Faculty of Bio-Science Engineering
Academic year 2011 – 2012
The impact of country-of-origin labelling (COO) on food product preference
The case of Belgian versus Brazilian chicken meat
Lopez Elliot Promotor: Prof. dr. ir. Wim Verbeke Co-promotor: dr. ir. Filiep Vanhonacker
Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master Science in Human Nutrition and Rural
Development
Abstract
The purpose of this master thesis is to provide an in-depth examination of importance of
country-of-origin (COO) theory in perceptions of consumers in a national setting. It shows how
explanatory factors like socio-demographics, familiarity with a country’s products, given
importance to food attributes, and willingness to pay for a foreign country product jointly work
to explain consumers’ COO perceptions. Cross sectional data were collected from a web based
survey through the panel “thesistools” (n = 542). This is a quantitative study using a
questionnaire with 27 questions among Belgian consumers in the Region of Flanders and
Brussels.
Findings: Country-of-origin (COO) was the least important product attribute in a list of 13
attributes on average. Yet, findings showed that it‘s importance differed between consumers. A
profile is drawn of consumers with a different level of interest in origin, in terms of socio-
demographics, and different attitudinal measurements. Further, the impact of country-of-origin
was investigated for chicken meat with Belgian versus Brazilian origin, and the association
between preference for Belgian chicken meat and country image (significantly different),
ethnocentrism (significantly different), interest in foreign cultures (not significant), familiarity
with the country (not significant) was investigated, according to country-of-origin theories.
Research limitations/implications: The study used only respondents from two of the
three regions of Belgium. Future research should seek to develop a multi-dimensional scale for
chicken meat of different countries of origin.
Practical implications: It seems important to increase consumers’ familiarity with a COO
and its products to improve its overall perception. Products imported from developing countries
have the lowest level of familiarity in general. Thus, increasing familiarity with their products is
particularly important to achieve export success.
AKNOWLEDGEMENT
After working during months, I want to say that this work would not have been possible
without the collaboration of many persons that contributed to get to the final book.
First of all, I thank to God, spirituality and faith have drive my life the last years.
Then I would like to thanks to my family that in the distance have supported me and give
me the encouragement needed to pursue my objectives and dreams. To my mom who tought
me the importance of education and being an agent of change, Lupina, you have been my
example all my life, and I will always thank you for all your efforts and help and inconditional
love, mami te quiero mucho!
To my brother Emir Lopez and my sister Erika Lopez who are my examples of excellence, I
love you guys more than you think, and through all this process I thought a lot about you, is
going to take a while to get where you are but I will meet you in your careers dreams.
Very special thanks to my promoter, Prof. Dr. ir Wim Verbeke, who allowed me to be part
of an incredible dynamic and organized team or researchers of the Faculty of Bio-science
Engineering at Ugent. To Dr. ir. Filiep Vanhonacker, who helped me and supported me through
the whole procedure with his quick emails and accurate revisions, without your guidance,
patience and kindness this work would not have been possible, I will always thank you for that.
To all collaborators that facilitated me information in a very efficient and friendly way:
Bastin Valérie (Attaché), Direction générale Potentiel économique. Direction des
Industries agroalimentaires (Belgium)
Dethise Réjane. Documentatiecentrum OIVO (Belgium)
Dr Edith Hoc. AFSCA. DG Politique de contrôle (Belgium)
Dr. Pierre Naassens. Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (AFSCA)(Belgium)
Pottier Jean, Regulatory Expert Food Labelling, Nutrition and Health Claims. Animal, Plant
and food Directorate-General. Service Food, Feed, Other Consumption Products,
Eurostation/Eurostation (Belgium)
Samborski, Vincent. Landbouw en Visserij - Vlaanderen.be, Department of monitoring and
Studies (Belgium)
Vanderhasselt Roselien, Instituut voor Landbouw- en Visserijonderzoek. Eenheid Dier -
Veehouderij en dierenwelzijn (Belgium)
I would also like to thank to the coordinator of our Master in Science in Human Nutrition
and Rural Development, Ann-Marie De Winter, always encouraging students to pursue their
objectives, energetic and positive towards all type of difficulties, I see you as an important agent
of change in the world, and want to thank you for the work that you do giving support and
opportunities to those that probably needed the most.
To the university of Gent and their excellent team of professors, researchers and
collaborators, impacting my life through knowledge and inspiring through their passion for
sciences
To my best friend Antoine Pacco, who helped me until the very last minute, Bolinho ‘Dank
u wel’!. To my friends Marijke Geerts, Bérénice Goffinet, Caroline Smeyers, Celine and Sophie
Van den Abeele, Kris and Karen Mathay, Ariel Eberstein, Siska van Nieuwenhove, Anna Munchin,
Lauret Benchariff and Igor T’Serstevens, who became pillars in the difficult moments, sharing my
worries and my succeeds.
pg. 1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ANOVA Analysis of variance
BE Belgium
BR Brazil
COO Country of Origin
COOL Country of Origin labeling
EC European Commission
EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de pesquisa agropecuária (Brazilian agricultural research
cooperation)
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
LDCs Low developed Countries
MDCs Middle Developed Countries
MMT Millions Metric Tones
R2adj Adjusted R square
SD Standard Deviation
SE Standard Error
SEM Standard Error of the Mean
USA United States of America
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
VLAM Vlaams Centrum voor Agro- en Visserijmarketing vzw (Flemish Centre for
Agriculture and Fish marketing
WTP Willingness To Pay
pg. 2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Major Producers of Broiler Meat. 2010............................................................................ 14
Table 2. Major Exporters from Broilers in the World, 2010........................................................... 15
Table 3. Belgian neto production of poultry meat (in tones, carcass weight (kg)) ........................ 16
Table 4. Selected socio-demographic characteristics of the sample (n=542) ............................... 31
Table 5. Factor loading from principal components analysis for evaluation of knowledge and
ethnocentrism ................................................................................................................................ 37
Table 6. Factor loading from principal components analysis for evaluation of interest in foreign
cultures ........................................................................................................................................... 37
Table 7. Mean scores and standard deviation on a 7 point scale that ranged from (1) ‘Totally
unimportant’ to ‘Strictly important’ ............................................................................................... 39
Table 8. Relative Importance of Country of Origin for Quartiles ................................................... 40
Table 9. Socio-demographic profiling of Quartiles......................................................................... 42
Table 10. Comparison among quartiles of RI scores of food attributes of BE vs. BR chicken meat
........................................................................................................................................................ 44
Table 11. Difference among quartiles for preference of BR vs. BE chicken meat ......................... 49
Table 12. Difference among quartiles for perception of economic development scores BE-BR .. 51
Table 13. Willingness to pay for chicken meat of developed and developing countries .............. 52
Table 14. Difference among quartiles for interest in foreigner cultures ....................................... 53
Table 15. Difference among quartiles regarding familiarity to BR ................................................. 54
Table 16. Difference among quartiles for willingness to pay for BR vs. BE chicken products ....... 55
pg. 3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Major Producers of Broiler Meat in Quantity (ready-to-cook-equivalent) ..................... 14
Figure 2. Production of broilers chicken in Belgium by region*, 2000-2011 (pieces) ................... 16
Figure 3. Composition of Poultry Livestock in Belgium, in pieces (2000-2010) ............................. 17
Figure 4. Example of Country of Origin Labeling in a Food Product .............................................. 28
Figure 5. Evaluation of product attributes of Brazilian versus Belgian meat ................................. 45
Figure 6. Evaluation of Brazilian Chicken Meat Production (means) ............................................. 46
pg. 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .............................................................................. 1
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... 2
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................. 6
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE THESIS ........................................................................................................... 9
1.2 THESIS OUTLINE ..................................................................................................................... 10
1.3 HYPOTHESIS .......................................................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................................... 12
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 12
2.1 Chicken Meat .................................................................................................................... 12
2.1.1 Poultry consumption and Trade ................................................................................. 12
2.2 Country of Origin ............................................................................................................... 18
2.3 Influencing Factors of COO ............................................................................................... 20
2.3.1 Socio Demographics Characteristics Influence .......................................................... 20
2.3.3 Country image ............................................................................................................ 23
2.3.4 Ethnocentrism ............................................................................................................ 24
2.4 Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for meat commodity: Legal Framework .................... 26
2.4.1 Communication and consumers................................................................................. 28
2.4.2 Consumer’s Responses ............................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................................... 30
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................ 30
3.1 Study Design and Subjects ................................................................................................ 30
3.3 Questionnaire and Scales .................................................................................................. 32
3.4 Analyses procedures ......................................................................................................... 35
pg. 5
CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................................... 36
4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 36
4.1 Data Editing ....................................................................................................................... 36
4.2 Profiling Variables ............................................................................................................. 38
4.2 Segmentation of variables ................................................................................................ 39
4.3 COO and Country image .................................................................................................... 44
4.3.1 Product perception BE vs. BR ..................................................................................... 44
4.3.2 Production methods perception BE vs. BR................................................................. 45
4.3.3 Perception of broiler chicken farms size BE vs. BR .................................................... 47
4.4 COO and Ethnocentrism .................................................................................................... 47
4.5 COO and Willingness to Pay .............................................................................................. 50
4.6 Interest in foreign cultures................................................................................................ 52
4.6.1 COO and familiarity .................................................................................................... 54
4.7 Influence of level of processing ........................................................................................ 55
CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................ 57
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 57
pg. 6
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Interest in country of origin has increased in society along the years. A large body of
research has provided strong empirical evidence of country-of-origin (COO) effects on product
evaluations. COO have been found to affect the significance of how consumers associate with
distinct foods and may influence their preferences. In an expanding global economy, aspects
concerning country-of-origin (COO) and the advantages/disadvantages of its communication are
gaining importance, especially in the agro-food sector. For many consumers worldwide, origin
has been identified to be a determining purchase criterion in food consumption.
Meat consumption has increased in the last decades, shifting preferences for white over
red meat, being chicken meat the favorite of global consumers. Health concerns, economic
changes and global trade, are some of the possible factors affecting these changes. As result of
the increasing demand of chicken meat, production of fresh and processed chicken meat
products have increased in many developing countries, such as Brazil, which possess the natural
resources, as well as the workforce to produce in big scales. Imports related to the inability to
cope with the demand of production, and as a result of the benefits from international prices,
have also increased in developed countries such as Belgium.
Food marketing seems to have a great influence in consumers purchase, and as a result of
that, changing legislations around food safety and food origin in Europe have been changing and
improved, in order to protect consumers from misleading information, but also to give the
choice to the consumer to get to know deeper the quality attributes of the food product they
are purchasing.
We investigated this issue with regard to chicken meat in a consumer survey directed to
Dutch speaking citizens in Belgium (Flanders and Brussels Capital Region, further referred to as
Flanders). The results of our investigation are the subject of this contribution. To estimate
consumers’ importance attached to country of origin and ethnocentrism influence we used a
survey with categorical and continuous variables (dichotomous and Likert scale). The sample
selection in our approach was based on the consumer’s purchase option of chicken meat in
pg. 7
Flanders. Survey data was gathered through self-administered web-based questionnaires,
respondents were members of a panel managed by Thesistools.
This study will profile consumer’s segments (quartiles) that differ in (relative value)
importance of country of origin as a food product attribute. The specific focus on the poultry
sector is motivated by the significance of the sector in the study area, Flanders (northern region
of Belgium); also by its significant higher production of chicken meat in Belgium. Brazil was
chosen as comparative country due the importance of its contribution in the world poultry
production, but also because it is the first non-EU (developing) country from where chicken
meat is imported to Belgium.
The segmentation is a necessary tool in order to form groups with specific characteristics
and to compare them with the variables that are relevant to the influence of country of origin as
a food product attribute. Distinct consumer profiles can be established providing insights as to
how to target, communicate and convince these distinct groups to purchase different countries
of origin’s products. We will use country of origin importance as an indicator for the market
opportunities of imported chicken meat, while the relative value of country of origin, as a
product attribute, will be considered for the ethnocentric positioning of Belgian consumers.
The increasing consumption of chicken meat and processed chicken products in Europe is
of interest to local and international markets. The relationship between constituents of meat
and a healthy diet, (concerns related to saturated fat in animal products, illness and weight),
lower cost increasing production in developing countries, and sustained demand for protein
origin food products has been related to it. Negative association with red meat consumption
and the debate around use of hormones, BSE, food safety, animal welfare, and global price
changes can be considered as factors influencing the shifting to the increasing chicken meat
consumption at the expenses of red meat and other poultry.
It is believed that the influence of the labeling of the country of origin seems to have an
impact in consumer’s preferences. It is important, therefore, to understand how consumers
perceive chicken meat attributes (such as country of origin, price, appearance, freshness,
environmental friendliness and animal welfare, among others), and how these affect the
consumption and purchase intentions with respect to domestic and imported products.
pg. 8
Little consumer research has been done specifically with respect to perception of country
of origin labeling from Belgian consumers for chicken meat and their processed products
imported from developing countries. Hence, the scarcity of insights in consumer perception
towards chicken meat provenance, support the motion of the present master’s research.
pg. 9
1.1 Objective of the thesis
The overall objective of the present research is to obtain insights in the role of COO as a
food product attribute among Flemish consumers related to domestic versus Brazilian chicken
meat . More specifically, the following four specific research objectives are hereby set forth:
The main objectives of the paper were:
1. Verify the importance of different food product attributes in food purchasing
decisions of chicken meat (and the ranking of COO in that list)
2. Profile groups with different levels of interest in COO in terms of socio-
demographics, responsibility for food purchase, meat consumer profile, and
consumption frequency.
3. Verify whether theory of COO is also applicable in food product preference for the
case study of Belgian versus Brazilian chicken meat in the context of:
- Country Image; it is expected that the perception that consumers have regarding
the image of Brazil would have an effect in the quality evaluation of its products
- Ethnocentrism; studies support a positive relationship between a favorable
perception of domestic products and the preference for products of an equal
level of economic development, as well as similarity with respondents' cultural
and belief systems.
- Interest for foreign cultures; Consumers with a strong interest in foreign cultures
appear to rate imported food products more highly than consumers who are less
interested.
- Perceived similarity; Food products from countries with similar cultural
backgrounds and belief systems tend to be evaluated more positively than
products from countries with dissimilar belief systems, the halo effect of a
country’s image also influence products evaluation.
The present research focuses on chicken meat evaluation as one product category, and
narrows down to processed food which as main ingredient contain chicken meat.
pg. 10
1.2 Thesis outline
This thesis consists of a literature review related to chicken meat consumption and trade,
country of origin labeling, ethnocentrism, socio-demographics characteristic´s influence in
consumer´s preference and food quality attributes, among the most important. Chapter 1,
provides the introduction, lists of abbreviations and acronyms, tables and figures for a better
guide to the reader, and objectives of the present research.
Chapter 2, provides literature findings from concepts of interest related to the subject of
the thesis. In the first subdivision of this part chicken trade is underlined, including world and
local production (Brazilian and Belgian), imports, exports and consumption. In the second
subdivision country of origin importance as a food product attribute is described. An overview
of important related concepts, such as country image, ethnocentrism and socio-demographics
characteristics are also described. In the third subdivision food attributes considered in the
questionnaire used are briefly discussed. In the fourth subdivision the relationship between
COO labeling and consumer’s response is underlined.
Chapter 3, this chapter describes the materials and methods used in the present research
to evaluate the effect of COO in consumer’s perception of credence attributes. Also this section
describes the study design and socio-demographics characteristics of the subjects, the
questionnaire and scales, the segmentation profiling and the statistical analysis.
Chapter 4, provides a descriptive analysis of the results of the effect of COO on
consumers’ attitudes. This section describes the results obtained for the positioning of COO
compared to others food attributes, as well as it influence when computed as a Relative value
when evaluating preference of BR. Vs. BE chicken meat. A description of the results of the
relationship between COO and country image, ethnocentrism, interest in foreign cultures and
perceived similarity is also commented in this section.
Chapter 5, provides the general conclusion, the most important findings, and
recommendations for further research are set forth.
pg. 11
1.3 Hypothesis
The present research attempts to investigate the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Segments with a different level of importance attached to COO differ in terms of
socio-demographics characteristics, meat consumption type and frequency of meat
consumption
Hypothesis 2: Differences exist between consumers' evaluation of Belgian and Brazilian chicken
meat and chicken meat production
Hypothesis 3: Importance attached to COO is positively related to consumer preference for
domestic chicken.
Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between importance attached to COO and level of
ethnocentrism.
Hypothesis 5: Consumers are willing to pay more for domestic products/developed country
products than for foreigner/developing country products.
Hypothesis 6: Products from countries with similar cultural backgrounds or belief systems will be
evaluated more positively than products from countries with dissimilar belief systems.
Hypothesis 7: Importance of COO will be less important for processed chicken meat as
compared to chicken breasts
pg. 12
CHAPTER 2
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Shifting trade patterns, and the emergence of developing countries as significant
exporters of fresh and processed goods, have resulted in a resurgence of markets protectionism
over the past few decades. To protect consumers and domestic manufacturers, governments in
industrial nations have undertaken measures that range from imposing import barriers, to
legislations that mandate a number of public information by labeling. Advertisement pursuing
consumers to “buy domestic” and increasing varieties of imported food products have
generated differences in evaluating the importance of food attributes, and therefore food
purchase (Papadopoulus & Heslop, 1990).
The globalization of markets and food production within the last two decades have
underscored the need for greater proficiency in understanding the impact of product’s
attributes and country image on cross-national consumer’s behaviour. Research on country-of-
origin (COO) effects, for example, has shown that such proficiency can contribute to the
development of effective global marketing programs by synthesizing the attitudinal constructs
observed in different national markets with strategy formulation (Baughn & Yaprak, 1993). In
the present chapter we will find a literature review related to chicken meat trade and
consumption; evaluation of food attributes, being the main focus COO, and concepts related to
consumer’s food preferences.
2.1 Chicken Meat
2.1.1 Poultry consumption and Trade
The evolution of production of poultry as source of edible animal protein has increased in
the last years. The consumption of meat in developed countries has increased from 76.3
kg/person/year in 1980 to 82.1 kg/person/year in 2005 (FAO, 2009). This tendency has
maintained relatively stable but varying respect to the source of meat, with an increase of
pg. 13
chicken meat (within the poultry category) consumption and decrease of cattle meat. By 2010
the average Belgian citizen consumed 9.5 kg/person/year of fresh chicken meat, by 2011 this
increased to 10 kg/person/year (VLAM, 2012). According to some revision, the consumption of
cattle meat have decreased not only due the price (Fulginiti, 1996) but also due an imago factors
(Rozin, Fischler, Imada, Sarubin, & Wrzesniewski, 1999), concerns of health (Stafleu, de Graaf, &
van Staveren, 1994) and credence issues such as proportion of saturated fat (Valsta,
Tapanainen, & Männistö, 2005), food safety issues such as link to use of hormones (Alfnes &
Rickertsen, European Consumers’ Acceptance of US Hormone-Treated Beef, 2003), bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), dioxin contamination (Verbeke, Viaene, & Guiot, Health
Communication and Consumer Behavior on Meat in Belgium: From BSE until Dioxin, 1999), and
environment of production, among others (Lusk, Roosen, & Fox, 2001).
At a global level, and as response to the demand, total poultry meat production has
increased from 69 in 2000 to 94 million tons in 2008, corresponding to an augmentation of 35%
of the production, 86% represented by chicken (FAO, 2010). Global markets have focused on the
production of broiler, known as the type of chicken specially bred for meat production (Gallus
domesticus) because it grows much faster than an egg breed of chicken (FAO, 2010). In this
thesis we will focus only in the definition of EU that specifies that broiler or chicken “is the fowl
in which the tip of the sternum is flexible (not ossified)” (EU, No 543/2008).
Estimation of poultry production reports show differences according to the source,
sometimes presenting overestimation/underestimation, difficult to discriminate. According to
the USDA, for 2010, the United States of America was the first producer in quantity and value of
broiler chicken, followed by China and Brazil (see Table 1).
The forecast of the global production for 2012 is to increase, driven by strong domestic
demand in China and Brazil, however, growth will be slower than the previous years, given the
rising cost of feed and a slowdown in U.S. production (USDA, 2011).
During the last decade, Brazil has increased remarkably its meat production, being the
quantity of poultry meat exports fivefold. In nominal value, Brazil’s net export of livestock
products has gone from US$435 million in 1995 to US$7280 million in 2006. Brazil has
pg. 14
increasingly taken advantage of low feed production costs for its livestock industry and it seems
to remain as an important producer of feedstuffs (FAO, 2009), (see Figure 1).
Table 1. Major Producers of Broiler Meat. 2010
Producers 2010 MMT
United States of America 16.6
China 12.6
Brazil 12.3
EU-27 9.1
Mexico 2.8
World 76.0
Million Metric Tons/MMT Ready-to-cook Equivalent
Source: USDA. http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/CP2011/Broilers-2011-Final.pdf
Figure 1. Major Producers of Broiler Meat in Quantity (ready-to-cook-equivalent)
Source: USDA-FAS attached reports, official statistics, and results of office research. * Forecast ciphers
Notes: Chicken paws are excluded
Since 2000, the amount of imported poultry has increased in Europe (7.5 million kg in
2008, primarily from the EU, Brazil and Thailand), but is mostly used in the convenience food
industry as well as in restaurants and institutional catering units (FAO, 2010). The preference for
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 *(f) 2012
Area
USA
China
Brazil
UE-27
Mexico
pg. 15
broilers already cut and prepared (processed in meals or products) have also increased in
comparison with the whole chicken sales (VLAM, 2012). Factors such as the increased price of
chicken feeding and geographical availability for livestock production, have beneficiated
countries like Brazil, where soy and corn production have increased in the last years, and where
natural-resource endowments influence positively the output of chicken production, allowing it
to become the first exporter of the world of broilers (see Table 2), and the primary country non
EU that export broilers to Belgium (FAO, 2009; FAO, 2010; ABEF, 2010). In 2010, Brazil was
responsible for the 49% of the imports of fresh meat coming from non-EU countries in Belgium,
by the third trimester of 2011 this increased to 69%.
Table 2. Major Exporters from Broilers in the World, 2010
Major Exporters 2010 MMT
Brazil 3.2
United States of America 3.1
EU-27 1.0
Thailand 0.4
China 0.4
World 8.8
Million Metric Tons/MMT Ready-to-cook Equivalent
Source: USDA. http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/CP2011/Broilers-2011-Final.pdf
By 2009, according to the reports of VLAM, broilers chicken production in Belgium
accounted for 91% of the total poultry category that includes rabbit and wild animals (see Table
3). It is however important to comment on the difficulties presented to interpret and compared
production, when figures are published in terms of slaughtering per piece, tones (kilograms) of
actual meat (sometimes including fowls), carcass weight, and the discrimination of chicken meat
and laying eggs hens within the poultry category.
pg. 16
Table 3. Belgian neto production* of poultry meat (in tones, carcass weight1 (kg))
Category 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Rabbit meat (incl. wild)
27838 34965 27517 34734 34838 39394 43845 44196 43179 41836
Chicken meat 400360 406172 459076 423590 460611 446835 458000 446203 422252 477359
Other poultry 6866 6815 8594 5729 7328 7328 7132 5769 11689 4826
Total 435064 447952 495187 464053 502777 493557 508977 496168 477120 524021
Source: CLE and NIS (VLAM, 1999-2009) *Refers to real slaughtered pieces without counting the losses
Flanders represents the strongest contributor for livestock production in Belgium,
therefore its selection as sample region for our research (Figure 2). For 2010, 84% of the poultry
meat in Belgium was produced in the Flemish region, while 16% in the Wallonia region,
increasing for 2011, being 85/15% respectively for both regions, denoting a decrease of the
production in the Wallonia region.
Figure 2. Production of broilers chicken in Belgium by region*, 2000-2011 (pieces)
Source: http://statbel.fgov.be FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie. a. Preliminary results *Includes loses
1 For poultry it is the weight of the cold body of the slaughtered farmyard poultry after being bled, plucked and
eviscerated. The weight includes poultry offal, with the exception of foie gras. For other species, 'carcass weight' is considered to be the weight of the slaughtered animal’s cold body (EC).
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
Flemish Region Wallonie Region Brussels Region
pg. 17
The trade of poultry has fluctuated among EU countries for the last ten years, with a
tendency of decreasing production growth (FOD Economie, K.M.O), and decreasing of exports
within the EU region and to third countries (no members of EU region).
The quantity of broilers grow-out farms have decreased in Belgium (Viaene & Verheecke,
2008; Bernaerts & Demuynck, 2009), and although the ability to cope with difficulties,
technology and other factors that have allowed production to increase their output by farm,
during the year 2010-2011 there were less slaughtered chickens (see Figure 5). By 2009 there
were 3710 grow-out firms while for 2010 were 3642 in Belgium (-1.8%), production fluctuates
between 5000-50.000 broilers/farm.
Differently to Belgium, Brazilian chicken farms have increased not only in number but also
in density of production; improvement in genetics, feeding and management had contributed to
this. There are farms from 2550 m2, with 15m of length and 150 of broad, working with 30.000
birds, having approximately 14 birds per square meter (Rural, 2009). According to the Secretary
of Agriculture from Parana State (SEAB), by October 2011 was reported a growth of 7,9%, going
from 14.059 registered farms in October 2010 to the current 15.177 existing (Aveworld, 2011).
Figure 3. Composition of Poultry Livestock in Belgium, in pieces (2000-2010)
Source: VLAM. http://www.vlam.be/marketinformationdocument/files/Samenstellingveestapel2000-2010.pdf
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
Pie
ces
Small chicken/eggs producers
Broiler chicken
Others
pg. 18
2.2 Country of Origin
Country of origin and the importance given to it, represent the main subject from interest
for the present research.
The country of origin (COO) of a food product has become an important marketing tool in
the last decades. After studying different characteristics of importance from a food product,
researchers started to notice that the country of origin of a product and the image that
consumers have about countries, may influence their preferences (Roth & Romeo, 1992; Juric &
Worsley, 1998; Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999; Chryssochoidis, Krystallis, & Perreas, 2007; Ehmke,
Lusk, & Tyner, 2008; Schnettler, Vidal, Vallejos, & Sepúlveda, 2009; Pouta, Heikkilä, Forsman-
Hugg, Isoniemi, & Mäkelä, 2010; Yeh, Chen, & Sher, 2010).
Dichter (1962) was the first to argue that a product’s country origin might influence
consumer’s acceptance of products (Dichter, 1962). One of the first empirical test found
significant differences in the evaluation of products that were identical in all respects, except for
the name of the country specified on a “made in” label (Schooler, 1965). Since then, the
evaluation of COO effect as a food cue has been the subject of a large number of studies.
It has been affirmed that COO has a great impact on product evaluations when
consumers are less motivated to process available information (Maheswaran, 1994) therefore is
an extrinsic cue from high interest to be study.
COO is a complex term to define since the manufacturing can take place in different
locations. Consumers can see the brand where the product has been manufactured but actually
is impossible for consumers to determine where the raw material is coming from and which
ingredients from a food product have been produced in which country. COO represent an
extrinsic quality cue, those are related to everything that is product-related, such as price or
packaging, while intrinsic quality cues, are part of the physical product, such as color or fat
content, (Jacoby & Olson, 1977; Bredahl, 2004; Bilkey & Nes, 1982).
Researchers such as Verlegh and Steenkamp (1999) made a distinction between
cognitive, affective and normative aspects of COO. He proposed that the cognitive aspect of
COO might be regarded as an extrinsic cue for product quality. The affective aspect is related to
pg. 19
symbolic and emotional associations with COO, and the normative aspects are related to
customer preference and to the decision to purchase or avoid a country’s products being this
also related to a pro or contra attitude to the policies and practices of a country. However
different studies have shown that COO is not only a cognitive cue. Some researchers (Hong &
Wyer Jr., 1989; Hong & Wyer, 1990; Li & Wyer Jr., 1994) showed that the impact of COO cannot
be explained entirely by a quality interpretation process. Besides being used as a quality cue,
COO has a symbolic and emotional meaning to consumers, by associating a product with status,
authenticity and exoticness, moreover, it relates a product to a rich product-country image, with
sensory, affective and ritual connotations and is also related to national identity, which can
result in a strong emotional attachment to certain brands and products (Verlegh & Steenkamp,
1999).
The COO may have a positive or negative effect according to the category of the product;
this is known as Domestic Country Bias (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2004). It has been also
discussed that there is an interaction between product category and product origins (Erickson,
Johansson, & Chao, 1984; Roth & Romeo, 1992). Therefore, consumer evaluations of, or
preferences for foreign products can be product, origin, or product/origin-specific.
The importance of COO has been studied in different types of products and as an
exclusive product attribute, as well as related to another food attributes, different findings have
been reported. During an evaluation from different attributes, Pouta et al (2010) observed that
price had a significant negative effect, as most of the times expected, but that country of origin
had a significant positive impact on the probability of choice. When compared to Thailand as the
reference level, the products originating from all other countries (Finland, Denmark and Brazil)
were preferred by Finnish consumers. Broiler fillets from Denmark were closest to the Finnish
alternative in terms of the country of origin. Moreover, the probability that broiler fillets from
Brazil were chosen was also higher than for Thailand (this may be also explained by the avian
influenza epidemic by the moment when the study was performed).
Many of these studies concluded that COO should not be studied as an exclusive cue,
and that citizens from developed countries might have a different response when evaluating
products from a developed country compared to developing countries. It is therefore from
pg. 20
interest to further investigate about this matter (Juric & Worsley, 1998; Verlegh & Steenkamp,
1999; Bolliger & Réviron, 2008; Ehmke, Lusk, & Tyner, 2008).
2.3 Influencing Factors of COO
2.3.1 Socio Demographics Characteristics Influence
Through the years researches have proved that it is necessary to consider the
heterogeneity of the cultures and the different characteristics among them. Consumer
behaviour can not only be predictive by one or few socio-demographic characteristics. It has
been found a relationship between COO´s evaluation and characteristics related such as age,
gender, and education level (Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Wall, Liefeld, & Heslop, 1991; Alfnes, 2004;
Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Mourali, 2005). Schooler (1971), for example, found that
older, male, less educated and white consumers were more likely to rate foreign products from
less developed countries less favorably, while females rated foreign products more highly than
males, Dornoff et al. (1974) could not confirm this for products made in more developed
countries (Schooler, 1971; Anderson & Cunningham, 1972; Dornoff, Tankersley, & White, 1974).
Researchers have found that persons with more education tended to rate foreign
products more highly than persons with limited education (Schooler, 1971; Anderson &
Cunningham, 1972). It has also been reported that higher income persons tended to have a
more favorable acceptance of foreign products in general than did lower income persons
(Wang, 1978).
There is evidence that subcultures within a population with different cultural
characteristics, such as difference of language, may influence culture identification and
subsequently create differences in their consumer related behaviour (Laroche & Brisoux, 1989;
Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Bergeron, 2003).
Socio-economic and demographic groups have been also studied in relation to food
willingness to pay and purchase, being COO a determinant that changes according to different
groups. For example, in the study of Juric and Worsley (1989) they observed that New
pg. 21
Zealanders from higher socio-economic groups tend more to accept foreign products and that
this might be related to their attitude to experiment with foreign cuisine, but also that they
accept easily products from less developed countries due their low prices.
It is important to consider the development of effective international marketing
strategies that are sensitive to subcultural differences within a country to succeed in the
marketplace (Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Bergeron, 2003).
2.3.2 Quality and Food Attributes
Attribute importance is defined as a person's general assessment of the significance of an
attribute for products of a certain type. Attributes often play a determinant role in the outcome
due their relation with product beliefs in the evaluation process (MacKenzie B., 1986).
Whereas beliefs are the cognitive knowledge that consumers have for attributes, attitudes
are the feelings or affective responses. The standard learning hierarchy or high involvement
theory (being high involved those who have knowledge about the products and apply it in their
assessment) indicates that beliefs go first, followed by affects, and at last by consumer’s
behaviour. In other words, the consumer´s ‘belief’ (i.e: quality of the product produce in a
developed country) will be determinant, if these beliefs cope with the product, the next step in
the evaluation will be how do consumers ‘feel’ about this product (i.e: do they feel identify with
it because is manufactured in their own country?) and if this condition is fulfilled, consumer’s
behaviour will be the result with purchase of the product. However, some researchers are
skeptical that attitudes can be a good predictor of consumer’s behaviour (Verbeke, Viaene, &
Guiot, 1999).
There is general agreement that quality has an objective and a subjective dimension.
Objective quality refers to the physical characteristics built into the product and is typically
define by engineers and food technologists. Subjective quality is the quality as perceived by
consumers (Grunert K. , 2005). Quality perception can be evaluated through specific food
attributes, or as a single overall cue, it is determined by different factors, one of the most
important are sensory properties due they contribute to a product’s aesthetics, being related to
pg. 22
shelf-life, conformance and reliability (Issanchau, 1996). The overall quality evaluation is based
upon the perceptions of the product with regard to the quality attributes (Grebitus, 2008).
The categorization of cues of the product, intrinsic (e.g. appearance, colour, shape,
presentation) or extrinsic (e.g. price, brand name, stamp of quality, country of origin, store,
production information and nutritional information) was described by Steenkamp (1989). Two
types of quality attributes are distinguished, experience quality attributes, such as convenience,
freshness and sensory characteristics that can be experienced at the time of consumption, and
credence quality attributes, such as healthiness, naturalness and wholesomeness that cannot be
experienced directly. Finally, the overall quality evaluation is hypothesized to be based upon the
perceptions of the product with regard to the quality attributes (Becker, 2000). Freshness has
been pointed out as the most important credence quality attribute cue used as indicator of
quality safety by consumers (Becker, 2000).
One of the most important attributes looked at by a consumer influenced by the
information is how safe a food is. Consumers expect governments regulate and assure food
safety; they expect all food offered in the market to be intrinsically harmless and safe. In normal
conditions consumers are not as worried about this food characteristic as they are about others,
however the occurrence and publicity about food safety incidents can influence food
preferences and consumer behavior towards this characteristic (Lusk, Roosen, & Fox, 2001;
Alfnes & Rickertsen, 2003; Verbeke & Ward, 2003; Loureiro & Umberger, 2007).
Different food safety incidents, and exposure to meat crisis (diseases and effects on the
meat consumption) have influenced meat consumption negatively, particularly in Europe, and
the food industry and governments have reacted taking measures and working towards
restoring consumer confidence in meat as a safe food product. Traceability systems, quality and
origin labeling schemes have been used as a good instrument for addressing the problem, COO
has been associated to these, improving consumer’s confidence, however, it has been said that
consumers seem to present selectivity in paying attention to information cues, and that
sometimes an overload of information may mislead the attention and have adverse effects on
consumers attitude (Verbeke & Ward, 2006). For example, in groups of food such as meat and
pg. 23
fish, has been demonstrated that consumer pay more attention to cues such as expiration date,
species name, weight and price than health and nutrition information.
Animal welfare is other food attribute that has been used to evaluate quality. It has been
noticed that depending on their socio-demographic characteristics, consumer seek for
information and have different perceptions of attributes such as animal welfare. Welfare quality
is based on; good housing, good feeding, good health, and appropriate behavior of animals
(Vanhonacker, Van Poucke, Tuyttens, & Verbeke, 2010). Consumer’s perception of animal
welfare has been considered to influence food choice due the believe that livestock growth
conditions and standards in developing countries, are less optimal that in developed countries,
being from interest in consumer’s preference (Carlsson, Frykblom, & Lagerkvist, 2005), however,
some others have found that is often evaluated with a less priority compared to primary
attributes of a food product, such as general quality, health, and safety (Vanhonacker, Van
Poucke, Tuyttens, & Verbeke, 2010).
2.3.3 Country image
The images that consumers have of countries have been acknowledged to have an
impact on their propensity to purchase products from those countries (Papadopoulos, 1993).
In 1992, Roth & Romeo proposed that: country image is the overall perception
consumer’s form of products from a particular country, based on their prior perceptions of the
country's production and marketing strengths and weaknesses. These definitions attempt to
explain that the image that consumers have towards a country, the goods produced and their
manufacturing ability may be only a perception without objective knowledge, and this
perception will influence the consumers’ behaviour.
Nagashima (1970) defined country image as the picture, the reputation, the stereotype
that business men and consumers attach to products of a specific country. This image is created
by such variables as representative products, national characteristics, economic and political
background history, and traditions. Narayana's (1981) defined country image as "the aggregate
pg. 24
image for any particular country's product that refers to the entire connotative field associated
with that country's product offerings, as perceived by consumers".
Researchers have studied how the image of a country that produces specific products
can influence positively or negatively the perception about other products from the same
country of origin (Usunier & Cestre, 2007). It has also being said that unlike brands and
corporate images, those of nations and other places, are not directly under the marketer’s
control. It is important therefore, to consider consumer’s perception of strengths (or
weaknesses) among competing countries across products (Papadopoulus & Heslop, 1990;
Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Bergeron, 2003) and the interaction of the different
factors that may influence the country image, willingness to pay, consumer preferences, and
final purchase. It has also been studied that consumers use the country image to infer the
quality of a product, this is due they are unable to detect a product quality before purchase,
which also suggest that consumers use country attitude to evaluate products that they have not
purchased before but that they infer have the same quality as other products from the same
country of origin (Erickson, Johansson, & Chao, 1984; Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999; Bredahl,
2004; Pouta, Heikkilä, Forsman-Hugg, Isoniemi, & Mäkelä, 2010). From a consumer perspective,
quality research derives from perceived quality and not from quality in an objective sense . This
effect of country image might influence the perception of the objective evaluation of attributes
from food imported from developing countries (compared to developed countries), due the
relationship inferred from economical development and quality standards (Juric & Worsley,
1998; Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2004).
2.3.4 Ethnocentrism
According to various studies, the cause of the appearance of COO effect can be found in
consumer ethnocentrism (CE) (Lantz & Loeb, 1996). The concept of ethnocentrism started from
the concept we-group feelings, where the in-group is the focal point and all out-groups are
judged in relation to it (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2004). The origin of this concept was
introduced by William Graham Sumner (1906) who referred to ethnocentrism as “the technical
pg. 25
name for the view of things in which one’s own group is the centre of everything, and all others
are scaled and rated with reference to it” (Graham Sumner, 1906).
According to Shimp & Sharma (1987), consumer’s ethnocentrism serves as an important
motivation for the decision to purchase domestic products. It acts as a reference and influence
consumers’ judgments of the morality of purchasing foreign made products. Consumer
ethnocentrism has been positively related to consumer preference for domestic products, and
negatively related to preference for foreign products (Shimp & Sharma, 1987). This indicates
that the perceived morality of purchasing foreign (vs. domestic) products has an impact on
consumers’ product attitudes. Researchers such as Juric and Worsley (1998) suggest that
ethnocentrism, should be included as an important characteristic in studies regarding consumer
choice of foreign products, but that other independent or moderating variables should be
included as predictors of consumers' perceptions of foreign food products in future research-
variables such as consumers' perceptions of people from a particular country, familiarity with
that country and that country's products, their personal values, political convictions or risk
attitudes.
Ehmke et al. (2008) found that subjects do prefer food from their own country, but the
importance of own COO is relative to other product attributes and is not consistent across
locations, and these preferences can be influenced by the information given to the public and
in accordance with the government’s regulation.
Juric and Worsley (1998) affirmed that consumers use general country attitudes to
evaluate taste of the unfamiliar products and that consumers' ethnocentrism may have a
significant role in the purchase of foreign products compared to domestic ones. Choice
experiments (Juric & Worsley, 1998; van der Lans, van Ittersum, De Cicco, & Loseby, 2001;
Alfnes, 2004; Ehmke, Lusk, & Tyner, 2008) as well as other studies (Orth & Firbasová, 2003) have
demonstrated that consumers tend to prefer food from culturally similar countries of origin,
indicating ethnocentric tendencies.
In the present study we will refer to CE in a context of the beliefs from Belgian
consumers about the economic environment and product’s quality similarities as result of
beliefs held about appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made products.
pg. 26
Country of origin, as an information cue, has been related to activate ethnocentric
behaviour and the antecedent knowledge of consumers, which subsequently affect the
interpretation and evaluation of product attributes, it is therefore of importance to understand
these relationships (Chryssochoidis, Krystallis, & Perreas, 2007).
2.4 Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for meat commodity: Legal Framework
Nutrition labeling is one example of a population-based approach aimed at helping to
make the food selection environment more conducive to healthy choices by providing
information to consumers about the nutrient content of a food (Cowburn & Stockley, 2004). In
the European Union the organism in charge to regulate labeling the country of origin of a food
are the European Council and Parliament, together with the Commission the European Food
Safety Agency.
The Regulation of the EU No. 1169/2011 indicates that the country of origin or the place
of provenance of a food should be provided whenever its absence is likely to mislead consumers
as to the true country of origin or place of provenance of that product. Such criteria should not
apply to indications related to the name or address of the food business operator (EU, No.
1169/2011).
The EU legislation is clear about the case labeling COO of pre-packaged poultry meat and
fresh poultry meat, being mandatory when imported from third countries (EU, No 543/2008).
During the research of legislation for poultry meat in EU we could found specifications for
imported poultry meat, but not knowing if COOL is mandatory for domestic poultry meat, either
specification other type of poultry.
There is a new proposal of legislation (Regulation EU 1169/2011) that imposes that by 13
December 2013, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the
Council regarding the mandatory indication of COO or place of provenance for meat used as an
ingredient. This regulation imposes that: (a) the COO or place of provenance of the primary
ingredient in question shall also be given; or (b) the COO or place of provenance of the primary
ingredient shall be indicated as being different to that of the food. This regulation impose that
pg. 27
will be mandatory to indicate the place of birth; the place of rearing; and the place of slaughter,
being applied for all agricultural products and foodstuffs, including chicken meat as poultry. This
will apply for all origins, domestic and imported.
To be able to compare current food legislations, we look at legislation from other
developed country. We found that in USA the Agricultural Marketing Agency is the organism in
charge of the administration and enforcement of COOL. In 2007 was released the latest final
rule for all food commodities combined (CFR 60 and 65), in this regulation is described who has
to label and how has to be labeled different food commodities. However is not an easy task for
consumers to discriminate through this information.
For example Country of Origin Notification for Muscle Cuts. “Under the August 1, 2008,
interim final rule, if an animal was born, raised, and/or slaughtered in the United States and was
not imported for immediate slaughter as defined in § 65.180, the origin of the resulting meat
products derived from that animal could have been designated as product of the United States,
Country X, and/or (as applicable) Country Y, where Country X and Country Y represent the actual
or possible countries of foreign origin” (Fig. 4). As European Union does, the USDA also has
attempt to label and identify food that is been produced or not in their territory, however when
is written that if the animal is slaughter in the USA territory but not if imported for slaughtering,
becomes a confusing identification of the food product, how many months do the animal has to
enter in the territory in order to be consider as USA product, and even if the product is
identified as requested with several (if necessary) countries of origin, how is this going to affect
food preferences and consumer behaviour. It is due all of these factors that several studies are
needed in order to estimate the effect that these regulations have in different countries and in
the global market.
pg. 28
Figure 4. Example of Country of Origin Labeling in a Food Product
2.4.1 Communication and consumers
Communication and information provision efforts can have an impact in terms of
changing consumers’ knowledge, shaping their attitudes and redirecting their decision making,
including food choices and dietary preferences. Due to the high demand of information by the
consumers, food industry has to seek ways to offer guarantee concerning food quality and food
safety, but consumers are not only looking for a guarantee of food safety, they also are looking
for a better health, price-quality relation, to know about the origin of the product and the way
of how is been produced and processed, and all these factors are as well, under the influence of
the quantity and quality of information consumers receive through the public media, but as well
through their own governments or official reports. Some of the labeling information is used
some of the time, but circumstances dictate which details are used at one time, different people
look for different things, and buying decisions are less to be swayed by labeling than by factors
such as quality, value and price (Turner, 1995; Knight, Holdsworth, & Mather, 2007).
2.4.2 Consumer’s Responses
The present master thesis attempt to investigate and confirm through hypothesis and
results the importance given by the consumer to COO as food attribute.
pg. 29
Selling and purchasing food, one of the most basic commodities, used to be an everyday
social experience, but because of the development of the industries and the scarcity of time it
has become an anonymous process with minimal personal interaction, even without any face-
to-face contact when shopping on the internet. Most of the purchases for food items and other
products, at least in urbanized areas in developed and some developing countries, are done in
supermarkets where there is little interaction between staff and customers and where the
consumers have no much time to invest about the origin and method of production from the
food they purchase. Food attributes then, can be determinant in de final purchase decision.
COO labeling can provide consumers with additional information to make informed
choices about the food they wish to purchase and consume (TACD, 2008). To understand
consumer’s behaviour, it is needed an analysis that interprets the conduct occurring at the
intersection of the individual’s learning history and the consumer setting, as well as the signals,
utilitarian and informational consequences associated with consumption-related responses
(Foxall, Oliveira-Castro, James, & Schrezenmaier, 2011), it is important therefore to pay
attention to marketing research.
pg. 30
CHAPTER 3 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Study Design and Subjects
Survey data were collected through self-administered web-based questionnaires during
November 2011 in Flanders. Questionnaires were pretested. Participants were randomly
selected from consumer access panel “thesistools”. The master questionnaire was developed in
English and translated to Flemish.
The total sample consisted of 542 respondents (Table 4). The sample comprised a wide
socio-demographic variety. Compared to census data, our sample consists of a higher share of
males (+5%) (Belgium, 2012). The age of the respondents ranged from 20 to 84 years, with an
average age of 48.84 years (SD = 13.31), which is somewhat above the population’s average age
(43.6 years). With regard to household size an oversampling of families with 2-3 members was
encountered. Concerning living environment, we created three categories measured on a Likert
scale that went from 1, closest to rural, and 7, closest to urban, obtaining two main groups,
where closer to urban population predominated. Equal sampling of the provinces Flemish
Brabant, Antwerp, West Flanders, East Flanders, and Brussels Capital Region were presented.
Regarding nationality of parents, the sample presented a predomination of both Belgian
parents. With regard to family financial situation and educational level, an oversampling of
higher educated people with a better than average financial situation was found in the sample.
Regarding food purchase responsibility, the majority of the sample participated in these
activities, while only 12.9% was not participating in food purchase.
In addition, the percentage of vegetarians in the study is reported. Strictly speaking,
vegetarianism is the practice of following a diet that excludes meat (including slaughtered by-
products; fish, shellfish, other sea animals; and poultry). However, vegetarianism has several
variants, some of which are more flexible and include fish (pescetarianism) or stricter and
exclude eggs and dairy products on top of the meat (veganism). In this study, vegetarians are
referred as to the three previous categories (veganism, pescetarianism, vegeterianism). Given
pg. 31
the study purpose, it will be important to consider this group separately, especially for analyses
concerning the consumption of chicken meat.
Table 4. Selected socio-demographic characteristics of the sample (n=542)
Structure of the Sample Census*
Gender (%) Male 53,7
Female 46,3
Age (%) 20-30 12,0 31-40 14,6 41-50 23,5 51-60 30,9 >60 18,9
Household size (%) Single household 11,3 Family with 2-3 members 55,2 Family with 4-5 members 29,4 Family with 6-7 members 4,1 Mean (SD) 2,92 (1,36)
Residence (%) Closer to rural 48,0 Middle category 9,7 Closer to urban 42,4 Mean (SD) 3,92 (2,10)
Province (%) Brussels Capital Region 3,7 10 Flemish Brabant 15,8 10 Antwerp 31,5 16 Limburg 8,9 8 West Flanders 16,2 11 East Flanders 23,8 13
Nationality of parents (%) Both parents were Belgian 92,8 At least one parent was foreigner 7,2
Financial Situation (%) Below average 7,8 Average 32,2 Better than average 60,0
Educational Level (%) Primary school 3,1 High school 23,8 Higher education (no universitary) 40,1 Higher education (university) 32,9
Responsible for food purchase (%) Main responsible 44,3 Shared responsibility 42,8 Other person does the food purchase 12,9
Meat consumer profile (%) Vegetarian 5,2 Mostly Vegetarian 12,0 Mostly meat 58,9 Almost always meat 24,0
Chicken Consumption frequency (%) Never 5,0 Less than Monthly 4,6 Monthly 14,4 Weekly 59,8
pg. 32
2-4 times per week 15,3 Daily 0,9
*Source: FOD Economie. Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie, Structuur van de bevolking.
3.3 Questionnaire and Scales
First, variables representing the socio-demographic characteristics were included.
Respondents were asked about their gender, age, number of household members and zipcode.
Within demographics variables living environment was assessed by a seven-point interval scale
ranging from “rural” to “urban”. Education level was assessed by a 4 categories scale that
included: “Diploma from primary school”, “Diploma from High School”, “Diploma College (no
University)”, and “University Diploma”. Nationality of parents was assessed by three open
questions that participants had to fill in related to own, father and mother nationalities. The
variables exposed in the previous three parts contributed to profiling segments for the further
analysis. Self-perceived financial situation was probed by a 7 categories scale, with value 1 as
“difficult”, value 4 “average” and value 7 “wealthy”.
Second, meat consumption was assessed of seven categories starting from “vegetarian”
(those who eat no animal products, those who eat no meat but eggs, dairy and milk, and those
who ate no meat but fish, dairy and milk), followed by those who are “mostly vegetarian” (but
eat meat sometimes), who “mostly eat meat”, and those who “eat meat almost always”.
Frequency of chicken meat consumption was assessed by a frequency scale with six categories,
as following: “never”, “less than monthly”, “monthly”, “weekly”, “2 to 4 times per week”, “daily
or almost daily”. Responsibility for the food purchase within the family was assessed by three
categories possibilities: “I am the main responsible”, “I share responsibility”, and “Other people
in my family are responsible”.
Third, 10 product attributes were probed for their perceived importance (PI) in the food
purchasing decision process of chicken on a seven-point interval scale ranging from “totally
unimportant” to “very important”. The product attributes were: quality, taste, origin (domestic
or imported), price, appearance, freshness, environmental friendliness, availability, animal
welfare, and easy to prepare. PI reflects the individuals’ reaction from a consumer perspective,
i.e. someone who has to weigh and evaluate different product attributes before coming to a
pg. 33
purchase decision. The PI contributed to assess the importance given by consumers to intrinsic
(quality, taste, freshness, appearance) and extrinsic (origin, price, environmental friendliness,
availability, animal welfare, and easy to prepare) food attributes.
Fourth, a measurement for preference between Belgian vs. Brazilian chicken meat was
assessed by a seven categories scale, starting from “Strong preference for Brazilian chicken
meat”, “preference for Brazilian chicken meat”, “Light preference for Brazilian chicken meat” to
“No preference”.
Fifth, comparison in terms of product attributes was measured through the following
statement: “Compared to Belgium, how would you evaluate the chicken meat imported from
Brazil in respect to the following attributes: nutrition value, safety, quality, taste, price, value for
money, freshness, availability” was used. This item was measured on a seven-point interval scale
anchored at the left pole by “much worse” and at the right pole by “much better”, with “equal”
as the mid-point of the scale. This third measure is much more a public opinion, which is
presumed to be held rather independent of the consumption decisions. These statements
provided information relevant to assess the importance of country of origin in relation to
perception of extrinsic and intrinsic food attributes from a domestic vs. an imported product.
Sixth, comparison in terms of production characteristics was evaluated through the
following statement: “Compared to chicken production in Belgium, how would you evaluate the
chicken meat production in Brazil in respect to the following conditions: animal welfare, working
conditions, hygiene, quality standards, environment friendliness, use from hormones and
antibiotics” was used. This was scored on a seven-point interval scale anchored at the left pole
by “much worst in Brazil” and at the right pole by “much better in Brazil”, with “equal” as the
mid-point of the scale. Fourth, a scale that assessed to evaluate the perception of Belgian
consumers about the scale of operation from Brazilian chicken compared to Belgian, this was
scored on a seven-point interval scale anchored at the left pole by “much smaller” and at the
right pole by “much bigger”. This evaluation provided information about perception of
similarities in production practices.
Seventh, similarities in consumer’s willingness to pay for chicken meat of the following
countries was assessed: Brazil, Belgium, France, Sweden, China and USA, using a seven-point
pg. 34
interval scale anchored at the left pole by “totally not prepared” and at the right pole by
“strongly prepared”. This question aimed to compare consumer´s perception
similarities/disparities among countries. Similarities in WTP between BR vs. BE chicken meat was
assessed by the question ‘how much would you be prepared to pay for the following products’:
“Chicken from Brazil instead chicken from Belgium”, “Processed chicken products from Brazil
instead processed products from Belgium (ex. grounded)”, “Chicken meat with a label ‘produced
in Belgium’ instead a not labeled chicken meat”; this was scored on a seven-point interval scale
anchored at the left pole by “Much Less” and at the right pole by “Much more”. This question
contributed to evaluate social similarities and ethnocentric preferences.
Eight, political, economic and cultural similarities among both countries, BE vs. BR was
assessed on a 7 levels two-pole scale, going from “No similarity” to “Strong similarity”. Economic
development perception was assessed using two relevant items on a 7 levels two-pole scale,
going from “Low grade of economic development” to “High grade of economic development”,
for both countries, Belgium and Brazil. It has been found that when there is higher similarity
between countries of origin there is less difference in preference of products from the same
group, these questions attempt to assess the relationship between COO similarities and
consumer’s perception.
Ninth, ethnocentric attitude to Belgian products were assessed by 4 statements, “It is
always better to buy Belgian products”, “Even if it is more expensive, I still choose to buy Belgian
products”, We should buy products from other countries only if we cannot get them in our
country”, “The quality of local products is equal to the imported products”, “Local food products
are safer”. This was assessed by a on a 7 levels two-pole scale, going from “Totally disagree” to
“Totally agree”. Several studies have found that consumer’s preference might be influenced by
their cognitive, normative and affective mechanism towards products, giving as result
preference to domestic above foreigner products (known as ethnocentric behaviour). This
question contributed to assess ethnocentric preferences.
Tenth, consumer interest toward foreign cultures was assessed through the following
affirmations: “I read a lot about other cultures”, “I have a lot of friends from other countries”, “I
travel a lot”, “I follow the international news”, this was done on a 7 levels two-pole scale, going
pg. 35
from “Totally disagree” to “Strongly agree”. Previous research have found that there is a
relationship between interest and contact with foreign cultures and consumer’s evaluation
towards foreign products. This information attempts to relate ethnocentric preferences and
COO theory.
Eleventh, awareness of presence of Brazilian chicken meat on the Belgian market was
assessed by a three possibilities category, as following: “no idea”, “no” and “yes”, followed by
an open question; “percentage if answered ‘yes’”. Familiarity Brazil was assessed by a 7 levels
two-pole scale, going from “Totally not confident” to “A lot of confidence”. This information
contributed to assess awareness of consumers.
Twelfth, willingness to pay for food labeling from BR and BE chicken products was
assessed by a 7 categories scale with the following question “How much would you be ready to
pay for the next chicken products”: with the following options, “chicken from BR instead chicken
of BE”, “processed chicken products from BR instead processed chicken products from BE” and
“chicken filet with a label ‘produced in BE’ instead a non-labeled chicken filet.
3.4 Analyses procedures
Data were analyzed using SPSS 19.0. Bivariate analyses including cross-tabulation with
Chi2-statisitics, Independent Samples T-test and One-Way ANOVA comparison of means with
Tukey post hoc tests at 95% confidence were used to profile the segments in terms of socio-
demographics, and interval-scaled attitudinal questions. Exploratory factor analysis was applied
to find underlying dimensions in the data. Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure the reliability
of the factor analysis outcome.
Given the large sample size and very low numbers of missing responses, pairwise deletion
was used as the method for treating missing values in some variables.
pg. 36
CHAPTER 4
4. RESULTS
4.1 Data Editing
Before starting the analysis, different computations were performed in order to make the
data appropriate for testing the hypotheses. Data set variables were grouped by adding values
to dichotomal variables, such as gender, and for nationality, different nationality than Belgian,
was characterized as foreigner. In order to analyse importance of COO a relative value was
computed. Missing values were not taken into account in the statistical analysis of general
importance given to food attributes, but they were substituted by mean values in the evaluation
of the relative value for COO.
Exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis was performed on the pooled sample to
group similar variables in constructs. Factor 1 includes the items that refer to the importance
attached to the consumption of domestic products over imported products, and will further be
referred as “Ethnocentrism”. Factor 2 includes to the evaluation of political, economical and
cultural similarities between BE and BR, will be further referred as “Similarity index” (Table 5).
Factor 3, further referred as “interest in foreign cultures” grouped self reported evaluation of
respondents about affirmation such as ‘I read over other cultures’, ‘I have foreign friends’, ‘I
travel a lot’ and ‘I follow international news’ (Table 6). The reliabilities of the ethnocentrism,
similarity index and interest in foreign cultures were assessed using Cronbach’s α. The three of
them, ethnocentrism (α = 0.79), similarity index (α = 0.80) and interest in foreign cultures (α =
0.79) had sufficient internal reliability consistency. Consequently, respondent’s aggregate scores
on the three factors were calculated to be used as classification (segmentation) variables in
subsequent quartiles analysis (see 4.3 and 4.4)
In order to compute the relative importance of COO an equation was calculated and the
sample was split in four quartiles.
pg. 37
A new variable that reflects the perceived difference in economic development between
Belgium and Brazil was computed by substracting the perceived score for the level of economic
development in Brazil from the percevied score for the level of economic development in
Belgium.
Table 5. Factor loading from principal components analysis for evaluation of knowledge and
ethnocentrism
Ethnocentrism Similarity index
Political knowledge -0.11 0.85 Economical knowledge -0.07 0.85 Cultural knowledge -0.03 0.81 Is always better to buy BE products 0.89 0.00 Even if more expensive, 0.90 0.03 I rather to buy BE products We should buy only imported products 0.79 -0.12 when we cannot produce them The quality of the local products is 0.42 -0.07 the same as the imported products Local food products are more safe 0.68 -0.10 % Variance explained 37.72 24.97 Cronbach’s α internal reliability 0.79 0.80
Table 6. Factor loading from principal components analysis for evaluation of interest in foreign
cultures
Interest in foreign culture
I read over other cultures 0.86 I have foreigners friends 0.81 I travel a lot 0.78 I follow international news 0.70 % Variance explained 62.05 Cronbach’s α internal reliability 0.79
pg. 38
4.2 Profiling Variables
After respondents were asked about the importance of a list of chicken meat attributes
means and standard deviation were classified and presented in descendent order, finding as the
three most important freshness, quality and taste. Country of origin on the other hand ranked
last (see Table 7). According to literature, it is often found that different cues are considered
relatively unimportant to the consumer while others are extremely important (Verbeke & Ward,
2003). Those cues that directly address to the quality consistently receive the highest scores
(such as freshness, quality, taste, appearance). The findings of the importance given to intrinsic
attributes (e.g. appearance, colour, leanless, shape, presentation), suggest that consumers will
use these attributes to infer quality of a product among the most important, while extrinsic
attributes (e.g. price, brand name, stamp of quality, country of origin, store, production
information, nutritional information) will only be determinant for final purchase when extra
information is sought. (Issanchau, 1996; Becker, 1999; Becker, 2000; Dransfield, et al., 2005;
Grunert & Wills, 2007). In the general evaluation of quality’s food attributes, freshness
constituted the most important. This is correlated with findings that show that food safety
represents the most important food attribute for meat products (Verbeke & Viaene, 1999),
being freshness related to safety. COO has been found to play a determinant role in consumer’s
preferences when studied as single product attribute (Roosen, Lusk, & Fox, 2003; Bolliger &
Réviron, 2008; Becker, 1999; Steenkamp, ter Hofstede, & Wedel, 1999; Pouta, Heikkilä,
Forsman-Hugg, Isoniemi, & Mäkelä, 2010), but it has also been found that this value tend to
decrease when studied together with other attributes, which is confirmed in our findings (Juric
& Worsley, 1998; Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999).
pg. 39
Table 7. Mean scores and standard deviation on a 7 point scale that ranged from (1) ‘Totally
unimportant’ to ‘Strictly important’
Product attributes Mean SD
Freshness 6,45 1,01 Quality 6,14 1,08 Taste 6,10 1,07 Appearance (color, texture, etc.) 5,66 1,34 Environmental friendliness 5,18 1,59 Animal Welfare 5,17 1,62 Availability 4,96 1,44 Preparation (ex. Easy to prepare) 4,81 1,53 Price 4,64 1,53 Country of Origin (domestic vs. imported) 4,52 1,89
4.2 Segmentation of variables
First, we created a new variable based on the original variables that measured the
importance of ten (10) different food products attributes. This new variable represents the
importance of COO relative to other food product attributes. Based on the ranges obtained
from Relative Importance of Country of Origin (RICOO), quartile splitting was performed. RICOO
was computed using the following formula:
Since perceived importance has little meaning in absolute terms, a relative score was
also computed for each of the 9 other product attributes assessed by the respondents. An RI
score below the value of 1 indicates that the specific product attribute ranks among the less
important product attributes, while a score above 1 corresponds with a relatively important
product attribute. As the focus will be on the relative perceived importance of COO, we will use
the abbreviation RICOO in further discussion as reference for the relative perceived importance
score assigned to the attribute COO. RICOO ranges from 0.18 to 2.06 within the sample, with a
mean score of 0.98 (SD=0.23) for the pooled sample.
Second, to create ‘segments’ we used RICOO value as reference, allowing us to split the
sample in 4 segments (quartiles) of equal size. Quartile 1 (Q1); ranging from 0.18-0.60, was
pg. 40
represented by 24,0% of the sample corresponding to respondents who are, when ranked
according to their RICOO value, among the 0-25 percent lowest. Quartile 2 (Q2); ranging from
0.61-0.85, represent 24,7% of the sample corresponding to respondents who are, when ranked
according to their RICOO value, among the 25-50 percent lowest. Quartile 3 (Q3); ranging from
0.86-1.04, represented with 25,6% of the sample, corresponding to respondents who are, when
ranked according to their RICOO value, among the 0-25 percent highest. Quartile 4 (Q4;) ranging
from 1.05-2.06, represent 25,6% of the sample, corresponding to respondents who are, when
ranked according to their RICOO value, among the 25-50 percent highest.
Mean values and SD for RICOO quartiles are presented in table 8.
Table 8. Relative Importance of Country of Origin for Quartiles
RICOO Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Range 0.18-0.60 0.61-0.85 0.86-1.04 1.05-2.06 Mean 0,39 0,75 0,96 1,18 SD 0,14 0,70 0,55 0,13
Third, the socio-structural profiling of quartiles segmentation variables correspond to
socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age, education, household size, living environment,
province, nationality of parents, financial situation, and educational level), as well to variables
related to meat consumption profile, chicken consumption frequency, responsibility for food
purchase and preference for BR vs. BE chicken meat (Table 9). With regard to gender variable
(Chi2=9.24 p-value=0.03), we found that gender distribution was not equal among all quartiles.
In Q1 relative to the others we found more males. Q2, Q3 and Q4 presented minor deviation
among gender, females slightly more present in Q2 and Q4.
For the distribution of age groups we found that not all groups were equally distributed
(Chi2=26.95 p-value=0.01). Q1 is composed of a significant low amount of people aged >60,
while we found a slight overrepresentation of the 51-60 age categories. For Q2, we found a
slightly lower representation in the age category 30-40 and 51-60, while slightly
overrepresented in the age category below 30 and above 60 . For the Q3 we found relatively
low amount of people for the category <30 and a slight overrepresentation of 51-60 years old
category. For the Q4 we found a lower representation in the 2 youngest categories.
pg. 41
Regarding meat consumer profile we found that Q4 presented the highest percentage of
vegetarians and mostly vegetarian respondents respect to the distribution for the whole
sample. All four (4) quartiles were highly represented by percentages of consumers that eat
mostly meat.
Differences among quartiles Q1, Q2, and Q3 were found for frequency of chicken meat
consumption, no differences were encountered between Q3 and Q4. With respect to household
members and living environment no significant differences were found among quartiles.
With respect to the distribution of provinces within quartiles, for Q1 we found a slightly
higher representation of Flemish Brabant inhabitants. For Q2 we found a slight higher
representation for Antwerp province and slight lower representation of Limburg province. In Q3
we found a slight lower representation of Brussels Capital Region. In Q4 a significant higher
representation of Brussels Capital Region was found, a less significant but also higher
representation of Limburg and West Flanders provinces, while a slight lower representation of
Antwerp province. For nationality of parents, as expected, the highest percentage of
respondents had both parents Belgians.
Regarding financial situation, we found a high percentage of self-perceived better than
average financial situation, only Q3 presented a slight lower representation and a slight greater
representation of self-perceived average financial situation. With respect to educational level
also for Q3 a slight lower representation was found for higher education, while a slight higher
representation for basic education, for Q1, Q2 and Q4 higher education predominated as
educational level. Regarding responsibility for food purchase Q1 presented a slight lower
representation of main responsibility, and a slight higher representation of other person doing
the food purchase. Q4, presented the opposite as Q1, slight higher representation of main
responsibility and slight lower representation for other person doing the food purchase.
Differences among quartiles were found for preference of BR vs. BE chicken meat,
ascending values found that Q1 preferred less BE chicken meat while Q4 preferred it the most.
pg. 42
Table 9. Socio-demographic profiling of Quartiles
Socio-structural Sample Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value Location
Gender (%) 0.03 Male 53.7 63.8 47.0 55.5 48.9
Groups of age (%) 0.01 Age<30 12.0 14.7 16.4 6.5 10.8 30-40 14.6 18.6 11.2 15.2 13.7 41-50 23.5 22.5 22.4 22.5 26.6 51-60 30.9 36.4 26.1 36.2 25.2 >60 18.9 7.8 23.9 19.6 23.7
Meat consumer profile (%) 0.00 Vegetarian 5.2 4.6 3.7 3.6 8.6 Mostly Vegetarian 12.0 5.4 9.0 10.8 22.3 Mostly meat 58.9 61.5 67.2 59.0 48.2 Almost always meat 24.0 28.5 20.1 26.6 20.9
Mean Frequency of chicken 3.79(+0.96) 4.03
a(+0.93) 3.87
b(+0.93) 3.72
c(+0.85) 3.54
c(+1.06) 0.00
meat consumption
Mean Household members 2.92(+1.37) 2.99(+1.33) 2.99(+1.44) 2.91(+1.43) 2.79(+1.27) 0.58
Mean Living environment 3.92(+2.1) 3.87(+1.97) 4.14(+2.16) 3.93(+1.99) 3.75(+2.27) 0.47
Province (%) Sample(%) Census(%)1
Brussels Capital Region 3.7 3.1 2.3 1.5 7.9 10 Flemish Brabant 15.8 20.3 16.5 12.4 14.4 10
Antwerp 31.5 29.7 39.8 32.8 23.7 16 Limburg 8.9 8.6 4.5 9.5 12.9 8
West Flanders 16.2 15.6 12.0 18.2 18.7 11 East Flanders 23.8 22.7 24.8 25.5 22.3 13
Nationality of parents (%) Sample 0.46 Both parents Belgians 92.8 86.9 91.8 92.1 90.6 At least one foreigner 7.2 13.1 8.2 7.9 9.4 parent
Financial Situation (%) Sample 0.45 Below average 7.8 6.2 9.8 7.2 8.0 Average 32.2 31.5 27.1 39.1 30.7 Better than average 60.0 62.3 63.2 53.6 61.3
Educational Level(%) Sample 0.34 Basic Education 27.0 23.1 26.1 32.6 25.9 Higher Education 73.0 76.9 73.9 67.4 74.1
Responsible for food Sample 0.09 Purchase (%) Main responsible for 44.3 34.6 46.3 44.6 51.1 food purchase Shared responsibility 42.8 46.9 40.3 43.2 41.0 In food purchase Other person does 12.9 18.5 13.4 12.2 7.9 the food purchase
BR vs. BE preference Mean
pg. 43
Preference BR vs. BE Chicken meat 5.64(+1.23) 4.97
a(+1.09) 5.33
b(+1.15) 6.05
c(+1.13) 6.17
c(+1.15) 0.00
a-b-c Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05 (1-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey multiple comparison test). 1 Source: FOD Economie. Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie, Structuur van de bevolking.
As summary from socio-demographic profiling we found that Q4 correspond the group
that give the highest score when evaluating RICOO, presenting a bigger percentage in the 2
older age categories, as well as main responsibility for food purchase and higher education,
which has been found to be relevant to COO preferences.
While evaluating consumer’s preferences several researchers have found that in order to
establish a more specific link is important to identify groups with similar characteristics, because
these similarities may explain favoritism towards products. For example, in their review Bilkey
and Nes (1982) found that there were differences between groups (eg, students versus non-
students, end-consumers versus industrial buyers) towards products of a specific country, as
well as differences among groups when methodological settings vary (eg, single vs. multiple cue
studies). Baughn and Yaprak (1993) reported that age is often associated with foreign product
acceptance, with younger consumers demonstrating more positive attitudes towards foreign
products. In our findings the group that score higher for preference of BE over BR chicken meat
was composed mostly for people older than 41 years old. This could be explained by the fact
that people from these ages categories are mostly in control of the type of food they purchase,
they may have bigger concerns about food safety and might be less world minded than younger
consumers who display a lower level of prejudice towards foreign products (Rawwas, Rajendran,
& Wuehrer, 2002). It has been also discussed that consumers with a better financial situation
and level of education seek for further information when selecting food products, and that COO
could be a positive or negative determinant when purchasing products (Han & Terpstra, 1998;
Ahmed & d’Astous, 2002). The same quartile also correlate to these findings, the level of their
preference for BE vs. BR chicken meat could be explained by the fact that these consumers
rather to consume a local product already known (assuming quality standards of BE) than an
imported product that they may consider unknown, and from which is difficult to evaluate due
the lack of information about the product, relaying in made in BE. The previous findings support
pg. 44
our Hypothesis 1: Segments with a different level of importance attached to COO differ in terms
of socio-demographics characteristics, meat consumption type and frequency of meat
consumption
Attributes were evaluated according to their absolute scores and listed in descendent
way. Means were compared among quartiles and differences of perception of importance for
each attribute were obtained. We noticed that there is a higher similarity in the perception of
the importance of these attributes among Q3 and Q4, which may be also correlated to the
similarity in their socio-demographics (Table 10). Our findings are a reflection of previous
results that confirm that attitudes toward COO are influenced by cultural and areal proximity
(Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Juric & Worsley, 1998; Bolliger & Réviron, 2008).
Table 10. Comparison among quartiles of RI scores of food attributes of BE vs. BR chicken
meat
Food product attributes Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value
Quality 5,85a 6,12a 6,23b 6,32b 0.00
Taste 5,88a 6,10a 6,16b 6,25b 0.03 Price 4,12a 4,63b 4,72b 5,11c 0.00 Appearance 5,35a 5,56a 5,81b 5,91b 0.00 Environmental friendliness 4,10a 5,09b 5,56c 5,90c 0.00 Animal Welfare 4,35a 5,20b 5,48b 5,58b 0.00 Facility to make 4,41a 4,93b 4,94b 4,98b 0.00 a-b-c-d Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05 (1-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey multiple comparison test).
4.3 COO and Country image
4.3.1 Product perception BE vs. BR
In order to evaluate perception of the product, eight (8) different food attributes from BR
vs. BE chicken meat were evaluated, finding that the attributes that received the highest scores
were price, nutrition value, value for money and taste. This means that respondents perceived
Belgian chicken meat to be better on these attributes as compared to Brazilian chicken meat,
being evaluated to be worse in terms of food safety and freshness (Fig 5). These results are
pg. 45
supported by previous findings that affirm that as an extrinsic attribute, COO has an influence
on consumers’ perceptions of a product’s quality and of its attributes, providing a heuristic basis
for inferring the quality of the product without (sometimes) considering other attributes
information. It appears that subjects transfer the product's COO to its specific attributes
increasing the influence of COO on product evaluations (Schooler, 1971; Bilkey & Nes, 1982;
Hong & Wyer Jr., 1989; Wall, Liefeld, & Heslop, 1991; Ahmed & d’Astous, 2002).
Figure 5. Evaluation of product attributes of Brazilian versus Belgian meat
4.3.2 Production methods perception BE vs. BR
Respondents were asked about their perception of chicken meat production conditions
in Brazil compared to Belgium. Results show that all attributes evaluated scored lower for
Brazilian than the average for chicken meat production within this scale, being the lowest
(perceived as worse) working conditions (mean = 2.4 + 1.17) (table 4).
3.68
2.96
3.37
3.64
4.37
3.66
3
3.38
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Nutrition
Safety
Quality
Taste
Price
Value/money
Freshness
Availability
Values
Qu
alit
y at
trib
ute
s
BE BR
much worse bit equal bit better much worse worse better better
pg. 46
Figure 6. Evaluation of Brazilian Chicken Meat Production (means)
Appears to be that consumers evaluate attributes based on the country image, but this
evaluation is also related to the country image perception depending of product categories.
Pouta et al. (2010) studied COO and production methods for meat, finding that although
production methods were significant, compared to COO was minor since consumers prefered
domestic or neighbour countries products, denoting a bigger influence from COO, which
correspond to same findings that we have (Pouta, Heikkilä, Forsman-Hugg, Isoniemi, & Mäkelä,
2010). Respect to product categories, for example, Nagashima (1970) and Narayana (1981)
found differences in country image perception between Japanese and USA consumers, which
positioned USA products always in the first place. It is possible that Brazilian meat does not
belong to a category well known by Belgian consumers, and that stereotyping categories could
explain how consumers react to COO information and to the evaluation of products from
foreign countries affecting the cognitive processing of other product-related cues. (Nagashima,
1970; Narayana, 1981; Roth & Romeo, 1992; Knight & Calantone, 2000; Ahmed & d’Astous,
2002). It has been discussed that COO seems to have an effect in the perception of the risk and
perceived value of the product (Ahmed & d’Astous, 2002). Our findings correlate positively with
2.76
2.4
2.67
2.84
2.71
2.91
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Welfare
Working conditions
Hygiene
Quality Std.
Enviromental Friendly
Use of Hormones/Antib.
Values
Pro
du
ctio
n C
on
dit
ion
s
Much worst in BR
Much better in BR
pg. 47
the findings that affirm that consumers tend to evaluate attributes based on the country image,
relating the degree of development where this product has been produced/manufactured, and
that when a product comes from a less developed than their own, they may evaluate these
products with lower scores (Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Erickson, Johansson, & Chao, 1984) (Erickson,
Johansson, & Chao, 1984). The previous findings support our Hypothesis 2: Differences exist
between consumers' evaluation of Belgian and Brazilian chicken meat and chicken meat
production.
4.3.3 Perception of broiler chicken farms size BE vs. BR
Perception of broiler chicken farm size was assessed obtaining a mean of 5.03 (SD+ 1.6)
for the whole sample, indicating that respondents believed Brazilian chicken farms to be bigger
It is possible that consumers beliefs are related to the high score given by respondents to BR
broiler chicken farms. It has been discussed that beliefs can be descriptive (direct experience
with the product, physical characteristics with product perceptions), informational (influenced
by outside sources of information such as advertising, friends, relatives), and/or inferential
(what consumers inferred, whether correctly or not) (Erickson, Johansson, & Chao, 1984) and
this may explain why consumers perceive that BR broiler farms are bigger, possibly because
they have information about geographical extension compared to BE, because they have
received information through friends, media, etc., or because they infer that due the proportion
compared to BE, BR farms are bigger. No significant difference was found among quartiles (p-
value = 0.34).
4.4 COO and Ethnocentrism
Preference for chicken meat from BR vs. BE origin was assessed obtaining a mean of 5,64
(+1,23) for the full sample, denoting with this a strong preference for BE over BR chicken meat.
Regarding assessment of preference for BR vs. BE chicken meat among quartiles, we
found that quartiles Q1, Q2 and Q3 appeared to have different preference for BR chicken meat
pg. 48
going from more to less. On the other hand no significant difference was encountered between
Q3 and Q4, presenting the higher preference for BE chicken meat (Table 11). None of the
quartiles score higher for BR chicken meat, corresponding on a positive way to COO theory that
propose that consumers prefer domestic to imported products.
Different works have stated that ethnocentric consumers tend to reject people, symbols,
values and products that are culturally dissimilar, while those of one’s own culture may become
objects of attachment and pride. Therefore, it is possible that members of a subculture would
tend to evaluate more favorably products from foreign countries with which they have cultural
ties. These preferences may be explained by similar traditions, lifestyles, customs, language and
even law systems (Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Bergeron, 2003). For example Heslop
et al. (1989), found that English Canadian preferred British products more than French
Canadian, confirming their hypothesis over ethnically affiliated origins, meaning this that
ethnocentrism may have a significant role in the purchase of foreign products compared to
domestic ones. Schooler (1971) postulated that with some consumers the negative
predisposition against a foreign product was of sufficient intensity to make the product totally
unacceptable, and that with other consumers the bias simply resulted in a lowering of perceived
quality, in which case a compensating price concession might reestablish the value comparable
to that offered by the domestic good. (Schooler, 1971; Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Papadopoulus &
Heslop, 1990; Juric & Worsley, 1998). Klein et al. (1998), exposed that although Chinese citizens
have a perception of high quality of Japanese products, civilians from an specific geographic
region may not purchase Japanese products due cultural reasons (Japanese occupation). Han
(1989), in the other hand suggested that country image behave as a halo effect and affects
beliefs about tangible product attributes, which in turn affect positively or negatively the overall
product evaluation. Several studies have found that COO has a significant effect when
consumers evaluate domestic versus other countries products, and that this evaluation is not
always objective, but influenced by beliefs, patriotism and inferences of quality, but it has been
also discussed that the effect of COO in consumers evaluation can be product and country
specific (Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999; Juric & Worsley, 1998; Becker, 1999; Roosen, Lusk, & Fox,
2003; Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2004; Dransfield, et al., 2005; Chryssochoidis, Krystallis, &
pg. 49
Perreas, 2007). For example Schnettler et al. (2009), found that origin was the most important
factor in the decision-making process when purchasing beef, and that there was a marked
consumer preference for domestic beef and a rejection of imported. Yeh et al. (2010), found
that Japanese and USA groups preferred own country beer and fruits rather than other’s
countries. Ehmke et al. (2008) found that on average, subjects in each location (China, France,
Niger, USA) preferred onions from their country to onions produced anywhere else. These
findings correlate positively with our findings, supporting our Hypothesis 3: Importance
attached to COO is positively related to consumer preference for domestic chicken and
Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between importance attached to COO and level of
ethnocentrism.
Table 11. Difference among quartiles for preference of BR vs. BE chicken meat
Variable Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value
Preference for BE vs. BR 4.97a 5.33b 6.05c 6.17c 0.00 Chicken meat
a-b-c Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05
(1-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey multiple comparison test).
In order to verify which variables influenced most strongly the overall preference for
chicken meat of BR vs. BE origin, variables regarding to attributes (nutrition value, safety,
quality, taste, price, value for money, freshness, availability) and to production methods were
taken into account (animal welfare, working conditions, hygiene, quality standard,
environmental friendly production, use of hormones/antibiotics), perception of scale of broiler
and perception of chicken farms size in BR vs. BE were also used to perform a linear regression.
A linear regression analysis was applied, as result the following equation:
Y = cst -0.282*X1 -0.194*X2 -0.132*X3
Y = Preference for chicken meat BR vs. BE X1= Freshness X2= use of hormones/antibiotics X3= working conditions This results mean that if the value of freshness increase in 1 unit, then preference for BR
chicken meat versus Belgian chicken meat decrease 0.282 units, under the assumption that all
pg. 50
other variables remain the same, in other words, as higher the importance given to freshness as
less preferred BR chicken meat would be, followed in the same way by use of
hormones/antibiotics and working conditions.
A survey conducted by Verbeke and Ward (2003) explored the importance of traceability,
COO, and several beef quality cues in Belgium. They found that survey participants expressed
more interest in labeling cues denoting quality and quality standards than in labeling cues
related to traceability and origin (Verbeke & Ward, 2003). Ehmke (2008) found that COO
information was not as important as genetically modified content information (France, USA, and
Niger) or organic production (China). Becker (2000) found that on average, COO, alongside
colour and place of purchase, were regarded as most helpful in assessing both eating quality
and food safety concerns of meat. In Germany and Sweden COO was the most important factor
determining both eating quality and safety aspects. In the UK, however, colour, leanness, or
place of purchase was regarded as most important. Roosen et al., (2003) using data from
Germany, France and UK in their analysis, found that consumers (mostly from France and
Germany) place more importance on labels of origin than any other product attribute such as
brand, price, marbling or fat content; more than 90% of surveyed consumers wanted a
mandatory labeling program for beef produced from cattle fed genetically modified crops.
Thus, appears to be that for individuals with quality and food safety information needs,
COO information is relatively less important, yet when extrinsic cues are used as extra
information by consumers, COO has an effect in their final purchase decision.
4.5 COO and Willingness to Pay
To evaluate perception of economic development a new variable was created by
substracting values given to BE-BR economic development as results the values given by
consumers mean that as negative the value as better development perceived for BR and worse
perceived development for BE (from -6 to 6 . The mean value was 1.47 (+2.02), meaning that the
perception of economic development was higher for BE, although not with the highest score
(Table 12).
pg. 51
Table 12. Difference among quartiles for perception of economic development scores BE-BR
Variable Mean(SD) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value
Perception of economic 1.67(2.42) 1.50(2.16) 1.59(1.79) 2.01(1.90) 0.25 development between BE-BR
To evaluate willingess to pay for chicken meat comparing perceived similar countries we
found that consumers evaluate more favorably France and Sweden, than Brazil, USA and China
(Table 13).
Several findings suggest that the familiarity with products made in a country can be a
good predictor of COO perceptions (Ahmed & d’Astous, 2002). Consumers positive evaluation
for similar neighboring countries might be regarded to concerns about countries that are
geographically located far away, and that due the time of transport can become a risk for food
safety, as well as concerns for quality standards in less developed countries. Previous
researchers have affirmed the same, for example Juric and Worsley (1989) found that food from
neighbouring countries are perceived as being superior to food from more distant countries due
to similar cultural beliefs and areal proximity. Alfnes (2004) showed, that on average, Norwegian
consumers preferred domestic or Swedish beef to beef from more distant countries, in addition,
beef from developed countries was preferred to beef from less developed countries such as
Botswana (Alfnes, 2004). Roth and Romeo (1992) found that consumers were willing to buy
autos and watches from Japan, Germany, and the U.S. appearing this to be related to these
countries' high overall image. Likewise, respondents' unwillingness to buy these products from
Mexico and Hungary appears due to the poor overall image of these countries. These results are
similar to other studies that found that automobiles manufactured in Japan, West Germany, and
the U.S. were preferred over those from England, France, Brazil, Mexico, Taiwan, and South
Korea. Subcultural biases in preferences might lead consumers to favour products from
countries with a similar ethnical and economic situation, especially if there are intra-national
variations in culture (Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Bergeron, 2003).
pg. 52
Table 13. Willingness to pay for chicken meat of developed and developing countries
COO (%) Not willing Willing Well prepared
BE 4.3 8.9 86.8 FR 12.7 15.0 72.3 SWE 19.5 18.8 61.7 BR 58.5 22.1 19.4 USA 65.0 19.6 15.3 CHINA 85.8 9.1 5.0
Respondents were asked about their perception of similarity from political ideas,
economic situation and culture between BE and BR. An exploratory factor analysis and reliability
test was performed on the pooled sample. A new variable was computed as average of the
political, economic and cultural knowledge. The findings concerning similarity index (political,
economical and cultural similarities between Brazil and Belgium) confirm that groups that have
similar knowledge about a country, would have a bigger influence in assessing COO than groups
that differ in these ideas. Several studies have found that when evaluating information of COO
as attribute, categories of products play an important role (Han & Terpstra, 1998; Tseng &
Balabanis, 2011). In our results we found that the majority of respondents were ready to pay
more for a European country (France, Sweden) than for a non-European country (Brazil, USA or
China) and this may have sense if we take into account that freshness, quality and taste were
the attributes with a higher scores. This supports our Hypothesis 5: Consumers are willing to pay
more for domestic products/developed country products than for foreigner/developing country
products.
4.6 Interest in foreign cultures
Respondents were asked about if they read and have friends of other cultures, travel a lot
and keep updated about international news. An exploratory factor analysis and reliability test
was performed in the pooled sample, and new grouping variable as average of the 4 considered
was created and oneway-ANOVA applied to compare means from quartiles, no differences
among quartiles were found (Table 14).
pg. 53
Different researchers have investigated the interest in foreign cultures and the
relationship with products evaluation. For example, Papadopoulos and Heslop (1986) compared
Canadian consumers who had visited a country with those who had not, and found that visiting
a country reduces the gap between the more global, prevailing public image of its products and
its actual capabilities. Balabanis et al. (2002), affirmed that a greater level of direct contact with
a country or its products lead to more objective consumer product perceptions. Our findings
show that Q4 had the highest score for interest in foreign cultures, however the higher
preference for BE over BR chicken meat, which could be explained by socio-demographic that
support that older individuals tend to score less favorable foreign products, and as well that
people with a higher level of education and financial situation tend to evaluate foreigner
products less positively than those with lower educational level and financial situation.
Table 14. Difference among quartiles for interest in foreigner cultures
Variable Mean(SD) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value
Interest in foreign cultures 4.60 4.59 4.50 4.85 0.10
Awareness of BR chicken in BE market was assessed by the question “do you think that BR
chicken meat is present in BE market”, a majority of the respondents of the sample with 70.3%
“had no idea”, 3.5% said “no” and 26.2% said “yes”. These results support the COO labeling
theory, that affirm that when consumers have no access to extrinsic information the evaluation
of the perceived quality is based in intrinsic attributes, and could be explained that due their
lack of knowledge about the presence of Brazilian chicken meat in the Belgian market, they may
relay in what “they know” about quality standards of domestic products and use their beliefs
when it comes to perception of quality standards of BR, evaluating its products in a less positive
way.
pg. 54
4.6.1 COO and familiarity
To evaluate the familiarity and its relationship with the aversion of the respondents with
BR among the quartiles one way-ANOVA was applied. It was expected that as greater the
exposure of consumers to BR as less aversion, no differences were found among the quartiles.
Table 15. Difference among quartiles regarding familiarity to BR
Variable Mean Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value
Familiarity with BR 2.25 2.27 2.39 2.41 0.72
It has been proposed that attitudes are influenced by both, subjective familiarity (the
subjects think they are familiar with the stimulus, COO) and objective familiarity (actual
exposure to the stimulus, COO objective knowledge), and this could partially explain why the
respondents evaluation for preference of BE over BR chicken meat was high.
It has been described that country image is the overall perception a consumer form of
products from a particular country, based on their prior perceptions of the country's production
and marketing strengths and weaknesses. This definition brings country image closer to the
means consumers use in assessing products. What consumers know (or think they know) about
a country's manufacturing ability, flair for style and design, and technological innovativeness,
seems much more congruent with their product perception formation than do other, less
production and marketing-oriented factors. There is also a possible a link between COO labeling
and preference. Consumer’s product’s evaluation is based on the information given by
governments/marketers, and by not knowing the COO of a product they may prefer this product
based in other attributes evaluation or based in the country image and belief that they have
towards that country.
pg. 55
4.7 Influence of level of processing
To evaluate correlation between willingness to pay for chicken meat products different
options were given to the consumers. Negative correlation among the willingness to pay for BR
chicken filet and for processed chicken products from BR over BE was found (p-value=0.00).
Respect to labeling of chicken filet with a brand “made in BE” was negatively associated with
willingness to pay for chicken meat products from BR instead BE, meaning this that consumers
that prefer BE labeled chicken products are less willing to pay for BR chicken meat products. A
negative correlation between readiness to pay for processed meat products from BR over BE
was found in relationship with chicken meat labeled as “made in BE”, meaning this that
consumers whom prefer “made in BE” chicken filet are less willing to pay for chicken meat
products of BR.
Table 16. Difference among quartiles for willingness to pay for BR vs. BE chicken products
Variable Mean Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value
Willingness to pay 3.25a 3.08b 2.96b 2.46b 0.00 for chicken filet from BR over BE Willingness to pay for 3.13a 2.79b 2.79b 2.39b 0.00 Processed chicken products Willingness to pay 4.32a 4.74b 4.83b 5.14c 0.00 for a ‘made in’ BE label instead none
During the review of literature we found that Belgian consumption of chicken meat have
increased along the years, due a shift of dietetic patterns, financial reasons, health concerns,
etc., and also that imports of BR chicken meat have significantly increased, most of all, for the
frozen and processed type. It could be a link between these findings and the current absence of
a mandatory labeling of COO when food is processed, meaning this that although consumers
purchase BR chicken meat through their habitual consumption, they are not aware of it, and
when performing evaluation of preference they relay in COO and domestic products, assuming
that the standards of quality are good if domestic processed although the original food COO is
other than BE. This correlate positively with our findings that suggest that Q4 which gave the
pg. 56
highest score preferring BE chicken meat over BR, is less willing to pay for chicken filet and
processed chicken products from BR, but willing to pay more for a ‘made in Belgium’ label,
instead no label. During the review of the statistics of type of chicken meat products we found
that chicken filet is the favorite cut preferred by Belgian consumers, which seems to correlate to
our findings and COO, denoting that the segment that preferred the most BE over BR chicken
meat, Q4, gave even less score when it was an evaluation between filet and processed chicken
meat products, giving more importance to chicken filet over processed chicken meat, and
therefore scoring even lower for this type of chicken cut.
pg. 57
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The first objective of this study was to verify the importance of different food product
attributes in food purchasing decisions of chicken meat (and the ranking of COO in that list). The
results show that COO as food attribute is less important than other food attributes when an
overall evaluation of the product is done, yet a significant effect in consumer’s preference when
evaluating BR vs. BE chicken meat, being the last one significantly preferred among Belgian
consumers.
Food origin is an important product characteristic for many consumers. It affects the
significance of how consumers distinct foods.
The second objective of our master thesis was to profile groups with different levels of
interest in COO in terms of socio-demographics, responsibility for food purchase, meat
consumer profile, and consumption frequency, in order to compare groups with similar profiles
and to establish a relationship among these profiles and their level of preference or not for
domestic vs. imported products. Different authors affirm that world-minded consumers tend to
be younger, better educated and more affluent (Hett, 1993). Consumers with more income and
education accept foreign products more readily (Niss, 1996). Several authors found that
younger, wealthier and more educated consumers evaluate foreign products more favourably.
Our findings support the previous through the segmentation of quartiles and the comparison of
evaluation of these quartiles with significant higher preference for Belgian over Brazilian chicken
meat. The groups that evaluated highest this preference was composed for older, main
responsible for food purchase and highly educated respondents. Yet these findings contradict
those obtained by Niss (1996), this could be explained as well as the relatively significant low
familiarity with Brazil (and its products) and due the country image that they have over Brazil as
producer and developing economy.
Our third, and last objective was to verify whether theory of COO is also applicable in food
product preference for the case study of Belgian versus Brazilian chicken meat in the context of:
pg. 58
- Country Image
- Ethnocentrism
- Interest for foreign cultures
- Perceived similarity
The results of the present research lead us to affirm that there is an influence of country-
of-origin on these variables, and based on our sample we could conclude that Belgian
consumers prefer BE chicken meat, and that if they would have to choose, they would be able
to pay for a product that originate from a country with similar beliefs, to which they are more
familiar with and possess a similar level of economic development.
It is possible that Belgian consumers evaluate products based in countries stereotypes
(negative or positive), therefore the management of a product’s national image is an important
element in the strategic marketing decision when related to consumer’s preference.
With the expanding global economy, aspects concerning country-of-origin (COO) and its
communication are gaining in importance especially in the agro-food sector. Our findings
corroborate that for many consumers, country-of-origin is a determining purchase criterion in
food consumption.
Consumers make decisions about the quality of products based on a systematic process of
acquisition, evaluation and integration of product information or cues. For this reason it
becomes apparent why extrinsic product cues have gained importance within food products
evaluation. However, COO has been identified as well as a credence attribute, affecting
evaluation of products differently.
Appears to be that concerns over quality standards were related as well as a variable than
influenced our results, from which we concluded that origin can be considered as an important
attribute or cue in consumers’ evaluating process for food quality and safety aspects because
some consumers considered own country products more trustable because of better food
safety and production quality standards, and that is the probable reason why some consumers
are willing to pay more for domestic or labeled own country-of-origin products.
For agribusiness and marketers these insights open up positioning potentials and are
relevant for strategic marketing and communication purposes. If subjects transfer product's
pg. 59
COO to its specific attributes increasing the influence of COO on product evaluations, how could
countries change their image, improving their chance to penetrate foreign markets and gain
confidence from consumers. This means that managers would benefit by having a better
understanding of a product's COO, as well as identifying the dimensions along which country
image should be improved. One possible strategy when an unfavorable mismatch exists was
proposed by Roth and Romeo (1992), they suggested to consider a joint venture within a
favorable match country; e.g. a Hungarian car manufacturer may benefit from manufacturing
and/or marketing its cars with a German partner. This type of strategies should be considered
by countries that differ in strengths and weaknesses across products and that could benefit
from having a partner with a better country image, or with a more trustable known experience
in the market.
Evaluation country of origin as an attribute is not an easy task, and we also got to the
conclusion that international marketers should analyse subcultural differences before expanding
into targeted countries and evaluate own country image. Then the producer may need to de-
emphasise or perhaps even disguise or hide the product’s origin in order to make it more
acceptable. Finding subcultural differences would allow managers to improve the development
and implementation of marketing strategies, and could lead them to bussiness success and to
understand better which are the possible market niches to be filled.
Little consumer research was found specifically with respect to perception of country of
origin labeling from Belgian consumers and chicken meat products from domestic versus
imported origin. From theory it can be expected that consumers would have a higher preference
and a better image from countries with a similar (higher) level of development and production
specialization, however this may be cross linked to product-specific and country-specific.
The limitations of this work was that the survey was the self reported and subjective
nature of the measure by respondents. The biggest part of the sample was composed by
respondents that live in Flanders, therefore Flemish speaking. This could represent a bias when
evaluating this sample as representative for Belgian consumers without including consumers
from Wallonia, which may present different socio-demographic profile
pg. 60
Further research is needed to strength knowledge about COO perception of Belgian
consumers among other food attributes and among countries.
pg. 61
Bibliography
ABEF. (2010). The World Eats Better witn Brazilian Chicken. Brazilian Chicken Producers and
Exporters Association. Retrieved from
http://www.brazilianchicken.com.br/publicacoes/br-chicken-03.pdf
Ahmed, S., & d’Astous, A. (2002). South East Asian consumer perceptions of countries of origin.
Journal of Asia Pacific Marketing, 1(1), 19-41.
Alfnes, F. (2004). Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: application of a
mixed logit model. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(1), 19-37.
doi:10.1093/erae/31.1.19
Alfnes, F., & Rickertsen, K. (2003, May). European Consumers’ Acceptance of US Hormone-
Treated Beef. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 85(No. 2), 396-405.
doi:10.1111/1467-8276.t01-1-00128
Anderson, W., & Cunningham, W. (1972). Gauging foreign product promotion. Journal of
Advertising Research, 12(1), 29-34.
Aveworld. (2011, 10 21). Aveworld. Retrieved from Número de aviários cresce 7,9% em um ano
no Paraná: http://www.aveworld.com.br/artigos/post/numero-de-aviarios-cresce-79-
em-um-ano-no-parana
Balabanis, G., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2004). Domestic country bias, country-of-origin effects,
and consumer ethnocentrism: A multidimensional unfolding approach. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 80-95. doi:10.1177/0092070303257644
Balabanis, G., Rene, M., & T.C., M. (2002). The human values’ lenses of country of origin images.
International Marketing Review, 19(6), 582-610. doi:10.1108/02651330210451935
Baughn, C. C., & Yaprak, A. (1993). Mapping Country-of-Origin Research: Recent Developments
and Emerging Avenues. In N. G. Papadopoulos, & L. A. Heslop Binghamton, Product-
Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing (pp. 89-115). International
Bussines Press. Retrieved from
http://books.google.be/books?hl=en&lr=&id=z8PE4zEFSGkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA89&dq=Bau
ghn,+C.+C.+and+Yaprak,+A.+%281993%29+%E2%80%98Mapping+country+of+origin+res
pg. 62
earch:+Recent+developments+and+emerging+avenues%E2%80%99&ots=9AKWErn7Ka&
sig=kNEgnWHTysA-jtMT6ilFGkx8Uok&
Becker, T. (1999). Country of origin’ as a cue for quality and safety of fresh meat. Institute for
Agricultural Policies and Markets. Le Mance, France: University of Hohenheim.
Becker, T. (2000). Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: a framework. British Food Journal,
102(3), 158-176. doi:10.1108/00070700010371707
Becker, T. (2000). Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: a framework for analysis. British
Food Journal, 102(3), 158-176.
Belgium, S. (2012). Statistieken & Cijfers . Retrieved May 09, 2012, from
http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/statistieken/cijfers/bevolking/structuur/leeftijdgeslacht/pyrami
de/
Bernaerts, E., & Demuynck, E. (2009). Pluimvee. Flemish Ministery of Agriculture and Fishing.
Retrieved from
http://lv.vlaanderen.be/nlapps/data/docattachments/LARA_Sectoren_H3_Pluimvee.pdf
Bilkey, W. J., & Nes, E. (1982). Country-of-Origin Effects on Product Evaluations. 13(1), 89-99.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/154256
Bolliger, C., & Réviron, S. (2008). Consumer Willingness to Pay for Swiss Chicken Meat: An In-
store Survey to Link Stated and Revealed Buying Behaviour. 12th Congress of the
European Association of Agricultural Economists . EAAE .
Bredahl, L. (2004). Cue utilisation and quality perception with regard to branded beef. Food
Quality and Preference, 15(1), 65-75. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00024-7
Buhr, B. L. (2003). Traceability and Information Technology in the Meat Supply Chain:
Implications for Firm Organization and Market Structure. Journal of Food Distribution
Research, 34(3), 12-26.
Bureau, J.-C., & Valceschini, E. (2003). European Food-Labeling Policy: Successes and Limitations.
Journal of Food Distribution Research, 34(3), 70-76. Retrieved from
http://purl.umn.edu/27048
Cai, H., Fang, X., & Yang, Z. (2012). Implicit Consumer Animosity: A Primary Validation. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00911.x
pg. 63
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2005). Consumer Preferences for Food Product
Quality Attributes from Swedish Agriculture. Ambio, 34(4/5), 366-370. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/207673611?accountid=11077
Chryssochoidis, G., Krystallis, A., & Perreas, P. (2007). Ethnocentric beliefs and country-of-origin
(COO) effect: Impact of country, product and product attributes on Greek consumers'
evaluation of food products. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11-12), 1518-1544.
doi:10.1108/03090560710821288
Cowburn, G., & Stockley, L. (2004). Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a
systematic review. Public Health Nutrition, 8(1), 21-28. doi:10.1079/PHN2004666
Dichter, E. (1962). The world customer. Harvard Business Review, 40(4), 113-122.
doi:10.1002/tie.5060040415
Dornoff, R., Tankersley, C., & White, G. (1974). Consumers′ perceptions of imports. Akron
Business and Economic Review, 5(2), 26-29.
Dransfield, E., Ngapo, T., Nielsen, N., Bredahl, L., Sjödén, P., Magnusson, M., . . . Nute, G. (2005).
Consumer choice and suggested price for pork as influenced by its appearance, taste and
information concerning country of origin and organic pig production. Meat Science,
69(1), 61–70. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.06.006
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). Psychology of Attitudes. Wadsworth.
EC. (n.d.). Eurostat. Retrieved from
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Carcass_weig
ht
Ehmke, M. D., Lusk, J. L., & Tyner, W. (2008). Measuring the relative importance of preferences
for country of origin in China, France, Niger, and the United States. Agricultural
Economics, 38(3), 277-285. doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00299.x
EMBRAPA. (2003, January). Sistemas de Produção de Frangos de Corte. Retrieved from
Instalações:
http://sistemasdeproducao.cnptia.embrapa.br/FontesHTML/Ave/ProducaodeFrangodeC
orte/Pe-direito.html
pg. 64
Erickson, G. M., Johansson, J. K., & Chao, P. (1984). Image Variables in Multi-Attribute Product
Evaluations: Country-of-Origin Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(2), 694-699.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488975
EU. (1978). Council Directive 79/112/EEC. EU.
EU. (2011). Food: from farm to fork statistics. EUROSTAT, 170. doi:10.2785/13787
EU. (No 543/2008). COMMISSION REGULATION. EU. Retrieved from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:157:0046:0087:EN:PDF
EU. (No. 1169/2011). REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. 25
October 2011: EU.
FAO. (2009). The State of Food and Agriculture. Livestock in the balance. Food and Agriculture
Organization from the United Nations, Rome. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0680e/i0680e.pdf
FAO. (2010). Agribussines Handbook: Poultry, meat and eggs. Rome, Italy: FAO. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/al175e/al175e.pdf
FOD Economie, K.M.O. (n.d.). Middenstand en Energie Algemene Directie Statistiek en
Economische Informatie. .
Foxall, G., Oliveira-Castro, J., James, V., & Schrezenmaier, T. (2011). Consumer behaviour
analysis and the behavioural perspective mode. Durham Research Online, 1-10.
Fulginiti, L. E. (1996). The Change from Red to White Meat: The Role of Technology. University of
Nebraska - Lincoln, Agricultural Economics Department. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ageconfacpub/7
Graham Sumner, W. (1906). Fundamental Notions of the Folkways and of the Mores. In W.
Graham Sumner, Folways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners,
Customs, Mores, and Morals. Ginn.
Grebitus, C. (2008). Food Quality from the Consumer’s Perspective: An Empirical Analysis of
Perceived Pork Quality. Cuvillier Verlag Göttingen. Retrieved from
http://books.google.be/books?id=lSZ3zH0fsjEC&pg=PA31&dq=steenkamp+1989&hl=en
&sa=X&ei=Ypa_T6aELc_oOdf96OwJ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=steenkamp%201989&f
=false
pg. 65
Grunert, K. (2005). Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand. European
Review of Agricultural Economics, 32(3), 369-391.
Grunert, K. G., & Wills, J. M. (2007). A review of European research on consumer response to
nutrition information on food labels. Journal of Public Health, 15(5), 385-399.
doi:10.1007/s10389-007-0101-9
Haley, M. m. (2001). Changing Consumer Demand for Meat: The U.S Example, 1970 - 2000. In A.
Regmi (Ed.), Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agriculture and Trade Report. WRS-01-1. (pp. 41-48).
Washington, DC: Economic Research Service/USDA. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs011/
Han, M., & Terpstra, V. (1998). Country-of-Origin Effects for Uni-National and Bi-National
Products. Journal of International Business Studies, 18(2), 235-255. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/155024 .
Hett, E. (1993). The development of an instrument to measure global-mindedness. Dissertation
Abstracts International.
Hong, S.-T., & Wyer Jr., R. S. (1989). Effects of Country-of-Origin and Product-Attribute
Information on Product Evaluation: An Information Processing Perspective. Journal of
Consumer Research, 16(2), 175-187. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489316
Hong, S.-T., & Wyer, J. R. (1990). Determinants of Product Evaluation: Effects of the Time
Interval between Knowledge of a Product's Country of Origin and Information about Its
Specific Attributes. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 277-288. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2626795
Issanchau, S. (1996). Consumer Expectations and Perceptions of Meat and Meat Product
Quality. Meat Science, 43(1), 5-19. doi:10.1016/0309-1740(96)00051-4,
Jacoby, J., & Olson, J. C. (1977). Consumer reaction to price: An attitudinal, information
processing perspective. In Y. Wim, & M. Greenberg, Moving Ahead With Attitude
Research. American Marketing Association.
pg. 66
Juric, B., & Worsley, A. (1998). Consumers' attitudes towards imported food products. Food
Quality and Preference, 9(6), 431-441. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00027-5
Kim, K., & O'Cass, A. (2001). Consumer brand classifications: an assessment of culture-of-origin
versus country-of-origin. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(2), 120-136.
doi:10.1108/10610420110388672
Knight, G. A., & Calantone, R. J. (2000). A flexible model of consumer country-of-origin
perceptions: A cross-cultural investigation. International Marketing Review, 17(2), 127-
145. doi:10.1108/02651330010322615
Knight, J. G., Holdsworth, D. K., & Mather, D. W. (2007). Country-of-origin and choice of food
imports: an in-depth study of European distribution channel gatekeepers. Journal of
International Business Studies, 38, 107-125. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400250
Knight, J. G., Holdsworth, D. K., & Mather, D. W. (2008). GM food and neophobia: connecting
with the gatekeepers of consumer choice. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,
88(5), 739–744. doi:10.1002/jsfa.3168
Koschate-Fischer, N., Diamantopoulos, A., & Oldenkotte, K. (2012). Are Consumers Really Willing
to Pay More for a Favorable Country Image? A Study of Country-of-Origin Effects on
Willingness to Pay. Journal of International Marketing, 20(1), 19-41.
Kubberød, E., Ueland, Ø., Rødbotten, M., Westad, F., & Risvik, E. (2002). Gender specific
preferences and attitudes towards meat. Food Quality and Preference, 13(5), 285-294.
doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00041-1
Lagerkvist, C. J., Carlsson, F., & Viske, D. (2006). Swedish Consumer Preferences for Animal
Welfare and Biotech: A Choice Experiment. AgBioForum, 9(1), 51-58.
Lantz, G., & Loeb, S. (1996). Country of Origin and Ethnocentrism: An Analysis of Canadian and
American Preferences Using Social Identity Theory. Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol.23(Issue 1), 374-378. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=62b79842-615f-42aa-bbff-
31db8b7667a4%40sessionmgr14&vid=11&hid=126
pg. 67
Laroche, M., & Brisoux, J. (1989). Incorporating competition into consumer behaviour models:
the case of the attitude-intention relationship. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(3),
343-362. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(89)90029-9
Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. A., & Mourali, M. (2005). The influence of country
image structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products. International Marketing
Review, 22(1), 96-115. doi:10.1108/02651330510581190
Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L., & Bergeron, J. (2003). Effects of subcultural
differences on country and product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2(3),
232-247. doi:10.1002/cb.104
Li, W.-K., & Wyer Jr., R. S. (1994). The role of country of origin in product evaluations:
Informational and standard-of-comparison effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(2),
187-212. doi:10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80004-6
Liefield, J. P. (1993). Experiments of Country-of-Origin-Effects: Review of Meta Analysis of Effect
Size. In N. Papadopoulus, & L. A. Heslop, Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in
International Marketing (pp. 117-156). The Haworth Press. Retrieved from
http://books.google.be/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=z8PE4zEFSGkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA117&dq=liefi
eld+1993+Experiments+on+country+of+origin+effects:+Review+and+meta-
analysis&ots=9ALYIoi2G7&sig=nz5QeLz3mUuBN-hwu8DXL-
SMqG4#v=snippet&q=Experiments%20on%20country%20of%20origin%
Lone, B. (2003). Cue utilisation and quality perception with regard to branded beef. Food Quality
and Preference, 15, 65-75.
Loureiro, M. L., & Umberger, W. J. (2005). Assessing Consumer Preferences for Country-of-
Origin Labeling. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 37(1), 49-63. Retrieved
from http://purl.umn.edu/43712
Loureiro, M. L., & Umberger, W. J. (2007). A choice experiment model for beef: What US
consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin
labeling and traceability. Food Policy, 32(4), 496-514. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.11.006
Lusk, J. L., Roosen, J., & Fox, J. A. (2001). Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth
Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France,
pg. 68
Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 85(1), 16-29. doi:10.1111/1467-8276.00100
Lusk, J., & Anderson, J. D. (2004). Effects of Country-of-Origin Labeling on Meat Producers and
Consumers. Journal ofAgricultura1 and Resource Economics 29(2): 185-205, 29(2), 185-
205. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40987215
MacKenzie B., S. (1986). The Role of Attention in Mediating the Effect of Advertising on
Attribute Importance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 174-195. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489225
Maheswaran, D. (1994). Country of Origin as a Stereotype: Effects of Consumer Expertise and
Attribute Strength onProduct Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 354-365.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489826
Mangen, M., & Burrel, A. (2001). Decomposing Preference Shift for Meat and Fish in the
Netherlands. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52(2), 16-28. doi:10.1111/j.1477-
9552.2001.tb00922.x
Moynagh, J. (2000). EU Regulation and consumer demand for animal welfare. Agriculture
BioForum, 3(2 & 3), 107-114.
Nagashima, A. (1970). A comparison of Japanese and U.S. attitudes towards foreign products.
Journal of Marketing, 34(1), 68-74. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1250298
Narayana, C. L. (1981). Aggregate images of American and Japanese products: Implications on
international marketing. Columbia Journal of World Business, 16, 31-35.
Niss, H. (1996). Country of origin marketing over the product life cycle: A Danish case study.
European Journal of Marketing, 30(3), 6-22. doi:10.1108/03090569610107409
Orth, U. R., & Firbasová, Z. (2003). The role of consumer ethnocentrism in food product
evaluation. Agribusiness, 19(2), 137-153. doi:10.1002/agr.10051
Papadopoulos, N. (1993). What Product and Country Images Are and Are Not. In N. G.
Papadopoulos, & L. Heslop, Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International
Marketing (pp. 3-38). International Business Press.
pg. 69
Papadopoulus, N., & Heslop, L. A. (1990). A comparative image analysis of domestic versus
imported products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 7(4), 283-294.
doi:10.1016/0167-8116(90)90005-8
Pereira, A., Hsu, C.-C., & Kundub, S. K. (2005). Country-of-origin image: measurement and cross-
national testing. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 103-106. doi:10.1016/S0148-
2963(02)00479-4
Peterson, R. A., & Jolibert, A. J. (1995). A Meta-Analysis of Country-Of-Origin Effects. Journal of
International Business Studies, 26(4), 883-900. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/155303 .
Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia
in humans. Appetite, 19(2), 105–120. doi:10.1016/0195-6663(92)90014-W
Pouta, E., Heikkilä, J., Forsman-Hugg, S., Isoniemi, M., & Mäkelä, J. (2010). Consumer choice of
broiler meat: The effects of country of origin and production methods. Food Quality and
Preference, 21(5), 539-546. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.02.004
Rawwas, M. Y., Rajendran, K., & Wuehrer, G. A. (2002). The influence of worldmindedness and
nationalism on consumer evaluation of domestic and foreign products. International
Marketing Review, 13(2), 20-38. doi:10.1108/02651339610115746
Roosen, J., Lusk, J. L., & Fox, J. A. (2003). Consumer Demand for and Attitudes Toward
Alternative Beef Labeling Strategies in France, Germany, and the UK. Agribusiness, 19(1),
77-90. doi:10.1002/agr.10041
Roth, M. S., & Romeo, J. B. (1992). Matching Product Catgeory and Country Image Perceptions:
A Framework for Managing Country-Of-Origin Effects. Journal of International Business
Studies, 23(3), 477-497.
Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Imada, S., Sarubin, A., & Wrzesniewski, A. (1999). Attitudes to Food and
the Role of Food in Life in the U.S.A.,Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: Possible
Implications for the Diet–Health Debate. Appetite, 33(2), 163-180.
doi:10.1006/appe.1999.0244,
Rural, R. (2009, Junho). Avicultura - Criação de Primero Mundo. Rev 136. Retrieved from
http://www.revistarural.com.br/Edicoes/2009/Artigos/rev136_%20frango.htm
pg. 70
Schnettler, B., Ruiz, D. R., Sepúlveda, O., & Néstor, S. (2008). Importance of the country of origin
in food consumption in a developing country. Food Quality and Preference, 19(4), 372–
382. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.11.005
Schnettler, B., Vidal, R., Vallejos, L., & Sepúlveda, N. (2009). Consumer willingness to pay for
beef meat in a developing country: The effect of information regarding country of origin,
price and animal handling prior to slaughter. Food Quality and Preference, 20(2), 156-
165. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.07.006
Schooler, R. (1965, Nov.). Product Bias in the Central American Common Market. Journal of
Marketing Research, 2(4), 394-397 .
Schooler, R. (1971). Bias Phenomena Attendant to the Marketing of Foreign Goods in the U. S.
Journal of International Business Studies, 2(1), 71-80. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/154727
Sharma, S., Shimp, T. A., & Shin, J. (1995). Consumer ethnocentrism: A test of antecedents and
moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(1), 26-37.
doi:10.1007/BF02894609
Shimp, T., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the
CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24(3), 280-289. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151638
Stafleu, A., de Graaf, C., & van Staveren, W. A. (1994). Attitudes Towards High-Fat foods and
Their Low-Fat Alternatives: Reliability and Relationship with Fat Intake. Appetite, 22(2),
183-196. doi:10.1006/appe.1994.1018
Steenkamp, J.-B. E., ter Hofstede, F., & Wedel, M. (1999). A Cross-National Investigation into the
Individual and National Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness. American
Marketing Association, 63(2), 55-69. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251945
TACD. (2008). Recommendation Report and European Commission Service's Responses.
Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue.
pg. 71
Tseng, T.-H., & Balabanis, G. (2011). Explaining the product-specificity of country-of-origin
effects. International Marketing Review, 28(6), 581-600.
doi:10.1108/02651331111181420
Turner, A. (1995). Prepacked food labelling: past, present and future. British Food Journal, 97(5),
23-31. doi:10.1108/00070709510091047
USDA. (2011). Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade. United States Department of
Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.fas.usda.gov/livestock_arc.asp
USDA, D. o. (January 15 2009). Department of Agricultural Marketing Service. 7 CFR Parts 60 and
65. Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, Chicken, Goat Meat, Wild
and Farm-Raised Fish and Shellfish, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts,
Pecans, Ginseng, and Macadamia, Nuts, Department of Agriculture, Federal Register.
Usunier, J.-C., & Cestre, G. (2007). Product Ethnicity: Revisiting the Match Between Products and
Countries. Journal of International Marketing, 15(3), 32-72. doi:10.1509/jimk.15.3.32
Valceschini, E., & Bureau, J.-C. (2003). European Food Policy: Successes and Limitations. Journal
of Food Distribution Research, 34(3), 69-76. Retrieved from http://purl.umn.edu/27048
Valsta, L., Tapanainen, H., & Männistö, H. (2005). Meat fats in nutrition. 70(3), 525-530.
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.12.016
van der Lans, I. A., van Ittersum, K., De Cicco, A., & Loseby, M. (2001). The role of the region of
origin and EU certificates of origin in consumer evaluation of food products. European
Review of Agricultural Economics, 28(4), 451-477. doi:10.1093/erae/28.4.451
Vanhonacker, F., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F., & Verbeke, W. (2010). Citizens’ Views on Farm
Animal Welfare and Related Information Provision: Exploratory Insights from Flanders,
Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23(6), 551-569.
doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9235-9
Verbeke, W. (2008, May 23). Impact of communication on consumers’ food choices. Proceedings
of the Nutrition Society, 67, 281–288. doi:10.1017/S0029665108007179
Verbeke, W., & Jacques, V. (2000). Ethical Challenges for Livestock Production: Meeting
Consumer Concerns About Meat Safety and Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 141-151. doi:10.1023/A:1009538613588
pg. 72
Verbeke, W., & Viaene, J. (1999). Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat
consumption in Belgium: empirical evidence from a consumer survey. Food Quality and
Preference, 10(6), 437-445. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00031-2
Verbeke, W., & Ward, R. W. (2003). Importance of EU Label Requirements: An Application of
Ordered Probit Models to Belgium Beef Labeling. Montreal, Canada: Paper Presented at
the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual. Retrieved from
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/22077/1/sp03ve02.pdf
Verbeke, W., & Ward, R. W. (2006). Consumer interest in information cues denoting quality,
traceability and origin: An application of ordered probit models to beef labels. Food
Quality and Preference, 17(6), 453-467. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.05.010
Verbeke, W., Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J., & De Brabander, H. F. (2007). Why consumers behave
as they do with respect to food safety and risk information. Analytica Chimica Acta,
586(1-2), 2-7. doi:10.1016/j.aca.2006.07.065
Verbeke, W., Viaene, J., & Guiot, O. (1999). Health Communication and Consumer Behavior on
Meat in Belgium: From BSE until Dioxin. Journal of Health Communication, 4(4), 345-357.
doi:10.1080/108107399126869
Verlegh, P. W., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. (1999). A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin
research. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(5), 521-546. doi:10.1016/S0167-
4870(99)00023-9
Verlegh, P. W., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & Meulenberg, M. T. (2005). Country-of-origin effects in
consumer processing of advertising claims. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 22(2), 127-139. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2004.05.003
VLAM. (1999-2009). Belgische netto productie* van gevogelte- en konijnenvlees (in ton
karkasgewicht). Retrieved from
http://www.vlam.be/marketinformationdocument/files/productie1999-2009.pdf
VLAM. (2012). De categorie ‘gevogelte, konijn en wild’ verstevigt haar positie. Marketingdienst.
Vukasovič, T. (2009, March). Consumer perception of poultry meat and the importance of
country of origin in a purchase making process. World's Poultry Science Journal, 65, 65-
74. doi:10.1017/S0043933909000005
pg. 73
Wall, M., Liefeld, J., & Heslop, L. A. (1991). Impact of country-of-origin cues on consumer
judgments in multi-cue situations: a covariance analysis. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 19(2), 105-113. doi:10.1007/BF02726002
Wang, C. (1978). “The effect of foreign economic, political and cultural environment on
consumers’ willingness to buy foreign products. Texas A&M University. PhD dissertation.
Warren, B. J., & Nes, E. (1982). Country-of-Origin Effects on Product Evaluations. Journal of
International Business Studies, 13(1), 89-99. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/154256
Watson, J. J., & Wright, K. (2000). Consumer ethnocentrism and attitudes toward domestic and
foreign products. Journal of Marketing, 34(9), 1149-1166.
doi:10.1108/03090560010342520
Yeh, C.-H., Chen, C.-I., & Sher, P. J. (2010). Investigation on perceived countryimage of imported
food. Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 849-856. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.005