabeled seafood: the influence of species, certifier, and household attributes'', American

Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 81 No. 5,pp. 1084-9.

Worner, F. and Meier-Ploeger, A. (1999), ``What the consumer says'', Ecology and Farming,Vol. 20, January-April, pp. 14-15.

Zanoli, R. (1998), ``The economics and policy of organic farming: the state of the art'', 4th ENOFWorkshop Proceedings, Edinburgh, 25-6 June, pp. 57-68.

Zilberman, D., Templeton, S.R. and Khanna, M. (1999), `Àgriculture and the environment: aneconomic perspective with implications for nutrition'',Food Policy, Vol. 24, pp. 211-29.

Zotos, Y., Ziamou, P. and Tsakiridou, E. (1999), ``Marketing organically produced food productsin Greece'', Greener Management International, Vol. 25, Spring, pp. 91-104.

Documents

Purchasing Motives