master thesis green retailing: the spillover-effect of
TRANSCRIPT
Master thesis
Green retailing: the spillover-effect of organic products on the
perceived eco-friendliness of supermarkets
Guus van den Munckhof
4816773
August 9th, 2021
Supervisor:
Dr. Holger J. Schmidt
2
Abstract
Over past years, the already present attention for the environment has been increasing. With
consumers feeling insignificant in bringing climate change to a halt, consumers are
increasingly looking at corporations like supermarket chains to take responsibility, by
choosing to buy at companies that are actively environmentally friendly. Nonetheless, not
much research has been done on the actions that supermarkets can take to improve the extent
to which consumers perceive them to be environmentally-friendly. Past research has
nonetheless shown that pro-environmental products, in this case organic products, can cause a
spillover of the environmental-friendly connotations to the image of the entire supermarket.
Making use of an experiment, respondents were divided into six groups, each exposed
to a different manipulation, showing different supermarket shelves containing either no
organic products, organic private label brand products, or organic national brand products.
Furthermore, the shelves contained either hedonic or utilitarian products. As a covariate, the
organic involvement of participants was tested.
Results showed no effects of the types of brands in the assortment on the extent to
which participants saw a supermarket as environmentally friendly, even in comparison to the
situation not containing organic products. Interestingly, an effect was found of the extent to
which participants were involved with organic products, showing that higher involvement
leads to lower perceived eco-friendliness. Furthermore, there was a direct effect of product
category, with participants who were exposed to the utilitarian shelves seeing the supermarket
as more environmentally friendly than the participants who saw the hedonic shelves.
This provides supermarket managers with insights into how to influence their
environmentally-friendly image.
Keywords: Organic products, private label brand, environmental friendliness, spillover effect,
hedonic, utilitarian
3
Table of contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 5
2. Literature review ................................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Organic products ............................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Perceived eco-friendliness ................................................................................................ 9
2.3 Type of brand (Organic private label brands vs. organic national brands) .................... 11
2.4 Spillover effect ............................................................................................................... 12
2.5 Product category (hedonic vs. utilitarian products) ........................................................ 14
2.6 Organic involvement ...................................................................................................... 15
2.7 Demographic variables ................................................................................................... 17
2.8 Conceptual model ........................................................................................................... 18
3. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 20
3.1 Method of data collection ............................................................................................... 20
3.2 Experimental design ....................................................................................................... 20
3.3 Statistical test .................................................................................................................. 23
3.4 Sample size ..................................................................................................................... 24
3.5 Research ethics ............................................................................................................... 24
4. Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 25
4.1 Manipulation check ........................................................................................................ 25
4.2 Questionnaire respondents .............................................................................................. 26
4.3 Randomization check ..................................................................................................... 28
4.4 Measurement .................................................................................................................. 28
4.5 Factor analysis ................................................................................................................ 29
4.6 Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 30
5. Results .................................................................................................................................. 35
5.1 Main effects .................................................................................................................... 35
5.2 Covariates ....................................................................................................................... 37
6. Conclusion and Discussion .................................................................................................. 40
6.1 Theoretical implications ................................................................................................. 43
6.2 Managerial implications ................................................................................................. 44
6.3 Limitations and future research ...................................................................................... 46
References ................................................................................................................................ 49
Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 59
Appendix A: Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 59
4
Appendix B: Original scales and translation ........................................................................ 84
Appendix C: Manipulation check ......................................................................................... 86
Appendix D: Factor Analysis ............................................................................................. 101
Appendix E: Manipulation check results ............................................................................ 103
Appendix F: ANCOVA assumptions ................................................................................. 105
Appendix G: ANCOVA ..................................................................................................... 109
5
1. Introduction
In the Netherlands, the market for organic products is growing steadily. Throughout 2019, the
market share of organic products in supermarkets grew by 3% (Logatchena, 2020).
This growth of the organic market has gone hand in hand with the growth of environmental
consciousness, especially in developed countries (Naderi & van Steenburg, 2018; Chen &
Chai, 2010). As a result of this, consumers have grown more aware of making
environmentally responsible and conscious purchases, while also expecting firms and
institutions to behave responsibly concerning the environment (Fraj & Martinez, 2007). This
is a result of the perception that many consumers have that they do not have a meaningful
positive effect on the environment, resulting in consumers mainly looking at large
corporations to do their part (Salomon, Preston & Tannenbaum, 2017). A report has shown
that 83% of global online consumers say that it is important that companies implement
programs that improve the environment (Nielsen, 2011).
In organic farming and production, fewer pesticides and artificial fertilizers are used.
For these reasons, it is generally accepted that organic farming does less damage to the
environment than conventional farming (Van Doorn & Verhoef, 2011). A majority of
consumers in Western Europe also report concern for the environment as the main reason for
purchasing organic products (Yiridoe et al., 2005). This was in line with Seyfang (2006), who
found that protection of the environment is an important motivator for ethical consumerism,
which involves purchasing organic products out of ethical responsibility (Cho & Krasser,
2011). Bionext (2020) found that 41% of Dutch consumers perceive organic products to be
mainly environmentally friendly, ahead of other factors like healthiness.
Retailers have started recognizing and acknowledging this organic trend among
consumers. With supermarkets being the primary sales channel of organic products (Bionext,
2020), they have grown aware of the responsibility that consumers place in their hands
regarding pro-environmental behaviour.
As a consequence, companies have started using “green retailing”: including measures
to protect the environment within retail operations (Lai, Cheng & Tang, 2010). An example of
this is the fact that organizations have started communicating more about their pro-
environmental practices (Pancer, McShane & Noseworthy, 2017). Furthermore, retailers have
started introducing organic private label brands, which provide the retailer with an
opportunity to express environmental commitment (Mejri & Bhatli, 2014), as well as being
6
able to offer organic products at more affordable prices (Konuk, 2018). An example of this is
AH Biologisch, which was introduced by Albert Heijn in 2015 (Albert Heijn, 2016).
Because private label brands are only sold at certain stores, they are highly connected to that
store. Therefore, private label brands are often seen as extensions of the store image and can
therefore contribute to store differentiation in the minds of consumers (Collins-Dodd &
Lindley, 2003). Different from private label brands, national brand products are not produced
by the retailer itself, but by an organization that sells its products to retailers, such as Coca-
Cola, Oreo, and Mars (Ailawadi & Harlam, 2004). As they are not connected to a single chain
of stores, national brand products are often widely sold. Due to their favorable level of brand
equity, consumers often perceive national brand products as higher quality, which past
research has shown to be largely a result of branding, instead of large differences in actual
quality (De Wulf et al., 2005).
As private label brands are more strongly connected to a specific store, past research
has shown that the image of a PLB can spill over to the overall image of the store that sells
the brand. This is especially the case with products that are related to corporate social
responsibility, of which organic products and environmental protection form a part. Wang &
Korschun (2015) found that this positive, eco-friendly image can carry over to the entire store.
However, it can generally be concluded that the amount of research that has been done
on the impact of a positive PLB image on store image has not been sufficient. So far, this
subject has also mostly been researched in a CSR context as a whole, instead of focusing on
the individual drivers of CSR, such as organic food products. Furthermore, according to
Schleenbecker & Hamm (2013), an insufficient amount of research has been done on
consumer’s expectations regarding organic product lines.
With the growth of environmental awareness and consciousness over past decades,
and consumers also expecting pro-environmental behaviour from companies, it is very
important for managers of supermarkets to know how they can influence the extent to which
consumers see their stores as eco-friendly. In this way, they can secure a competitive
advantage over competitors that do not correctly communicate their pro-environmental stance,
either through marketing or through including certain types of brands in their assortment.
Because PLBs can be seen as extensions of the store image, the effect of introducing organic
PLBs by supermarkets on the extent to which they are perceived to be environmentally
conscious is very relevant.
In this study, the effect of different brand types in an assortment, namely organic NBs
and organic PLBs, on the perceived eco-friendliness of a store will be compared, to each other
7
and a baseline condition not containing organic products. In this way, it will be possible to
make conclusions about whether the introduction of organic PLBs or organic products in
general, actually affects the extent to which consumers perceive a supermarket as eco-
friendly. As the introduction of organic PLBs has been growing in popularity in recent years,
these conclusions will provide supermarket managers with relevant information.
Because private label brands are more strongly and directly associated with a specific
retailer than national brands, it is hypothesized that the positive effect on the perceived eco-
friendliness is stronger in the case of organic private label products than organic national
brand products. In this study, the effect of the presence of either organic NBs or organic PLBs
on the perceived eco-friendliness of the store will be compared, to be able to make
conclusions about whether the introduction of organic PLBs, which many stores have been
doing in recent years, actually has an impact on whether the said store is seen as eco-friendly.
This leads to the following research question: “To what extent do the types of organic brands
that are present in an assortment have an effect on the perceived eco-friendliness of a
supermarket?”
Furthermore, two food product categories will be compared, namely hedonic and
utilitarian products, to see whether the effect of the type of brand on perceived eco-
friendliness differs significantly between the two product categories. Also, some covariates
are added into the model, namely the extent to which consumers are involved with organic
products, as well as age and gender.
This research question will be answered through an experimental design, in which
participants will be exposed to fictional store shelves, either containing organic PLB products,
organic NB products, or no organic products altogether. Afterward, they will answer
questions regarding the extent to which they are involved with organic products and the extent
to which they perceive the store in the questionnaire to be environmentally friendly.
Regarding the research structure, chapter 2 begins with a literature review of the central
concepts of the study. In chapter 3, the methodology that will be used in the study is
discussed, as well as the design of the questionnaire, and the proposed statistical analysis of
the data. In chapter 4, the questionnaire results are analyzed. Chapter 5 contains the results of
the analysis, and chapter 6 discusses the conclusions and limitations of the study.
8
2. Literature review
In this section, the main concepts of the study will be defined and operationalized.
Furthermore, the conceptual model of the study and the resulting hypotheses are constructed
and presented.
2.1 Organic products
Organic food can be defined as “natural food items which are free from artificial chemicals
such as fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, and genetically modified organisms”
(Rana & Paul, 2017, pp.158). Consumers generally perceive organic products to be fresher,
tastier, healthier, and of higher nutritional quality than conventional products (Grunert, Bech-
Larsen & Bredahl, 2000; Wang, Wang & Huo, 2019). Magnusson et al. (2001) also found that
taste and health were the two most important purchase criteria that consumers had for buying
organic products. Nonetheless, Van Doorn & Verhoef (2015) found no significant positive
effect of health consciousness on organic purchase intention and showed that a focus on
health might even influence the purchase intention negatively. Another main motivation that
is generally found for buying organic food in past research is buying organic products out of
environmental grounds (Cicia, del Guidice & Ramunno, 2009; Grunert & Juhl, 1995).
Consumers perceive organic products to be more “natural”, and the word ‘organic’
generally serves as a heuristic cue for naturalness and greenness (Aarset et al., 2004).
Larceneux et al. (2012) also found that the organic label on a product, by which organic
products can often be recognized, has a significant positive effect on the belief that the
product is environmentally friendly. This also shows in the willingness to pay that European
consumers have for organic products, as stating that a product is organic and including its
positive impact on the environment increases the price that consumers are willing to pay for
that product (Vecchio, van Loo & Annunziata, 2016). These perceptions that consumers have
regarding the environmental properties are salient, as previous studies have not been able to
come to a definitive conclusion on whether organic agriculture is actually beneficial to the
environment (Lorenz & Lal, 2016). Nonetheless, the perceptions that consumers have are of
more relevance in the present study than the actual environmental impact.
Regarding the main point of purchase that consumers look to for purchasing organic
products, Weatherell, Tregear & Allison (2003) found that although consumers are willing to
engage with local food producers to purchase organic food, supermarkets are still the first
point of reference because they are more easily accessible. For this reason, organic products
9
are very important for supermarkets in catering to the growing environmental awareness of
consumers.
Regarding the target group of organic products, past research shows that most
consumers only purchase organic products occasionally and that only a very small percentage
of consumers exclusively purchase organic products (Pearson & Henryks, 2008).
2.2 Perceived eco-friendliness
According to past research, food consumption is estimated to contribute between 20% and
30% of the total environmental impact in the Western world (Tukker & Jansen, 2006). With
growing environmental awareness in these same developed Western countries, consumers are
seeking to contribute positively to the environment, for instance through organic food choices,
which is generally seen as the most important attribute of environmental friendliness in food
(Tobler, Visschers & Siegrist, 2011).
To define the variable perceived eco-friendliness, it is necessary to define store image
first. Bloemer & De Ruyter (1998, pp.499) define it as follows: “the complex of a consumer’s
perceptions of a store on different (salient) attributes”, with the different attributes referring to
elements such as products, price, promotion etcetera. Consequently, the perceived eco-
friendliness of a supermarket forms a part of the store image, as it is a specific image that is
formed by a consumer or a group of consumers. It is defined as follows: “the extent to which
a store is perceived as environmentally friendly and is linked to environment commitment and
environment concerns in consumers’ mind” (Punyatoya, 2014). The extent to which a
supermarket is perceived as environmentally friendly creates a green image of the
supermarket in the mind of the consumer.
Over recent decades, consumers have grown increasingly aware of the importance of
taking action to preserve the environment and reduce the negative effects of global warming.
As a result, concern about the environment is evident around the world, and growing
(Kvaløy, Finseraas, & Listhaug, 2012). Nonetheless, consumers feel as though their
individual efforts do not have any impact on trying to curb climate change, leading to
demoralization and often refraining from pro-environmental actions altogether (Feijoo &
Moreira, 2020). As a result, consumers are progressively starting to look at big corporations,
as they feel that the big international organizations actually can play a role in slowing the
effects of climate change, and should take their responsibility in doing so (Salomon et al.,
2017).
10
As a result, consumers actually do play a very significant role in more sustainable food
production, for example by steering the demand towards more sustainable food options
(Johnston, Fanzo & Cogill, 2014). In extreme situations, this could lead to consumers
effectively boycotting supermarket chains that do not behave according to their environmental
beliefs (Dono, Webb & Richardson, 2010). According to Ingenbleek & Reinders (2013), this
has directly lead to mainstream brands adopting these sustainability labels such as organic and
fair trade brands, possibly out of fear of consumers questioning their social behaviour, and
opting for other supermarkets in the future. This illustrates the relative power that consumers
can exert over organizations, by adapting their buying behaviour to only purchasing at
supermarkets that show they care about the environment and take pro-environmental actions.
Nonetheless, not much research has been done into what factors influence whether a
company is seen as environmentally friendly by consumers. With supermarkets being the
main retail outlet for food and groceries, it is important to gain more understanding into the
different factors that influence to what extent a supermarket is seen as eco-friendly. For
supermarket managers, it is especially relevant in current times to be aware of how to
influence these eco-friendly perceptions among consumers. As this is a relatively new
viewpoint in the field of environmental research, not much research has been done so far on
what factors influence the extent to which an organization is perceived to be eco-friendly.
However, in the case of products, researchers have found features that influence
whether consumers generally view them to be eco-friendly. In the past, it was often difficult
for consumers to assess whether a product was eco-friendly, as the environmental impact was
often not visible (Tanner & Jungbluth, 2003). Nowadays, with many labels relating to the
environment often present on packaging, including organic labels, consumers can deduce the
eco-friendliness of the product more easily (Tobler et al., 2011; Tanner & Kast, 2003), with
organic products being seen as more eco-friendly than conventional products. Past research
has furthermore shown a significant correlation between perceived healthiness and perceived
eco-friendliness: participants also deduce environmental perceptions from health aspects, and
vice versa (Lazzarini, Zimmermann & Visschers, 2016), meaning that participants often also
see healthier products are more eco-friendly. It was also found that the product category is an
important indicator for environmental friendliness, as participants saw plant- and milk-based
products as more environmentally friendly, which will be further discussed in section 2.5.
11
2.3 Type of brand (Organic private label brands vs. organic national brands)
At supermarkets, products are sold under a multitude of different brands. A brand can be
defined as “a name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that identifies one seller's good
or service as distinct from those of other sellers” (American Marketing Association, 1960;
Bennett, 1988, pp.18).
In most supermarket assortments, a general divide can be made between private label
brands and national brands. Private label brands (PLBs) can be defined as follows: “brands
owned, controlled, and sold exclusively by retailers” (Sethuraman & Cole, 1999, pp. 340).
Under the PLB that is sold in a supermarket, a plethora of different product categories is often
sold. The main selling point of private label products has traditionally been their price
advantage and good value for money in comparison with national brands. As such, PLBs can
act as a cue to trigger a perception of value (Zeithaml, 1988). The main reason why retailers
have started introducing PLBs is to compete profitably in the price-sensitive segment (Hoch
& Banerjee, 1993).
The other type of brand that will be used in this study consists of national brand (NB)
products. The main difference between private label brands and national brands is the fact that
private label brands are manufactured by the retailer itself, while national brands are sold to
retailers by the companies that manufacture them. In the case of national brand products, this
means that both the manufacturer and the retailer add a profit margin to the price of the
product, resulting in a higher average price for national brand products (Ailawadi & Harlam,
2004).
Regarding conventional products, consumers are often suspicious of the quality of
PLBs as compared to NBs, because they are typically lower-priced, usually without
interesting packaging, and often have little advertising (Dick, Jain & Richardson, 1995).
Many NBs are perceived as being superior in reliability, prestige, and quality to PLBs
(Bellizzi, et al., 1981). To a lesser extent, they are perceived as superior in aspects like taste,
aroma, nutritional value, and freshness. De Wulf et al. (2005) found that this is mainly
because national brands enjoy a favorable level of brand equity, meaning it elicits strong and
favorable associations in the mind of the consumer (Keller, 1993). Nonetheless, PLBs are
generally perceived as providing better value for money than national brands, as national
brands are often seen as being too expensive in comparison to what they provide. (Nenycz-
Thiel & Romaniuk, 2009). In recent years, consumers have even started preferring PLBs over
NBs, indicating that objectively speaking, those products are often equally good or even better
than their national brand counterparts (Deloitte, 2015). Negative attitudes towards PLBs are
12
generally present for consumers who do not use PLB products because Nenycz-Thiel &
Romaniuk (2009) found that for PLB users, trust and perceived quality for PLBs was just as
high as for NBs. In conclusion, perceptions of lower quality generally stem from consumers
who do not purchase and use PLB products.
Bauer, Heinrich & Schäfer (2013) found that the quality perception of private label
products in specific is most effectively influenced by an organic label, leading to the PLB
being viewed as of equal quality to local and national brands, while for conventional products,
PLBs are seen as being of lower quality. In this case, the organic label also showed a
significant effect on the perceived environmental friendliness of the products. Ngobo (2011)
also found that consumers are more likely to purchase organic PLBs than organic NBs.
Nonetheless, the consensus is still that generally, consumer preferences for national
brands are strong, and that a competitive national brand assortment is essential in establishing
profitability as an organization (De Wulf et al., 2005).
In the present study, this could relate to the difference between national brand
products, which are owned by a separate brand, and private label products, for which the
brand is the same as the retailer. In the case of the introduction of a new organic PLB, it is
both a new product that competes with existing brands and a new organic product that is sold
under the already existing brand name of the retailer as a PLB. Therefore, the supermarket can
to some extent be seen as both the retailer and the brand. This specific instance was not
researched in the article by Anagnastou, Ingenbleek & Van Trijp. (2015), but because a new
organic PLB can be seen as a new brand competing with the already existing assortment of
brands, it can be hypothesized that its introduction will lead to a positive spillover to the
retailer.
2.4 Spillover effect
The main question in this research is whether there is a spillover between the environmentally
friendly image of organic products to the retailer that offers these products.
The spillover effect can be defined as: “the extent to which information provided in
messages changes beliefs about attributes that are not mentioned in the messages.”
(Ahluwalia, Unnava & Burnkrant, 2001, pp. 458). In this case, the spillover effect would be
between the eco-friendly image of organic products that are introduced by the supermarket,
and the overall perceived eco-friendliness of the store, which can be seen as a dimension of
store image. Store image can namely be defined as: “the way a store is perceived by shoppers
and defined in the shoppers’ minds.” (Hartman & Spiro, 2005; pp. 1112).
13
Unlike national brands, private label brands are strongly connected to the retailers that
sell them (Vahie & Paswan, 2006). Due to this strong connection, often in the case of negative
publicity or crises, the image of the private label can influence the image of other products
that are sold under that private label, or the image of the retailer itself (e.g. Gendel-Guterman
& Levy, 2017; Mackalski & Belisle, 2015). They found that in the case of very severe and
extreme negative publicity, the negative image of a PLB can spill over to the store image.
This can be seen as a spillover effect (Lutz, 1975). In this case, there would be a
spillover effect between the image of the brand and the image of the store. While instances of
positive spillovers have been found, not much research has been done on this phenomenon.
However, Wang & Korschun (2015) for instance found a spillover effect from a
company’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) activity at the product brand level to the
entire brand portfolio and the company itself in the case of food and drink products. In their
study, the researchers also indicated that an important gap still exists in the extant literature of
social responsibility on a product/brand level. With organic production being a component of
CSR (Pivato, Misani & Tencati, 2008), its positive social connotations can carry over to the
rest of the brand portfolio, as well as the retailer itself. This is in line with Ramesh et al.
(2019), who found that CSR activities, including selling organic products and environmental
protection, have a significant positive effect on the image of an organization. In the case of
the present study, the positive connotations that would spillover from the organic products in
the assortment to the store image would be the notion of eco-friendliness, as the presence of
organic products often carries an eco-friendly connotation. Past research has namely shown
that organic products can be seen as a cue for environmental friendliness and naturality.
(Aarset et al., 2004; Larceneux, Benoît-Moreau & Renaudin, 2012).
In this area, a very significant finding was also done by Anagnostou et al. (2015),
namely that when a completely new organic-fair trade brand is introduced to compete with
existing brands, its sustainability image spills over to the retailer. However, when a new
organic-fair trade product is introduced under the name of an already existing brand, the
positive image only spills over to the brand, and not the retailer. This result is especially
interesting because, in the case of PLBs, the retailer ís the brand. Therefore, it would be
interesting to see whether the notion of eco-friendliness would carry over to the retailer.
Bezençon & Blili (2010) found a similar result in the case of ethical or social products
such as organic products, namely that their distribution can go together with the reinforcement
of the retailer’s corporate image regarding ethical values. Mejri & Bhatli (2014) found that a
socially responsible PLB reinforces both the brand and the retailer in their socially responsible
14
positioning. Furthermore, communicating the social value of the PLB significantly influences
the consumers’ loyalty to the retailer. As eco-friendliness is an example of an ethical value,
introducing organic products might have a similar effect.
Although past research has mainly focused on the ethical image of supermarkets and
stores in general, this research will specifically focus on the effect of the eco-friendly image
of organic products spilling over to the perceived eco-friendliness of the supermarket. As past
research has shown that the eco-friendly connotation of organic products can indeed carry
over to the retailer, especially in the case of a PLB (Vahie & Paswan, 2006), the following
hypotheses are used:
H1a: There is a significant effect of the type of brand on perceived eco-friendliness, with
organic PLBs leading to higher perceived eco-friendliness than organic NBs.
H1b: There is a significant effect of the type of brand on perceived eco-friendliness, with
organic NBs leading to higher perceived eco-friendliness than the situation without
organic products.
2.5 Product category (hedonic vs. utilitarian products)
In research into the food sector, two main product types are often distinguished: hedonic
products on one hand, and utilitarian products on the other. Hedonic products refer to
products that provide for experiential consumption, fun, pleasure, and excitement (Khan, Dhar
& Wertenbroch, 2004), like chocolate or ice cream. Hedonic products can therefore generally
be seen as “want-”, or vice products, that score high on affective preferences (Dhar &
Wertenbroch, 2000). In an organic context, this pleasure and excitement can also be driven by
the feeling of doing something right for the consumer’s health or for the environment (Petljak
et al., 2017).
While hedonic products are often focused on providing immediate benefits, they might
harm consumers in the long run, such as negative health consequences in the case of
chocolate. These negative consequences can lead to guilt in the mind of the consumer when
buying hedonic products (Giner-Sorolla, 1999). The other category, utilitarian products,
consists of products that mainly serve a practical purpose, based on the needs that consumers
have. Examples of utilitarian products would be products with low caloric content, or with
high nutritional value, like milk (Aigner, Wilken & Geisensdorf, 2019). Utilitarian products
can be viewed more as “should-” or virtue products, that mainly are based on reasoned
15
preferences (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). These utilitarian products are more related to
providing consumers with benefits in the long run, instead of pleasure at the moment of
consumption (Bazerman, Tenbrunsel & Wade-Benzoni, 1998). In the organic field, the
utilitarian value is often considered as the product’s instrumental functionality, for example,
low price, low caloric, or high nutritional value (Ghali-Zinoubi, 2020).
Although most products represent a combination of both hedonic and utilitarian
benefits, some product categories can be classified as primarily hedonic or utilitarian (Maehle
et al. 2015). An example of utilitarian cues in organic products is that they promise higher
quality and environmental protection than conventional products (Essoussi & Zahaf, 2008).
However, organic products also contain hedonic attributes, for example, the better taste that
organic products tend to have (McEachern & McClean, 2002; Hidalgo-Baz et al., 2017).
Previous research has found contradicting findings: Maehle et al. (2015) found that
consumers saw environmental friendliness as more important for utilitarian products than for
hedonic products. Mohammed (2020) also found that buying intentions of organic products
are mostly influenced by utilitarian values. Lee & Yun (2015) found that consumer’s
intentions to purchase organic foods are determined by both utilitarian attitudes and hedonic
attitudes. Ghali-Zinoubi (2020) found that consumers are willing to pay a higher price for
organic products, based on their utilitarian value, such as their superior quality or higher
nutritional value. Nonetheless, he concluded that buying organic products from an
environmental viewpoint was more related to hedonic value. Although there does not seem to
be a clear consensus regarding whether consumers mainly purchase organic products for
utilitarian value or hedonic value, most researchers state that consumers buy organic products
out of doing something right for the environment, which is generally seen as a utilitarian
value. For this reason, it is hypothesized that utilitarian products lead to a higher perceived
eco-friendliness than hedonic products:
H2: Utilitarian products lead to a higher perceived eco-friendliness than hedonic
products.
2.6 Organic involvement
Often, people seem to think that organic products are often purchased by small groups of
people who only purchase organic products. However, this does not seem the case. Although
there are consumers that are relatively highly involved with organic products, previous
research has shown that people who purchase organic products are generally in all
16
demographic segments in the market and that they all purchase organic products only casually
(Pearson, Henryks & Jones, 2010).
Therefore, as the first covariate in this study, the extent to which consumers are
involved with organic products is added into the model, to see whether the small group of
people that are highly involved with organic products show different results to the general
public. Furthermore, organic involvement is included to reduce the effect of possible outliers
in this category. Because the literature shows that organic involvement is generally at a quite
equal level in society, results are more generalizable when controlling for organic
involvement. Furthermore, the organic involvement cannot be randomized, but it can be
measured. This is also a motivation to include a variable as a covariate (Hair et al., 2019)
First, the variable of organic involvement should be defined. Celsi & Olsson (1988,
p.211) define (felt) involvement as: “a consumer’s overall subjective feeling of personal
relevance.” Specifically in this study, the type of involvement that is present is “enduring
involvement”. This specification refers to an ongoing concern with a certain product type, as a
function of past experience with a product and the strength of values to which the product is
relevant. (Bloch & Richins, 1983). In the context of this study, the involvement with organic
products is defined as the extent to which consumers subjectively feel that organic products
are personally relevant to them.
As mentioned before, values that are related to purchasing organic products are for
example related to values such as health or the environment. Nonetheless, Collins, Steg &
Koning (2007) found that even though behaviour is related to values, this relationship is quite
weak. Barr (2006) also found that there is often a gap between consumers’ environmental
concerns and their choices of products related to these same environmental issues. For this
reason, it is more relevant to use the variable ‘involvement’, as its influence on shopping
behaviour has been widely researched, although not often in an organic context (Tarkiainen &
Sundqvist, 2009). Nonetheless, research has shown that involvement with organic products
positively impacts the purchase intention of organic products (Ghali-Zinoubi & Toukabri,
2019).
Because environmental values are an important predictor for positive attitudes towards
organic products, consumers who are highly involved with organic products will generally
also be more involved with the environment (e.g. Tarkiainen & Sundqvist, 2009; Teng & Lu,
2016; Smith & Paladino, 2010; Shafie & Rennie, 2012). Schifferstein & Oude Ophuis (1998)
found that for heavy users of organic products, both the health- and environmental attributes
were of similar importance, which was not the case for incidental buyers, for whom health
17
attributes were more important. This means that consumers who are highly involved with
organic products will focus more on the environment-related aspects than consumers who do
not show much involvement with organic products. Consumers who are highly involved with
organic products are generally more willing to purchase organic products, pay a price
premium for their organic attributes, and make more sacrifices to obtain them (Rahman,
2018). Based on previous research, consumers who are more highly involved with organic
products will be more aware of the benefits of organic products for the environment. For this
reason, it can be expected that consumers that are more involved with organic products will
be more focused on the eco-friendliness of the product and will project it to the image of the
supermarket. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H3: There is a positive effect of organic involvement on perceived eco-friendliness.
2.7 Demographic variables
Finally, two demographic variables are added to the model to test their effects.
Age is included in the model, as research showed that the willingness to buy organic products
differs significantly for different age groups (Sivathanu, 2015; Kranjac, Vapa-Tankosi,
Knežević, 2017). The research showed that participants between the ages of 31 and 40
purchased the most organic products. Dettmann & Dimitri (2009) found that younger
participants were more likely to purchase organic products. Diamantopoulos et al. (2003) and
Jain & Kaur (2006) found similar results, showing that young participants have more
knowledge about issues regarding the environment, and actively search for environmentally
friendly products. For this reason, we believe that there is a significant effect of age on the
perceived eco-friendliness of the supermarket. This shows in the following hypothesis:
H4: There is a negative effect of age on perceived eco-friendliness.
Furthermore, the covariate gender will be included, as past research has also shown that there
is a significant difference between the two different genders in organic purchasing behaviour
(Sivathanu, 2015; Kranjac et al., 2015; Pearson et al., 2011), with female consumers
purchasing more organic products. Furthermore, Jain and Kaur (2006) found that females
outperform males in environmentally-friendly behaviour. Nonetheless, the majority of
conclusions of examples of previous research were based on hypotheses that are only partly
supported, lacking large explanative power. Therefore, it is still necessary and interesting to
18
research the effect of gender on pro-environmental behaviour and perceptions of eco-
friendliness. Based on the previous results, it can be hypothesized that environmental aspects
are of higher importance for female consumers than male consumers. As they would focus
more on the environmental aspect of the organic products in the assortment, the spillover to
the overall store would be stronger. For this reason, it is expected that female participants will
generally report higher perceived eco-friendliness than male participants:
H5: There is an effect of gender on perceived eco-friendliness, with females reporting
higher perceived eco-friendliness than males.
2.8 Conceptual model
The goal of the present study is to analyze the extent to which the type of brand that is present
in an assortment affects the perceived eco-friendliness of the supermarket that offers these
products. It is expected that assortments containing organic PLBs will lead to higher
perceived eco-friendliness than assortments containing organic NBs (H1a). The assortments
with organic NBs will then lead to higher perceived eco-friendliness than the baseline
situation not containing organic products (H1b). Furthermore, it will be analyzed in this thesis
whether there is an effect of the product category on the perceived eco-friendliness,
differentiating between hedonic and utilitarian products. For this effect, it is expected that
utilitarian products will lead to a higher perceived eco-friendliness than hedonic products
(H2).
Also, three covariates are included in the model. The first covariate measures the
extent to which consumers are involved with organic products. For this variable, it is expected
that consumers that are more involved with organic products will report higher perceived eco-
friendliness (H3). The second covariate measures the age of participants. Here, it is expected
that younger participants will report higher perceived eco-friendliness than older participants
(H4). Finally, the gender of participants is analyzed, with the expectation that female
participants will report higher perceived eco-friendliness than male participants (H5).
19
Figure 1: Conceptual model
H1
H2
H3-H5
Perceived eco-
friendliness of the
supermarket
Type of brand
(Without organic vs.
organic PLB vs.
organic NB)
Product Category
(Hedonic vs.
utilitarian products)
Covariates
- Organic
Involvement
- Age
- Gender
20
3. Methodology
3.1 Method of data collection
As is illustrated in the conceptual model in Figure 1, the effect of the type of brands that are
present in a supermarket assortment and the product category that is present on the perceived
eco-friendliness is measured. This effect will be controlled for the effect of organic
involvement, age, and gender.
For this thesis, the quantitative research design of an online experiment was used.
Through this method, quantitative data was gathered regarding the perceived eco-friendliness
that participants reported for different experimental conditions. The research had a custom
design, to gain the results that were needed to be able to answer the research question.
Although the dependent variable was of ordinal measurement level, the results were analyzed
through the process of an analysis of covariance. The questionnaire followed an experimental
design, which is the appropriate method for identifying a causal connection between the
independent and dependent variables (Kirk, 2012).
The independent variables, the type of brand and product category, were manipulated
to test their effects on the dependent variable, the perceived eco-friendliness of the
supermarket. Furthermore, the covariates organic involvement, age, and gender were added,
to be able to control for their effects on the dependent variable. Finally, the demographic
variable educational level was added to the questionnaire, to see to what extent this variable
would be skewed or kurtotic, based on the use of snowball sampling.
3.2 Experimental design
In this section, the design of the experiment and the different stimuli will be discussed.
An experiment was used, in the form of an online questionnaire, in order to test the different
hypotheses. A 3 (Without organic products vs. containing an organic NB vs. containing an
organic PLB) x 2 (hedonic vs. utilitarian product category) design was used, meaning that
participants were divided over 6 different manipulations. A between-subjects design was
used, in which participants were randomly assigned to the different experimental groups. The
experimental design was based on the design by Butz (2020). Similar to the design by Butz
(2020), participants were exposed to one out of six possible store shelves.
Participants were given a short introduction to read before starting the questionnaire,
stating that filling in the questionnaire would only take about 5 minutes, and they could
21
always come into contact to ask questions and could stop at any time. The goal of the research
was not disclosed, not to influence how participants would read and fill in the questionnaire.
In the first condition, participants were exposed to a supermarket shelf containing only
conventional products without organic products, consisting of the supermarket’s PLB and
three NBs, to make sure a substantial offering was provided. In the second condition, an
organic NB was added to the offering. In the third condition, instead of an organic NB, an
organic PLB was included in the offering. Furthermore, participants were randomly assigned
to one out of the two possible product categories, the utilitarian category yogurt, and the
hedonic category chocolate. The different shelves were manipulated in such a way that all
products had equal shelf space, and that the shelves looked like realistic supermarket store
shelves. Multiple versions of the same brand were added to the shelves, to give the impression
of realistic, full supermarket shelves.
Regarding the two product categories, the shelves contained an assortment of either
dark chocolate bars, as a hedonic product, or yogurt, as a utilitarian product (Huang & Lu,
2016). Regarding the assortment of Albert Heijn, these choices were justified, as the
supermarket offers both conventional and organic NBs, as well as conventional and organic
PLBs for both product categories (Albert Heijn, n.d.a.; n.d.b.). For yogurt, low-fat yogurt
containing 1.5% fat was used, known as “halfvol” in Dutch, which can be loosely translated
to “semi-skimmed”. This can be seen as the most general tier in between the variations
containing 0.5% and 3% fat, known as “magere” or thin yogurt and “volle” or full yogurt
(Albert Heijn, n.d.a.). Regarding the conventional and organic PLB, yogurt from the AH and
AH Bio brands was used. For the organic national brand, Arla organic yogurt was used. As
conventional national brands, the brands Campina, Melkan, and Melkunie were used. Melkan
and Melkunie are brands that are not sold at Albert Heijn. This was done because as a store,
Albert Heijn did not offer a larger variety of yogurt brands. However, the shelves were not
presented as being Albert Heijn shelves, they simply contain the Albert Heijn private label
brands. This was chosen because Albert Heijn is the most widely spread and well-known
supermarket in the Netherlands, with 34.9% of the total market share in supermarkets (Loon,
2020). For this reason, the Albert Heijn PLBs would be most recognizable as PLBs for Dutch
consumers, which was necessary for the study. This was also checked in the manipulation
check, which can be seen in Appendix C.
Even though the use of prices in the experimental condition would have added to the
realism of the experiment, prices were not added, for the reason that participants’ perception
22
could have been influenced by the prices, instead of by the intended variables. Therefore,
prices did not play a role in the experiment, as it was not expected to affect the results.
In the case of the hedonic product chocolate, dark chocolate containing hazelnuts was
used, as this was the only variance of chocolate in the assortment for which all different types
of brands were offered. Again, the AH PLB and the organic PLB AH Bio were used. For the
organic national brand, Côte d’Or Bio was used. The conventional national brands that were
used in the study were the brands Verkade, Ritter Sport, and Côte d’Or. The manipulations
containing the supermarket shelves can be found in Appendix A.
In the questionnaire, the different variables were measured through 7-point Likert
scales, ‘1’ generally referring to a low score, and ‘7’ referring to the highest score. However,
some scales were reversed to prevent a response bias, in which participants would not be
focused on the questions anymore, and simply answer based on the expectation that 1 stands
for low, and 7 stands for high. The scales were gathered from previous research, to have
higher certainty that the scales are adequate, as they had been previously tested regarding
validity and reliability.
Perceived eco-friendliness was defined as: “The extent to which a store is perceived as
environmentally friendly and is linked to environment commitment and environment concerns
in consumers’ mind” (Punyatoya, 2014, pp. 280). A scale from Punyatoya (2014) was used,
containing 5 questions. Organic involvement, or the extent to which consumers subjectively
feel that organic products are personally relevant to them, was tested using a scale by
Zaichkowsky (1994). This scale was adapted to an organic context, as it is a scale that is used
to measure involvement in general, adaptable to more concrete subjects. The scale contained 8
questions. Furthermore, demographic variables were included in the questionnaire, including
the covariates age and gender. Finally, to test whether yogurt and dark chocolate containing
hazelnuts were actually representative for utilitarian and hedonic products respectively, scales
by Voss, Spangenberg & Grohmann (2003) were used. Regarding both the utilitarian and the
hedonic value of the products, 5 questions were used. In the end, these 5 scales were
combined into a hedonic and utilitarian score for both product categories.
The questions in the questionnaire were translated to Dutch, as only Dutch participants
were researched, who might not all have been fully fluent in English, which could have
affected the results. The translations from English to Dutch were checked by multiple people
and translated back to English, to make sure that the final questions in Dutch measured the
same concepts as the original questions. The original English scales and their Dutch
translations can be found in Appendix B.
23
Participants were gathered through convenience sampling, as the specific
demographics were not of large importance to the study. Because the sample size
requirements were met, the sample can be viewed as a representative subset of the population.
The participants were exposed to one out of six possible manipulations. While still
being able to see the shelves, participants were asked to rate the extent to which they saw the
store as eco-friendly. Then, after going to the next page, they were asked to rate the utilitarian
and hedonic value of the product category they had been exposed to, as well as the extent to
which they were involved with organic products. Finally, they were asked to fill in some
demographic variables.
3.3 Statistical test
In this study, the relationship between a single dependent variable, two independent variables,
and three covariates was researched. The dependent variable, perceived eco-friendliness, was
measured using Likert scales. Likert scales are examples of scales of ordinal measurement
level. Normally, logistic ordinal regression would be an appropriate type of analysis for this
type of data. Nonetheless, due to a lack of experience with this method of analysis, the
decision was made to treat the ordinal outcome variable as a numeric interval variable and use
an analysis of covariance. According to past research, Likert scales with 5 or more categories
can often be treated as continuous without doing the dataset harm, which is called using an
“ordinal approximation of a continuous variable” (Johnson & Creech, 1983; Norman, 2010;
Sullivan & Artino, 2013; Zumbo & Zimmerman, 1993).
In using ANCOVA, this could lead to some different results, which will be addressed
in the limitations section. When using ANCOVA, some assumptions need to be met in order
to be able to conduct the tests. Firstly, the assumptions for regular analysis of variance should
be met, starting with the assumption that all observations should be independent. Secondly,
the independent variables should consist of two or more categorical groups. As a third
assumption, the dependent variable should be of interval or ratio level. Furthermore, the
dataset should contain no significant outliers. As a further assumption, the dependent variable
should be approximately normally distributed for each different category of the different
independent variables. Finally, regarding ANOVA, the last assumption that should be met is
the homogeneity of variances.
Subsequently, some ANCOVA-specific assumptions are expected to be met. Firstly,
for each level of the different independent variables, there should be a linear relationship
24
between the dependent variable and the covariate. Secondly and finally, the factors or
independent variables and the covariate should be independent of one another.
3.4 Sample size
Making use of snowball sampling through social media, 158 participants were gathered. The
respondents were not aware of the manipulations that were used in the study, and they were
randomly assigned to one out of the six different conditions of the research. As can be seen in
Table 3 in section 4.2, the different groups do not contain sharply unequal sample sizes. As all
groups contain a reasonable number of participants of N>20, normality can be assumed,
meaning that the number of participants is adequate (Hair et al., 2019).
3.5 Research ethics
In this study, the general rules of conduct by Radboud University and the American
Psychological Association, as well as the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice
(NVSU, 2014) are applied universally and without exception, to ensure that the research
process is carried out according to the generally accepted standards. In line with this code,
informed consent of all participants is essential, and participant responses were treated with
confidentiality and were only used for research purposes by the researcher. Participants were
informed about the fact that their answers and data would be used for scientific research, and
that individual response sets would not be publicized. If a participant chose not to finish
answering the questionnaire, their answers were not used, and the data of this participant was
deleted. Furthermore, participants were free to come into contact when there were aspects of
the questionnaire that are unclear or that need further specification. No participants reached
out with questions or aspects that were not clear in the questionnaire.
Academic sources were scrupulously referenced, and no texts and findings from others
were used without references or quotes. Furthermore, methodological procedures were used
and described in such a way that future researchers will be able to replicate the study and be
certain of the methodological quality of the research (VNSU, 2014). Finally, the researcher
was impartial and independent, to establish facts and generalizable conclusions, without
affiliation to certain viewpoints that are not supported by academic sources. Responsibility for
choices that are made in the study lies with the researcher.
25
4. Analysis
In the following section, the data analysis is conducted. First, the results of the manipulation
check are discussed. Then, the distribution of participants over the different conditions is
presented, followed by a randomization check. Then, the reliability of the different variables
is checked. To check the factors once again, a factor analysis is also carried out. Finally, the
assumptions for ANCOVA are tested.
4.1 Manipulation check
In order to test the manipulations that were done for this study, a manipulation check was
carried out, which can be seen in Appendix C. A manipulation check is generally carried out
to test whether participants react to manipulations as expected by the researchers (Hoewe,
2017). Because the effect of the type of brand is essential in this study, it was important that
participants correctly identified the different brand types, and whether they were organic or
not. For this reason, participants were exposed to the different products included in the
experiment one by one, answering questions regarding whether they correctly identified the
products as organic or non-organic, and as a PLB or an NB. In most of the cases, the majority
of respondents correctly indicated whether the product was organic or not, and which type of
brand it was, as can be seen in Table 2, and more extensively in Table 18 in Appendix E.
Nonetheless, in the yogurt category, some products were thought to be organic by a
large part of respondents, while they were in reality not organic. This was especially the case
for Campina and the AH private label brand. Because there were not enough different brands
sold at Albert Heijn to be able to replace these products, they were kept in the study. This will
be addressed in the limitations section. Furthermore, also for these products, a large part did
still indicate correctly that the products were not organic. In the case of the chocolate
products, there were not as striking examples of participants erroneously perceiving products
to be organic. In Table 2, it can also be seen that for the utilitarian category yogurt,
participants had more problems in deciding correctly whether a product was organic or not.
When looking at whether participants correctly identified the type of brand as a PLB
or an NB, it seems in Table 2 that this task was significantly easier for participants than
indicating whether a product was organic or not, as on average, more than 90% correctly
indicated what type of brand was presented to them in the image. Finally, the manipulation
check was also used to test whether yogurt and dark chocolate with nuts were adequate and
representative examples of utilitarian and hedonic products respectively, using the scales by
26
Voss et al. (2003). In past research, milk has often been used as a utilitarian product category,
while for hedonic products, often products like milk chocolate or ice cream have been used
(Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000; Khan et al., 2004). In order to extend the body of research
regarding hedonic and utilitarian products, it was opted to choose slightly different products,
to test whether yogurt and dark chocolate with nuts would also be adequate for these product
categories.
As expected, as can be seen in Table 1, the chocolate category scored higher on
hedonic value, while the yogurt category scored higher regarding utilitarian value. For this
reason, these two product categories were also chosen to be used in the final questionnaire.
Nonetheless, to check once again whether the product categories were representative, the
checks regarding hedonic and utilitarian value were also included in the final questionnaire.
Table 1: Manipulation check for hedonic and utilitarian value
Product category Hedonic value M(SD) Utilitarian value M (SD)
Chocolate 3.40 (.73) 2.97 (.40)
Yogurt 3.10 (.39) 3.78 (.49)
Table 2: Manipulation check for whether a product is organic and the type of brand
Product category Organic or not - % correct PLB or NB - % correct
Hedonic (chocolate) 83.3% 97.2%
Utilitarian (yogurt) 72.2% 91.7%
4.2 Questionnaire respondents
The questionnaire was filled in by 158 respondents. Because of the option to make it
obligatory to answer the individual questions, no participants reported missing values. In the
case of the variable age, for which participants could fill in their age freely without
restrictions, there were also no significant outliers. The 6 different manipulations were
randomly divided among participants by Qualtrics, which provides the user with an option to
evenly divide participants over the different manipulations. As a result, the 158 participants
were more or less evenly divided over the conditions, as can be seen in Table 3.
27
Table 3: Number of participants per manipulation
Yogurt Chocolate Total
Without organic products 23 (14.5%) 29 (18.4%) 52 (32.9 %)
With an organic NB 30 (18.9%) 27 (17.1%) 57 (36.1%)
With an organic PLB 29 (18.4%) 20 (12.7%) 49 (31%)
Total 82 (51.9%) 76 (48.1%) 158 participants
The age of participants ranged from 18 to 68, even though 50% of participants was 25 or
younger. The main reason for this skewed distribution is the fact that snowball sampling was
used, and therefore, the questionnaire was mainly distributed often among students. The
questionnaire was mainly shared among the personal network of the researcher, through social
media (e.g. Facebook, Whatsapp, etc.), and by asking participants to further share the
questionnaire among their networks. No form of incentive was used to gather more
participants.
The large representation by students can also be seen in the distribution of the
educational level of the participants, which was primarily included to test whether the sample
was representative or somewhat skewed or kurtotic, as the largest part of participants had
completed either higher professional education (HBO), namely 27.8%. Following this group,
24.1% had completed a university bachelor, and 21.5% had finished a university master.
Finally, 16.5% had completed lower professional education (MBO), while 9.5% only
completed secondary education, and 0.6% only completed primary education, which
corresponds with only one participant. These data are also skewed towards higher education,
again because of the use of snowball sampling. This will later be discussed in the limitations
section.
Regarding the gender of participants, 76 participants, or 48.1% were male, while 82
participants, or 51.9% consisted out of male participants. As this was almost evenly divided,
this seems representative of the population. No participants were deleted from the data file, as
there were no outliers reported, and everyone filled out the entire questionnaire. To ensure
that participants would not fall victim to response bias and fill in the questionnaire without
actively reading the separate scales, some scales were reversed to make sure that participants
would pay attention to individual scales. The scores of these scales were inverted again before
doing analyses.
28
4.3 Randomization check
In order to check whether participants were assigned randomly to the 6 different
manipulations, chi square and univariate tests were carried out. The six different
manipulations did not differ significantly for the variables age (F (5, 152) = .595, p =.704),
gender (χ2 (5, N = 158) = 2.870, p = .720) and education level (χ2 (25, N = 158) = 31.084, p =
.186). Furthermore, the manipulations did not differ significantly concerning organic
involvement (F (5, 152) = .604, p = .697). Based on these results, it can be concluded that the
randomization of participants was successful.
4.4 Measurement
In order to be sure of the quality of the different variables and scales used in a study, it is
important to have internal consistency among the different items, which is called the
reliability of items. As a first measure to be sure of the reliability of items, the different scales
were largely gathered from previous research, in which the scales and items have already been
tested for reliability. Nonetheless, the scales were also tested in the current study, using
Cronbach’s alpha.
Normally, an alpha of 0.70 is generally accepted (Hair et al., 2019). The variable
perceived eco-friendliness consisted of 5 items (α = .862), which is good (Punyatoya, 2014).
The reliability could not be improved significantly by deleting items. The scale for the
variable organic involvement consisted of 8 items (α = .904), which is very good
(Zaichkowsky, 1994). The reliability of the scale could not be improved significantly by
deleting items.
Regarding the hedonic value of the products, which was not included as a variable in
the conceptual model, but used as a manipulation check for testing whether the product
categories were adequately chosen, the scale consisted of 5 items (α = .827). The reliability of
the scale could be improved significantly by deleting the item “for me, the product category
is: not thrilling – thrilling”. This leads to the scale consisting of 4 items, with α = .844, which
is good. Furthermore, the reliability could be improved by deleting the item “for me, the
product category is: dull – exciting. This leads to the scale consisting of 3 items, with α =
.867, which is good. The utilitarian value of the products consisted of 5 items (α = .861),
which is good. The scales measuring both the hedonic and utilitarian value for the product
categories were adapted from Voss et al. (2003). The reliability could not be improved
significantly by deleting items. The variables and measurement properties can also be seen in
Table 4.
29
Table 4: Measurement properties of the dependent variables and covariates
Variable Number
of items
Reliability
(α)
Source
Perceived eco-
friendliness
5 .862 Punyatoya (2014)
Organic involvement 8 .904 Zaichkowsky (1994)
Hedonic value
(manipulation check)
3 (5) .844 Voss et al. (2003)
Utilitarian value
(manipulation check)
5 .861 Voss et al. (2003)
4.5 Factor analysis
To further test the number of constructs and structure of the measures, a confirmatory
factor analysis was carried out, as can be seen in Appendix D. Confirmatory factor analysis is
a statistical technique that is generally used to test whether the different measures of a
construct are accurately represented by the measured that a researcher has chosen to use in
research (Hair et al., 2019).
A confirmatory factor analysis using principal axis factor extraction was conducted to
determine and confirm the factor structure. In order to validate that factor analysis was a
suitable technique to use, Bartlett’s test of sphericity and a KMO test were conducted.
Bartlett’s test should be significant at α = .05, while the KMO test value should be ≥ .05.
Bartlett’s test (p < .001) and KMO value (.810) indicate that factor analysis is indeed an
appropriate technique to be used for this study. In order to check the number of factors that
are present in the dataset, the eigenvalues and explained variance were used. Normally, it
would be desirable for each factor to have an eigenvalue of at least one, and for the different
factors put together explaining at least 60% of the common variance. In the actual
questionnaire, 4 factors were intended. According to Table 16 in Appendix D, four factors
have an eigenvalue higher than one, and these four factors explain 66.2% of the common
variance in the dataset.
Then, the item’s communalities were checked. All communalities should be above .20,
and there should not be cross-loadings in the definitive factor solution (Hair et al., 2019). No
communalities below .20 were present, and there were no cross-loading variables. For this
30
reason, it can again be concluded that no variables should be deleted from the dataset, and the
items are adequate.
In order to be able to carry out an ANCOVA, the different items measuring the
variables of interest were transformed into one average score for each variable. As a result,
mean scores were calculated for the variables perceived eco-friendliness and organic
involvement.
In the questionnaire, participants were asked to rate the product category they were
exposed to on both the hedonic and utilitarian qualities of the product categories. This was
included in the questionnaire to double-check whether yogurt was actually seen as a
representative utilitarian product category than chocolate and whether chocolate was seen as
more representative for a hedonic product category than yogurt. For both the hedonic value,
which consisted of 3 scales and the utilitarian value, which consisted of 5 scales, mean scores
were calculated that were compared. In the final questionnaire, regarding hedonic value, an
independent samples t-test showed a significant effect for product category t (144.242) = -
3.395, p = .001, with chocolate (M = 3.99, SD = .70) scoring higher than yogurt (M = 3.52,
SD = 1.01). In the case of utilitarian value, an independent samples t-test also showed a
significant effect for product category t (156) = 4.164, p < .001, with yogurt (M = 3.49, SD =
.83) scoring higher than chocolate (M = 2.95, SD = .79). These results can be found in Table
5, and Tables 19-22 in Appendix E. Seeing as the yogurt products were seen as significantly
more utilitarian, and the chocolate products were seen as significantly more hedonic, it can be
concluded that they stand for utilitarian and hedonic products in general respectively. For this
reason, these terms will be used interchangeably from this point on.
Table 5: Check for hedonic and utilitarian value in final questionnaire
Product category Hedonic value M(SD) Utilitarian value M (SD)
Chocolate 3.99 (.70) 2.95 (.79)
Yogurt 3.52 (1.01) 3.49 (.83)
4.6 Assumptions
In using inferential statistics, certain assumptions need to be met before being able to carry
out the research. When the assumptions are not met or violated, it changes the interpretation
of results and conclusions. These assumptions differ based on the statistical test that is chosen
(Hair et al, 2019).
31
For a two-way ANCOVA test, first, the assumptions for ANOVA should be met.
As a first assumption, observations should be independent. This is the case, as all participants
filled in the questionnaire individually on the internet, being exposed randomly to one of the
six possible conditions of the study. A second assumption for an ANCOVA is that the
independent variables should consist of two or more categorical groups. This is also the case
in the present study, with the independent variable type of brand consisting of three groups,
and the independent variable product category consisting of two groups: the type of brand
consists of the situation without organic products, organic PLB products, and organic NB
products. The variable product category consists of the categories utilitarian and hedonic.
A third assumption is that the dependent variable is measured at an interval or ratio
level, which means that the dependent variable should be continuous. This is not the case in
the present study, as the dependent variable perceived eco-friendliness is measured through
multiple measurement items, in this case Likert scales. Likert scales are ordinal by definition
(Field, 2017), as they cannot be seen as containing numeric values. Although participants fill
in the Likert scales by giving scores, there is no numerical value, as a score of ‘4’ on a
particular scale cannot be interpreted as being twice as high as a score of ‘2’. Nonetheless, it
is common practice to still include ordinal dependent variables in ANCOVA or regression
analyses, as multi-item measurements are often used. For this reason, it is no longer a true
Likert scale, but a semi-continuous measurement, which can be treated as an interval variable,
which would make the variable adequate for ANCOVA. Other research also states that it is
acceptable to treat ordinal variables as of interval level (Williams, 2020). For this reason, it is
concluded that the assumption is met.
Furthermore, the dataset does not contain significant outliers. As all questions are
answered through 5- or 7-point Likert scales, limiting the possibilities of outliers, as the
possible answer properties are only the ones that fall inside of the Likert scales. The only
variable for which participants could answer without limitations was the variable age, for
which participants were asked to fill in their age, without limits regarding the numerical value
that participants could fill in. Even though it is skewed and kurtotic, the variable contains no
significant outliers.
As a further assumption, the dependent variable should be approximately normally
distributed for each category of the independent variables. From the Shapiro-Wilk test of
normality, it shows that the dependent variable is indeed normally distributed for the majority
of the different levels of the independent variables. This test should not be significant at a p-
value of .05. For the independent variable type of brand, the different scores are indeed all not
32
significant, with p-values of .311, .092, and .194 respectively, as illustrated in Table 23. For
the variable product category, the product utilitarian category shows a p-value of .539, which
means it is not significant, as can be seen in Table 24. However, for the hedonic product
category, the p-value is .014, which is below the decided threshold of .05, which means the
dependent variable perceived eco-friendliness is not normally distributed for the hedonic
category. Based on the fact that for this group, the dependent variable is not normally
distributed, the assumption would normally have to be rejected. However, the issue of
normality is often only a problem when sample sizes are small (<20). When sample sizes are
larger than 30, the sampling distribution of the mean is always regarded to be normal,
regardless of the distribution of values in the population, which is known as the Central Limit
Theorem (Field, 2017). For this reason, although the assumption is not fully met, no actions
will be taken to make changes to the normality of the variable, as the hedonic product
category consists of 76 participants, which is significantly higher than the 30 that is required.
For this reason, the analysis will continue. For the covariate Gender, the different scores are
again not significant, with p-values of .150 and .285, as can be seen in Table 25.
The final assumption for ANOVA is the homogeneity of variances. Levene’s test is
used, with a non-significant effect meaning that the variances within groups are indeed equal,
and that there is no difference in variances. This is the case, with p = .162, which is higher
than the threshold of .05. Therefore, this assumption is also met, as can be seen in Table 26 in
Appendix F.
Furthermore, in the case of ANCOVA, two additional assumptions should be met on
top of the assumptions for ANOVA. Firstly, for each level of the independent variables, there
should be a linear relationship between the dependent variable and the covariate. This was
tested through a Pearson correlation analysis. As can be seen in Table 27 in Appendix F, the
correlation between the covariates organic involvement and age with the dependent variable
perceived eco-friendliness is significant for both covariates. Organic involvement and
perceived eco-friendliness were shown to be weakly negatively correlated, r = -.289, p <.001.
The other covariate, age, was shown to also be weakly negatively correlated with the
dependent variable perceived eco-friendliness, r = -.225, p = .004. For the final covariate,
gender, no significant correlation was found with the dependent variable perceived eco-
friendliness, r = .025, p = .751. For this reason, the assumption is not met for the variable
gender. Subsequently, the choice has been made to omit the variable gender from this point in
the study, as it does not seem relevant to include it, as it fails to meet the assumptions that are
33
necessary for being included in the study. Therefore, it can be concluded that H5 is not
supported.
Because of the omission of this variable, the previous assumptions were tested again.
The only assumption that has shown a change is the homogeneity of variances. Levene’s test
is still non-significant, but it now shows a value of .157, which can be seen in Table 28 in
Appendix F.
As a second assumption for ANCOVA, the factors and the covariate should be
independent, with the factors in this study being the type of brand and the product category.
As can be seen in Tables 29 and 30 in Appendix F, this is indeed the case. For the variable
type of brand, this was tested through a one-way ANOVA, as the variable consists of three
levels. There was shown to be no significant effect of the type of brand on the organic
involvement, F(2, 155) = 1.019, p =.363. For the variable product category, this assumption
was tested through an independent samples t-test, as the variable consists of two groups:
utilitarian and hedonic products. The independent samples t-test also showed no significant
effect of the Product Category, t(156) = -.398, p = .698. As a result, the second assumption for
ANOVA is also met.
As a final assumption, the regression slopes should be homogenous. A test of
between-subjects effects was carried out, to test whether the assumption was met. For the
assumption to be met, the results should be non-significant, at a p-value of .05. In order to test
the assumption, all possible interaction effects between the different variables are tested. For
the interaction effect of the type of brand and organic involvement, the result was not
significant, F(2, 134) = .400, p = .671. For the interaction effect of product category and
organic involvement, the result was also not significant, F(1, 134) = .248, p =.620. For the
interaction effect between product category and age, the result was also not significant, F(1,
134) = 0, p = .984.
Regarding the interaction effects containing three variables, the interaction effect
between product category, age, and organic involvement was also not significant, F(1, 134) =
.007, p = .932. The interaction between the type of brand, age, and organic involvement was
also not significant, F(2, 134) = .218, p = .805. The interaction between the type of brand,
product category, and age was also not significant, F(2, 134) = .560, p = .560. The last of the
interactions containing three variables, namely the type of brand, product category, and
organic involvement was also not significant, F(2, 134) = .659, p = .519. Furthermore, for the
interaction effect between product category and age, the result was also not significant, F(2,
134) = 191, p = .826.
34
Finally, the interaction effect between the type of brand, product category, organic
involvement, and age was also not significant, F(2, 134) = .847, p =.431. These results can
also be seen in Table 22 in Appendix F. Seeing that all interaction effects are not significant,
the null hypothesis that the regression slopes are homogenous should not be rejected, and it
can be concluded that the regression slopes are parallel and homogenous. For this reason, the
final assumption is also met. These results can be found in Table 31 in Appendix F.
In conclusion, all but two assumptions for ANCOVA were met. The two assumptions
that were strictly not met were the assumption that the dependent variable should be
continuous and the assumption that all variables should have a normal distribution, which was
not the case for the hedonic product category. Nonetheless, these violations should not lead to
large problems, based on theory, as was explained in the previous section. In the next section,
the results of the analysis of covariance will be presented.
35
5. Results
In this study, a two-way ANCOVA was conducted to assess whether there was a statistically
significant difference in effects between a condition without organic products, a condition
containing an organic NB product, and a condition containing an organic PLB product on the
perceived eco-friendliness of a supermarket. Furthermore, it was assessed whether there is a
difference between hedonic and utilitarian products. The extent to which a consumer is
involved with organic products and the age of consumers were used as covariates, to control
for individual differences. The predetermined assumptions were tested and assumed to be
met. First, an ANOVA test was carried out without the covariates, to test the main effects.
5.1 Main effects
H1a: There is a significant effect of the type of brand on perceived eco-friendliness, with
organic PLBs leading to higher perceived eco-friendliness than organic NBs.
H1b: There is a significant effect of the type of brand on perceived eco-friendliness, with
organic NBs leading to higher perceived eco-friendliness than the situation without organic
products.
Before running all tests with the covariates, the main effects were tested without the inclusion
of the covariates organic involvement and age.
First, the main effect of the type of brand on the perceived eco-friendliness of the
supermarket was tested. The two-way analysis of covariance showed no significant effect of
the type of brand on perceived eco-friendliness after controlling for the extent to which
participants are involved with organic products and their age, F(2, 152) = 1.728, p = .181. In
conclusion, there were no significant differences between the conditions not containing
organic products, containing an organic NB product, and containing an organic PLB product.
For this reason, H1a has to be rejected, as there was no difference between the situation
containing the organic PLB and the situation containing the organic NB. H1b also had to be
rejected, as the situation containing an organic NB did not differ significantly from the
baseline situation without organic products regarding perceived eco-friendliness.
36
H2: Utilitarian products lead to a higher perceived eco-friendliness than hedonic products.
When looking at the other independent variable, namely the product category, the two-
way analysis of covariance showed a significant effect of product category on perceived eco-
friendliness after controlling for the extent to which participants are involved with organic
products and their age, F(1, 152) = 5.589, p =.003. The effect was small (.055). This result
can be seen in Tables 6 and 8 in section 5.2. As can be seen in the tables, the utilitarian
product category showed significantly higher perceived eco-friendliness (M = 2.81, SD = .81)
than the hedonic product category (M = 2.42, SD = .77). Although the effects are significant,
H2 cannot be fully accepted yet, as the covariates will be added to the model before the
hypothesis is accepted or rejected.
Finally, the two-way analysis of covariance showed no significant effect of the
interaction effect between the type of brand and product category on perceived eco-
friendliness after controlling for the extent to which participants are involved with organic
products and their age, F(2, 152) = .640, p = .529.
Table 6: Main effects without controlling for covariates
37
5.2 Covariates
Next, the covariates organic involvement and age were added into the model.
H3: There is a positive effect of organic involvement on perceived eco-friendliness.
H4: There is a negative effect of age on perceived eco-friendliness.
H5: There is an effect of gender on perceived eco-friendliness, with females reporting higher
perceived eco-friendliness than males.
Now, the covariates organic involvement were added into the model, to assess whether they
had a statistically significant effect and whether the significant main effect of product
category still stands when the covariates are added. First, it is tested whether the covariates
have a significant effect.
The two-way analysis of covariance showed a significant effect of the first covariate
organic involvement on the dependent variable perceived eco-friendliness, F(1, 150) = 9.117,
p < .01. The effect size was small (.057). The parameter estimates in Table 36 in Appendix G
show that the effect is negative (B = -.166). This shows that there is a negative relationship
between organic involvement and perceived eco-friendliness, meaning that as participants are
more involved with organic products, they rate the store as less eco-friendly. It was
hypothesized that the effect of organic involvement on perceived eco-friendliness would be
positive. For this reason, H3 has to be rejected.
Analyzing the second covariate, the covariate age was not significantly to the
perceived eco-friendliness, F(1, 150) = 3.324, p = .07. The result shows that the extent to
which participants reported the store as eco-friendly did not differ for age. For this reason, H4
is rejected. Nonetheless, as this covariate was added to the model for theoretical reasons, it is
decided that it will not be removed from the model.
Finally, because the covariate gender did not meet the different assumptions that were
set for ANCOVA, the variable was prematurely deleted, before conducting the analyses. For
this reason, it can be concluded that H5 has to be rejected, as it could not be tested.
Regarding the main effect of product category on perceived eco-friendliness, the result
stands when controlling for organic involvement and age F(1, 150) = 7.649, p = .006. The
effect size grew smaller by adding the covariates (.049). This result shows that the utilitarian
product category still shows higher perceived eco-friendliness than the hedonic product
category when controlling for organic involvement and age. For this reason, H2 can now be
fully accepted.
38
Table 7: Between-subjects effects including covariates
Subsequently, the estimated marginal means are used to compare the situation without
the covariates yet included in the model, and the situation when controlled for the covariates.
The descriptive statistics show that when not controlling for the covariates, participants that
were exposed to the utilitarian shelves (M = 2.81, SD = .81) reported significantly higher
perceived eco-friendliness than participants that were exposed to the hedonic shelves (M =
2.42, SD = .77). This can also be seen in Table 8. When controlling for organic involvement
and age, the difference between the two product categories grows smaller, with the difference
between participants who had seen the utilitarian shelves (M = 2.78) and participants who had
seen the hedonic shelves (M = 2.45) growing smaller, as can also be seen in Table 32. The
difference is significant (p < .01). Nonetheless, as age was shown not to have a significant
effect, this difference is caused solely by the covariate organic involvement. In conclusion,
the covariate, which represents the extent to which participants are involved with organic
products, reduces the effect of product Category on perceived eco-friendliness. In table 10, a
summary can be found regarding the acceptance or rejection of the hypotheses.
Table 8: Perceived Eco-friendliness without controlling for covariates
M SD N
Utilitarian 2.81 .81 82
Hedonic 2,42 .77 76
39
Table 9: Perceived Eco-friendliness when controlled for Organic Involvement and Age
M SE N
Utilitarian 2.78 .084 82
Hedonic 2,45 .088 76
Table 10: Acceptance/rejection of hypotheses
Hypothesis Hypothesis supported?
H1a Rejected
H1b Rejected
H2 Accepted
H3 Rejected
H4 Rejected
H5 Rejected
40
6. Conclusion and Discussion
6.1 General discussion
To analyze the impact of organic private label products, the following research question was
used: “To what extent do the types of organic brands that are present in an assortment have
an effect on the perceived eco-friendliness of a supermarket?”
The main purpose of the study was to examine the effects that different types of
brands in a supermarket assortment have on the extent to which shoppers and consumers
perceive that supermarket to be environmentally friendly. The type of brand and product
category were selected as independent variables, as they were thought to affect the dependent
variable, the perceived eco-friendliness of the supermarket. As covariates, the organic
involvement was added into the model, together with the participants’ age and gender.
From previous studies, it was inferred that due to a spillover effect of socially
responsible products such as organic products, the image of the products could spill over to
the image of the supermarket (Wang & Korschun, 2020; Pivato et al., 2008; Mejri & Bhatli,
2014). Furthermore, it was hypothesized that this spillover effect would be stronger for
organic PLB products than for organic NB products, due to their stronger connection to a
specific store or chain of stores (Vahie & Paswan, 2006).
Nonetheless, this was not supported by the findings in the present study, as no
significant effect was found between the three types of brands. This means that there was no
difference between the situations that did not contain organic products and the situations that
did and that there was no significant difference between the situations containing organic NBs
and the situations containing organic PLBs. This is in line with Anagnostou et al. (2015), who
found that the introduction of a socially responsible organic product could influence the image
of other products under the same PLB, but not the image of the entire store. The image of
other products of the same brand was not considered in the present study.
A possible explanation could be that the different types of organic products did not
stand out enough from the rest of the products, or because only one product was changed or
added in each assortment, meaning the addition of the products did not play a large role in the
evaluation of the shelves. However, if the organic products were perceived and processed
either consciously or unconsciously by participants, it could still be that consumers simply do
not project their environmental perception of the shelves onto the entire supermarket. As
mentioned by Gershoff & Frels (2015), the perception of environmental benefits of a product
is often seen as a given, while many aspects influence how an environmental cue is processed,
41
such as the centrality of the cue and colour. The results of the manipulation check also could
have played a role in the results of the final experiment, as the manipulation check showed
that for the hedonic category, 83.3% was able to identify whether a product was organic or
not, while for the utilitarian category, only 72.2% correctly identified whether the products
were organic. This shows that for a percentage of the participants, it could have simply been
too difficult to recognize whether the products were organic, meaning they would not
construct a socially responsible and eco-friendly image in their minds, leading to the fact that
there was no eco-friendly image to spill over to the image of the store. Rees, Tremna &
Manning (2019) also found that lack of knowledge plays a large role in the perception of
environmentally friendly cues, even when consumers are actively searching for the most eco-
friendly and sustainable option. Steenis et al. (2017) also found that consumers’ assessment of
eco-friendliness is highly influenced by mere graphical cues, that say nothing about the actual
environmental value of the product.
The other independent variable, product category, was shown to have a significant
effect on the perceived eco-friendliness of the supermarket. The results showed that
participants who were exposed to the utilitarian assortment saw the supermarket as more eco-
friendly than participants who were exposed to the hedonic assortment. This was in line with
expectations, as eco-friendliness was concluded to be more representative of a utilitarian
factor regarding organic products than a hedonic factor. Furthermore, the findings were in line
with Maehle et al. (2015), Essoussi & Zahaf (2008) & Mohammed (2020). However, it cannot
be fully concluded that the difference in results was actually caused by the difference between
hedonic & utilitarian products. For example, Lazzarini et al. (2016) has found that consumers
generally see products that are healthier as more eco-friendly as well. Although it was not
tested in the present study, it can be concluded that generally, yogurt is seen as healthier than
chocolate.
Moreau, Markman & Lehmann (2001) found that when relevant information is absent,
for example in this case information related to the eco-friendliness of a product, consumers
often use a single inference strategy. This means that because they are factually unable to
deduce whether the products and supermarket are eco-friendly, they will use their prior
knowledge and attitudes regarding the entire category. In this case, they would have relied on
their previous attitudes regarding yogurt and chocolate to decide their eco-friendliness and the
eco-friendliness of the entire supermarket, instead of basing their answers purely on the
stimuli they were exposed to. This might have influenced why participants who were exposed
to the utilitarian shelves perceived the supermarket to be more eco-friendly.
42
Another factor that could have influenced the perceptions of participants is the
differences in packaging between the two product categories. In the example of the utilitarian
products, as can be seen in Appendix A and C, the packaging contained more “natural”
imagery, for example, images of cows and plants. Furthermore, many of the yogurt packages
contained the colour green, which is generally seen as the colour that most represents nature,
with the term “green” often being used interchangeably with “eco-friendly” (Pancer et al.,
2017). Also, some labels can be seen on the packaging of the yogurt products, representing
the quality of the products, as well as animal well-being, and the use of natural ingredients.
The combination of the aforementioned packaging aspects could have played a large role in
influencing the perceptions that participants had. Because they refer to the natural aspects of
the production process, it is only logical that these aspects are perceived as environmental
cues and have an effect on the perceived eco-friendliness.
Even though some labels referring to natural ingredients are present on the chocolate
packages, they are much less prevalent. Furthermore, the chocolate packaging makes much
less use of images that allude to nature, and the colour green is not as present. For this reason,
it seems that the different labels on the yogurt packaging play a role in determining whether
the supermarket that sells the products can be seen as environmentally friendly.
The covariate organic involvement was included to reduce its effect on the dependent
variable perceived eco-friendliness. Nonetheless, it is very interesting to see that there was a
direct negative effect of organic Involvement on perceived eco-friendliness, meaning that
participants who are more involved with organic products generally perceived supermarkets
to be less environmentally friendly than participants who are less involved with organic
products. As previous research found that consumers who are highly involved with organic
products are in general also highly involved with the environment (Tarkiainen & Sundqvist,
2009; Smith & Paladino, 2010; Shafie & Rennie, 2012), it was hypothesized that these highly
involved organic consumers would be more aware of the positive environmental attributes of
organic products, and would also attribute this positive image to the store.
Nevertheless, the exact opposite was the case, as higher organic involvement would
lead to consumers reporting a lower amount of perceived eco-friendliness. A possible
explanation for this effect could be that consumers who are more involved with organic
products also have more knowledge regarding organic products and their subsequent effect on
the environment. For this reason, it could be the case that consumers that are highly involved
with organic products also have large knowledge regarding the environment, and are more
knowledgeable about the fact that thus far, it has not been unanimously concluded that
43
organic production is beneficial for the environment (Lorenz & Lal, 2016). Furthermore, they
might be less susceptive to the different environmental cues that are present on the packaging
of products, as they would be more critical. On the other hand, consumers who are not as
involved with organic products might not know what on what cues to decide whether a
product is eco-friendly, and be more easily influenced by cues such as colour and eco-labels,
as presented by Pancer et al. (2017).
6.1 Theoretical implications
Following on the findings by Wang & Korschun (2015), the present study focused on
advancing knowledge on how social corporate actions in the form of selling organic products
would have an effect on the extent to which consumers would perceive the supermarket as
eco-friendly. In current literature, little was so far known about this spillover effect of the
positive connotations of corporate social actions, even less so in the specific case of having
organic products in the assortment of the supermarket. In the past, research has shown that
only negative publicity or crises would spill over to the image of the entire store (e.g. Gendel-
Guterman, 2017). In the case of a positive image of a product, like in this study the eco-
friendly image that organic products have, Anagnostou et al. (2015), found that the image
would rather spill over to the image of the other products that are sold under the same PLB
brand, than to the image of the entire store. The current study adds to their findings, showing
that the positive, environmentally-friendly connotations of organic products do not carry over
to the image of the store, which was shown to be the case for both PLB and NB products.
Although it was hypothesized that especially for PLB products, the eco-friendly image would
carry over, due to the strong connection of the brand to the retailer, no significant results were
found. This contradicts the finding of Pivato et al. (2008), who found that in their case, the
positive eco-friendly connotations did carry over to the entire image of the organization.
Secondly, the current study adds to literature regarding the different product categories
and values, and their relationship with organic products and eco-friendliness. As past research
had not been conclusive in deciding whether eco-friendliness should be more seen as a
utilitarian or a hedonic value. In this study, the results showed that participants who were
exposed to the supermarket shelves containing utilitarian products perceived the store as a
whole as being more eco-friendly than the participants who were exposed to the hedonic
shelves. From this result, it is not directly possible to conclude whether eco-friendliness is
more of a utilitarian or a hedonic component, but the findings of the study does provide the
academic world with new possibilities to further investigate whether the effect that was found
44
in the present holds for other examples of hedonic and utilitarian products, or whether the
effect would only be found for these two product types, yogurt and chocolate.
Finally, the current study adds to the existing research by investigating the highly
interesting effect of organic involvement on the extent to which a store is perceived to be
environmentally friendly. Unlike what is often thought, organic products are not mainly
purchased by a small group of highly involved organic consumers, but mainly by a large
group of consumers who occasionally purchase organic products (Pearson et al., 2010).
As previous research had found that consumers who are highly involved with organic
products will generally also be more involved with environment-related values, it was
hypothesized that for consumers who were highly involved with organic products, the
spillover of environmentally-friendly connotations to the image of the entire store would be
stronger. However, the findings show that as consumers are more involved with organic
products, they will generally perceive a store to be less environmentally friendly than
consumers who are not as involved with organic products would. This provides the academic
world with this interesting new line of research, as it provides researchers with possibilities to
do research on the underlying factors that influence this relationship, for example whether
consumers that are more involved with organic products are more critical of environmental
heuristic cues, and need more factual information regarding the environmental value of
products to get the feeling that a store is actually behaving environmentally-friendly.
Although the findings of the present study are interesting, more research is needed into the
underlying factors that influence the findings, to provide the academic world with more
insights and possibilities for further research. Nonetheless, the findings do already lead to
some relevant contributions for managers.
6.2 Managerial implications
Nowadays, it is of high importance for companies to be able to emit a positive image
regarding their stance and activities towards the environment. As consumers feel they do not
have a large influence on the environment, they expect organizations and institutions to
reduce their negative effect on the environment and even act pro-environmentally (Fraj &
Martinez, 2007; Salomon et al., 2017; Nielsen, 2011). Consumers will place more importance
on this aspect when deciding where to buy their products, trying to steer the demand towards
organizations that act in accordance with their beliefs regarding the environment (Johnston et
al., 2014). This could lead to consumers choosing to boycott organizations and retailers that
are not in line with their views and beliefs regarding the environment (Dono et al., 2010).
45
Especially with the possibility of consumers spreading these views, for example through
social media, managers of supermarkets need to stay ahead of this movement and start acting
pro-environmentally, or be able to influence the extent to which consumers perceive the
supermarket to be eco-friendly.
One of the goals of this research was to provide managers with valuable implications
on how to make use of organic PLBs to influence public perception. However, no effect was
found of organic PLBs on the perceived eco-friendliness of the supermarket, or organic
products in comparison with conventional products altogether. This shows that it would not
be wise for supermarket managers to focus on introducing organic PLBs and focusing many
marketing efforts on these products, as their presence in an assortment does not significantly
influence the environmentally friendly image of the supermarket. Nonetheless, they can still
be used for other goals, such as profit maximization, expanding the brand portfolio, offering a
larger choice of different products to consumers etcetera. Further research should be done to
find other factors on which supermarket managers can act to be seen as environmentally
friendly, to be able to follow the current pro-environmental trend.
The present study has also shown that consumers that are more involved with organic
products generally perceive a supermarket to be less eco-friendly than consumers that are not
as involved with organic products. For this reason, it would be advisable to focus more on
consumers who are less involved with organic products, which is the case for a large part of
consumers, as most consumers that buy organic products only buy organic products
occasionally, making them quite casual organic shoppers (Pearson & Henryks, 2008). As
environmental attributes are more important for consumers who are highly involved with
organic products (Schifferstein & Oude Ophuis, 1998), they may be less susceptible to pro-
environmental cues, and they may be more difficult to be convinced of the eco-friendly stance
of a supermarket.
For consumers who are not as involved with organic products, simple heuristic cues
such as the use of the colour green and natural imagery might be sufficient. For this reason, it
is important for supermarket managers to also investigate the effects that seemingly small
alterations of product packaging designs could have, as Steenis et al. (2017) have shown. This
could be an adequate manner in which to influence the large group of consumers who are not
highly involved with organic products, in order to imprint an eco-friendly image in their
minds.
As the results showed that there was a significant effect of the product category on
perceived eco-friendliness, it seems that certain product categories are more suitable for being
46
used to influence the perception that consumers have regarding the environmental stance of
the supermarket. Further, more specific research would still be needed to investigate what
types of product categories would be more and less suitable for using organic and
environmental claims. In that way, supermarkets could essentially target specific product
groups to influence their environmental image, to be able to position themselves in such a
way that they are the first supermarket that comes to mind when consumers want to choose a
more pro-environmental supermarket for doing their groceries.
6.3 Limitations and future research
In this research, limitations were present that could be kept in mind for future research. First,
the position of the different organic and conventional products on the shelves in the
supermarket could be randomized, which was not done in the present study. As Gershoff &
Frels (2015) pointed out, there are many more actors that play a role in how environmental
cues are processed, such as the centrality of the product, or its colour. These factors were not
taken into account in the present study but might lead to valuable findings in the future. For
example, the present study could be replicated, while randomizing the position of the different
products on the supermarket shelves, including the product’s position as a covariate.
Furthermore, fictional products could be used, to be able to test different factors in
packaging that could play a role, such as the colour of the packaging, what environmental
cues are used, or even the brand name. Real-life products could also be adapted to test
differences in packaging and their effect on the attitudes that consumers have regarding the
products in an environmental context.
Also, to improve the realism of the study, real brands were used in the experiment.
Regarding the PLB products, it was therefore necessary to use the products of a specific
supermarket, in this case Albert Heijn. In order to reduce the complexity of the questionnaire
and the study, it was chosen not to use a second supermarket, as this would double the number
of groups and manipulations. In an ideal situation, it would be desirable to compare two or
even more supermarkets, as participants always have some level of prejudice against some
supermarkets, either consciously or unconsciously. If more different supermarkets could be
compared in a study, the results would be more generalizable. For this reason, in future
research it would be a good idea to include multiple supermarket chains, to reduce the effect
of personal opinions and attitudes consumers might have towards specific chains.
As a further direction for future research, new product categories could be researched.
In this study, after a manipulation check, yogurt and chocolate were perceived to be
47
representative of utilitarian and hedonic products respectively, but more different products
should be tested in the future to expand the body of research, and to add more products to the
list of hedonic and utilitarian products. For hedonic and utilitarian products, most research
currently focuses on regular milk chocolate and milk respectively (Dhar & Wertbroch, 2000).
For this reason, in the present study dark chocolate with hazelnuts and yogurt were used. Even
though there was a significant direct effect of product category on perceived eco-friendliness,
more product categories should be compared in the future to be certain that this result still
stands and to see whether the yogurt and chocolate used in the present study are actually
representative of the entire utilitarian and hedonic categories.
Another limitation that could be improved in further research, is that the sample was
quite heavily skewed regarding the age of participants. This was the case because
convenience sampling was used, and the questionnaire was shared mainly among students. As
a result, 50% of the sample consisted of participants that were 25 years old or younger.
Therefore, it is not entirely possible to make generalizations about the entire population, even
though also many older participants took part in the questionnaire, and the sample was of
adequate size While there was no significant effect of age in the present study, past research
found that mainly the age group of consumers between the ages of 31 and 40 were highly
interested in organic products (Sivathanu, 2015; Kranjac, Vapa-Tankosi, Knežević, 2017),
while precisely this age group was the least present among participants. In future research, it
would therefore be interesting to look for a more evenly distributed sample regarding the age
of participants.
Furthermore, the research was only done among Dutch participants, which means that
only one general cultural background was researched. It would be interesting and highly
relevant to be able to compare the findings to other countries and cultures, for example to
other cultures, in which there is not as high as a focus on the environment. This could be the
case in developing countries, for example in Africa (Sulemana, James & Valdivia, 2016). For
this reason, future research could include participants from different cultures, to see whether
different dimensions, such as Hofstede’s cultural dimensions could be compared to see what
dimensions are significant predictors for differences between cultures (Hofstede, Hofstede &
Minkov, 2010).
Moreover, the design of the experiment could be changed, possibly leading to different
results. Because in the present study, each time only one organic PLB or NB product was
added to the selection that participants saw, it could be that the differences between the
different manipulations were small to such an extent that it had no impact on how participants
48
perceived the shelves. Furthermore, some variables were not measured, that could play a
significant role, for example the extent to which participants already see a product as eco-
friendly, the attitude participants already had to the product categories etcetera.
Lastly, ANCOVA was used as the method of analysis, even though the dependent
variable was of an ordinal measurement level. Among researchers, there is no consensus
regarding this practice, as some deem it not statistically possible, while others deem it
adequate to use Likert scales as interval variables in this case. Possibly, ordinal logistic
regression would have led to different results. In the future, research could be done on how
this method would influence the results, and if it would alter results significantly, or lead to
improvements in interpretation and relevance.
49
References
Aarset, B., Beckmann, S., Bigne, E., Beveridge, M., Bjorndal, T., Bunting, J., et al. (2004).
The European consumers’ understanding and perceptions of the ‘‘organic’’ food
regime. The case of aquaculture. British Food Journal, 106, 93–105
Aigner, A., Wilken, R., & Geisendorf, S. (2019). The Effectiveness of Promotional Cues for
Organic Products in the German Retail Market. Sustainability, 11(24), 6986.
Ailawadi, K. L., & Harlam, B. (2004). An empirical analysis of the determinants of retail
margins: the role of store-brand share. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 147-165.
Albert Heijn. (2016, September 1). Albert Heijn geeft biologisch een flinke impuls.
https://nieuws.ah.nl/albert-heijn-geeft-biologisch-een-flinke-impuls/.
Albert Heijn. (n.d.a.). Zoek binnen ah.nl: Online Bestellen: Albert Heijn. Retrieved March 12,
2021, from https://www.ah.nl/zoeken?query=biologisch
Albert Heijn. (n.d.b.). Zoek binnen ah.nl: Online Bestellen: Albert Heijn. Retrieved March 26,
2021, from https://www.ah.nl/zoeken?query=ah+bio+yoghurt
Albert Heijn. (n.d.c.). Campina Halfvolle milde yoghurt.
https://www.ah.nl/producten/product/wi48785/campina-halfvolle-milde-yoghurt.
Albert Heijn. (n.d.d.). Ah Halfvolle yoghurt.
https://www.ah.nl/producten/product/wi121656/ah-halfvolle-yoghurt.
Albert Heijn. (n.d.e.). Ah Biologisch Halfvolle yoghurt.
https://www.ah.nl/producten/product/wi429772/ah-biologisch-halfvolle-yoghurt.
Albert Heijn. (n.d.f.). Arla Biologische milde yoghurt halfvol.
https://www.ah.nl/producten/product/wi212539/arla-biologische-milde-yoghurt-halfvol.
Albert Heijn. (n.d.g.). Ritter Sport Nut selection puur-hazelnoot.
https://www.ah.nl/producten/product/wi402622/ritter-sport-nut-selection-puur-
hazelnoot.
Albert Heijn. (n.d.h.). Côte d'Or Bloc puur chocolade reep hele hazelnoten.
https://www.ah.nl/producten/product/wi387823/cote-d-or-bloc-puur-chocolade-reep-
hele-hazelnoten.
Albert Heijn. (n.d.i.). Ah Tablet puur-noot.
https://www.ah.nl/producten/product/wi459430/ah-tablet-puur-noot.
Albert Heijn. (n.d.j.). Verkade Reep extra puur hazelnoot.
https://www.ah.nl/producten/product/wi484135/verkade-reep-extra-puur-hazelnoot.
50
Albert Heijn. (n.d.k.). Côte d'Or Chocolade reep bio puur hazelnoot.
https://www.ah.nl/producten/product/wi484228/cote-d-or-chocolade-reep-bio-puur
hazelnoot.
Albert Heijn. (n.d.l.). Ah Biologisch Pure chocolade met hazelnoot.
https://www.ah.nl/producten/product/wi193233/ah-biologisch-pure-chocolade-met
hazelnoot.
American Marketing Association (1960), Marketing Definitions: A Glossary of Marketing
Terms, AMA, Chicago, IL.
Anagnostou, A., Ingenbleek, P. T., & van Trijp, H. C. (2015). Sustainability labelling as a
challenge to legitimacy: spillover effects of organic Fairtrade coffee on consumer
perceptions of mainstream products and retailers. Journal of Consumer Marketing.
Barr, S. (2006). Environmental action in the home: investigating the ‘value
action’gap. Geography, 91(1), 43-54.
Bauer, H. H., Heinrich, D., & Schäfer, D. B. (2013). The effects of organic labels on global,
local, and private brands: More hype than substance?. Journal of Business
Research, 66(8), 1035-1043.
Bazerman, M. H., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Wade-Benzoni, K. (1998). Negotiating with yourself
and losing: Making decisions with competing internal preferences. The Academy of
Management Review, 23, 225–241.
Bellizzi, J. A., Krueckeberg, H. F., Hamilton, J. R., & Martin, W. S. (1981). Consumer
perceptions of national, private, and generic brands. Journal of retailing, 57(4), 56-70.
Bennett, P.D. (1988), Dictionary of Marketing Terms, The American Marketing Association,
Chicago, IL.
Bezençon, V., & Blili, S. (2010). Ethical products and consumer involvement: what's
new?. European Journal of Marketing.
Bionext. (2020). Bionext Trendrapport 2019 [PDF]. Retrieved from
https://bionext.nl/application/files/2316/0084/5883/Trendrapport2019.pdf
Bloch, P.H. and Richins, M.L. (1983), “A theoretical model for the study of product
importance perceptions”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 69-81.
Bloemer, J., & De Ruyter, K. (1998). On the relationship between store image, store
satisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of marketing.
Butz, J. (2020). The impact of introducing organic private label products on the purchase
intention of other private label and national brands products.
51
Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension
processes. Journal of consumer research, 15(2), 210-224.
Chen, T.B. & Chai, L.T. (2010), “Attitude towards the environment and green products:
consumers’ perspective”, Management Science and Engineering, Vol. 24, pp. 27-39.
Cho, S., & Krasser, A. H. (2011). What makes us care? The impact of cultural values,
individual factors, and attention to media content on motivation for ethical
consumerism. International Social Science Review, 86(1/2), 3-23.
Cicia, G., Del Giudice, T., & Ramunno, I. (2009). Environmental and health components in
consumer perception of organic products: Estimation of willingness to pay. Journal of
Food Products Marketing, 15(3), 324-336.
Collins-Dodd, C. and Lindley, T. (2003), “Private label brand and retail differentiation: the
influence of store image and store attitude on store own brand perceptions”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 345-352.
Collins, C. M., Steg, L., & Koning, M. A. S. (2007). Customers’ values, beliefs on sustainable
corporate performance, and buying behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 555–577.
Deen Supermarkten. (n.d.a.). Melkan milde yoghurt halfvol 1 liter.
https://www.deen.nl/product/melkan-milde-yoghurt-halfvol-1-liter.
Deen Supermarkten. (n.d.b.). Melkunie halfvolle yoghurt 1 liter.
https://www.deen.nl/product/melkunie-halfvolle-yoghurt-1-liter.
De Wulf, K., Odekerken‐Schröder, G., Goedertier, F., & Van Ossel, G. (2005). Consumer
perceptions of store brands versus national brands. Journal of Consumer marketing.
Deloitte (2015) The 2015 American Pantry Study: The Call to Re-connect with Consumers.
http://www2.deloitte. com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/consumerbusiness/us
cb-2015-american-pantry-study.pdf, accessed August 2015.
Dettmann, R. L., & Dimitri, C. (2009). Who's buying organic vegetables? Demographic
characteristics of US consumers. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 16(1), 79-91.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods.
Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 60–71.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can
socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the
evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business research, 56(6), 465-480.
Dick, A., Jain, A., & Richardson, P. (1995). Correlates of store brand proneness: some
empirical observations. Journal of Product & Brand Management.
52
Essoussi, L. H., & Zahaf, M. (2008). Decision making process of community organic food
consumers: An exploratory study. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(2), 95–104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760810858837.
Field, A. (2017). Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Feijoo, G., & Moreira, M. T. (2020). Fostering environmental awareness towards responsible
food consumption and reduced food waste in chemical engineering
students. Education for Chemical Engineers, 33, 27-35.
Fraj, E., & Martinez, E. (2007). Ecological consumer behaviour: an empirical
analysis. International journal of consumer studies, 31(1), 26-33.
Gendel-Guterman, H., & Levy, S. (2017). Consumer response to private label brands’
negative publicity: a relational effect on retailer’s store image. Journal of Product &
Brand Management.
Ghali-Zinoubi Z. (2020). Effect of utilitarian and hedonic values on consumer willingness to
buy and to pay for organic olive oil in Tunisia. British Food Journal.
Ghali-Zinoubi, Z., & Toukabri, M. (2019). The antecedents of the consumer purchase
intention: Sensitivity to price and involvement in organic product: Moderating role of
product regional identity. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 90, 175-179.
Giner-Sorolla, R. (1999). Affect in attitude: Immediate and deliberative perspectives. In S.
Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 441–461).
New York: The Guilford Press.
Grunert, K. Ç., Bech-Larsen, T., & Bredahl, L. (2000). Three issues in consumer quality
perception and acceptance of dairy products. International Dairy Journal, 10(8), 575
584. doi:10.1016/S0958-6946(00)00085-6
Grunert, S. C., & Juhl, H. J. (1995). Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic
foods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 39-62.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis.
Andover: Cengage Learning.
Hartman, K.B., Spiro, R.L., 2005. Recapturing store image in customer-based store equity. A
construct conceptualization. Journal of Business Research 58, 1112–1120
Hidalgo-Baz, M., Martos-Partal, M., & González-Benito, Ó. (2017). Assessments of the
quality of organic versus conventional products, by category and cognitive style. Food
Quality and Preference, 62, 31-37.
53
Hoch, Stephen J. and Shumeet Banerjee (1993), “When Do Private Labels Succeed?” Sloan
Management Review, 34 (Summer), 57–67.
Hoewe, J. (2017). Manipulation check. The International Encyclopedia of Communication
Research Methods, 1-5.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software
of the mind, third edition (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill Professional.
Huang, L., & Lu, J. (2016). The impact of package color and the nutrition content labels on
the perception of food healthiness and purchase intention. Journal of Food Products
Marketing, 22(2), 191-218.
Ingenbleek, P.T.M. & Reinders, M.J. (2013), “The development of a market for sustainable
coffee in the Netherlands: rethinking the main contribution of Fairtrade”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 113 No. 3, pp. 461-474.
Jain, S. K., & Kaur, G. (2006). Role of socio-demographics in segmenting and profiling green
consumers: an exploratory study of consumers in India. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 18(3), 107-146.
Johnson, D.R., & Creech, J.C. (1983). Ordinal measures in multiple indicator models: A
simulation study of categorization error. American Sociological Review, 48, 398-407.
Johnston, J. L., Fanzo, J. C., & Cogill, B. (2014). Understanding sustainable diets: A
descriptive analysis of the determinants and processes that influence diets and their
impact on health, food security, and environmental sustainability. Advances in
Nutrition: An International Review Journal, 5, 418e429.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
Khan, U.; Dhar, R.; Wertenbroch, K. (2004). A behavioural decision theory perspective on
hedonic and utilitarian choice. In Inside Consumption: Frontiers of Research on
Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires; Ratneshwar, S., Mick, D.G., Eds.; Routledge:
London, UK, 2005; pp. 144–165.
Kirk, R. E. (2012). Experimental design. Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition, 2.
Kranjac, M., Vapa-Tankosic, J., & Knežević, M. (2017). Profile of organic food
consumers. Economics of Agriculture, 64(2), 497-514.
Kvaløy, B., Finseraas, H., & Listhaug, O. (2012). The publics’ concern for global warming: A
cross-national study of 47 countries. Journal of Peace Research, 49(1), 11-22.
Lai, K.-H., Cheng, T.C.E., & Tang, A.K.Y. (2010). Green retailing and its success factors.
California Management Review, 52(2), 6–31.
54
Larceneux, F., Benoit-Moreau, F. and Renaudin, V. (2012) Why might organic labels fail to
influence consumer choices? Marginal labelling and brand equity effects. Journal of
Consumer Policy 35: 85--104.
Lascu, D.-N. (1991), “Consumer guilt: examining the potential of a new marketing construct”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, pp. 290-295.
Lazzarini, G. A., Zimmermann, J., Visschers, V. H., & Siegrist, M. (2016). Does
environmental friendliness equal healthiness? Swiss consumers’ perception of protein
products. Appetite, 105, 663-673.
Lee, H. J., & Yun, Z. S. (2015). Consumers’ perceptions of organic food attributes and
cognitive and affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions toward
organic food. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 259-267.
Loon, D. (2020, January 22). Nielsen publiceert marktaandelen supermarkten. Retrieved
March 10, 2021, from https://www.foodpersonality.nl/nielsen-publiceert
marktaandelen-supermarkten-albert-heijn-vlak/
Lorenz, K., & Lal, R. (2016). Environmental impact of organic agriculture. Advances in
Agronomy, 139, 99-152.
Mackalski, R. and Belisle, J.F. (2015), “Measuring the short-term spillover impact of a
product recall on a brand’s ecosystem”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 323-339.
Maehle, N., Iversen, N., Hem, L., & Otnes, C. (2015). Exploring consumer preferences for
hedonic and utilitarian food attributes. British Food Journal.
Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Hursti, U.-K., Åberg, L., & Sjödén, P.-O. (2001). Attitudes
towards organic foods among Swedish consumers. British Food Journal, 103, 209
227.
McEachern, M. G., & McClean, P. (2002). Organic purchasing motivations and attitudes: Are
they ethical? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 26(2), 85–92.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1470-6431.2002.00199.x.
Mejri, C. A., & Bhatli, D. (2014). CSR: Consumer responses to the social quality of private
labels. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(3), 357-363.
Mohammed, A. A. (2020). What motivates consumers to purchase organic food in an
emerging market? An empirical study from Saudi Arabia. British Food Journal.
Moreau, C. P., Markman, A. B., & Lehmann, D. R. (2001). ‘‘What is it?’’ Categorization
flexibility and consumers’ responses to really new products. Journal of Consumer
Research, 27(4), 489–498.
55
Naderi, I., & Van Steenburg, E. (2018). Me first, then the environment: Young Millennials as
green consumers. Young Consumers.
Nenycz‐Thiel, M., & Romaniuk, J. (2009). Perceptual categorization of private labels and
national brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management.
Ngobo, P. V. (2011). What drives household choice of organic products in grocery
stores?. Journal of Retailing, 87(1), 90-100.
Nielsen (2011). Sustainable efforts & environmental concerns around the world: A Nielsen
report. Retrieved August, from www. nielsen.com.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics.
Advances in Health Science Education, 15 (5), pp. 625-632. Retrieved from:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10459-010-9222-y#citeas.
Pancer, E., McShane, L., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2017). Isolated environmental cues and
product efficacy penalties: The color green and eco-labels. Journal of Business
Ethics, 143(1), 159-177.
Pearson, D., & Henryks, J. (2008). Marketing organic products: Exploring some of the
pervasive issues. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 14(4), 95-108.
Pearson, D., Henryks, J., & Jones, H. (2011). Organic food: What we know (and do not know)
about consumers. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 26(2), 171-177.
Petljak, K., Štulec, I., & Renko, S. (2017). Consumers’ willingness to pay more for organic
food in Croatia. Ekonomski vjesnik/Econviews-Review of Contemporary Business,
Entrepreneurship and Economic Issues, 30(2), 441-455.
Punyatoya, P. (2014). Linking environmental awareness and perceived brand eco-friendliness
to brand trust and purchase intention. Global Business Review, 15(2), 279-289.
Rahman, I. (2018). The interplay of product involvement and sustainable consumption: An
empirical analysis of behavioral intentions related to green hotels, organic wines and
green cars. Sustainable Development, 26(4), 399-414.
Ramesh, K., Saha, R., Goswami, S., & Dahiya, R. (2019). Consumer's response to CSR
activities: Mediating role of brand image and brand attitude. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(2), 377-387.
Rana, J., & Paul, J. (2017). Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food: A
review and research agenda. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 38, 157
165.
56
Rees, W., Tremma, O., & Manning, L. (2019). Sustainability cues on packaging: The
influence of recognition on purchasing behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235,
841-853.
Salomon, E., Preston, J. L., & Tannenbaum, M. B. (2017). Climate change helplessness and
the (de)moralization of individual energy behavior. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 23(1), 15.
Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Oude Ophuis, P.A.M. (1998), ``Health-related determinants of
organic food consumption in The Netherlands'', Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 119-33.
Schleenbecker, R., & Hamm, U. (2013). Consumers’ perception of organic product
characteristics. A review. Appetite, 71, 420-429.
Sethuraman, R., & Cole, C. (1999). Factors influencing the price premiums that consumers
pay for national brands over store brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management.
Seyfang, G. (2006). Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local
organic food networks. Journal of rural studies, 22(4), 383-395.
Shafie, F. A., & Rennie, D. (2012). Consumer perceptions towards organic food. Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 360-367.
Sivathanu, B. (2015). Factors affecting consumer preference towards the organic food
purchases. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(33), 1.
Smith, S., & Paladino, A. (2010). Eating clean and green? Investigating consumer motivations
towards the purchase of organic food. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 18(2),
93-104.
Steenis, N. D., van Herpen, E., van der Lans, I. A., Ligthart, T. N., & van Trijp, H. C. (2017).
Consumer response to packaging design: The role of packaging materials and graphics
in sustainability perceptions and product evaluations. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 162, 286-298.
Sulemana, I., James Jr, H. S., & Valdivia, C. B. (2016). Perceived socioeconomic status as a
predictor of environmental concern in African and developed countries. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 46, 83-95.
Sullivan, G. M., & Artino Jr, A. R. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type
scales. Journal of graduate medical education, 5(4), 541.
Tanner, C., & Jungbluth, N. (2003). Evidence for the coincidence effect in environmental
judgments: Why isn’t it easy to correctly identify environmentally friendly food
products? Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied, 9, 3-11.
57
Tanner, C., & Kast, S. W. (2003). Promoting sustainable consumption: Determinants of green
purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychology and Marketing, 20, 883-902.
Tarkiainen, A., & Sundqvist, S. (2009). Product involvement in organic food consumption:
does ideology meet practice?. Psychology & Marketing, 26(9), 844-863.
Teng, C. C., & Lu, C. H. (2016). Organic food consumption in Taiwan: Motives, involvement,
and purchase intention under the moderating role of uncertainty. Appetite, 105, 95
105.
Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Organic tomatoes versus canned
beans: How do consumers assess the environmental friendliness of vegetables?
Environment and Behavior, 43, 591e611.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916510372865.
Tukker, A., & Jansen, B. (2006). Environmental impacts of products: A detailed review of
studies. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10, 159-182.
Vahie, A., & Paswan, A. (2006). Private label brand image: its relationship with store image
and national brand. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management.
Van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2015). Drivers of and barriers to organic purchase
behavior. Journal of Retailing, 91(3), 436-450.
Van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2011). Willingness to pay for organic products: Differences
between virtue and vice foods. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(3),
167-180.
Vecchio, R., Van Loo, E. J., & Annunziata, A. (2016). Consumers' willingness to pay for
conventional, organic and functional yogurt: evidence from experimental
auctions. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(3), 368-378.
VectorStock (n.d.). Empty store shelves showcase supermarket vector image.
https://cdn4.vectorstock.com/i/1000x1000/12/53/empty-store-shelves-showcase
supermarket-vector-18071253.jpg
Voss, Kevin E., Eric R. Spangenberg, and Bianca Grohmann (2003), “Measuring the Hedonic
and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude,” JMR, 40 (August), 310-320.
VSNU. (2014). The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice [PDF]. The Hague:
Association of Universities in the Netherlands.
Wang, W., & Korschun, D. (2015). Spillover of social responsibility associations in a brand
portfolio. Journal of Product & Brand Management.
58
Wang, L., Wang, J., & Huo, X. (2019). Consumer’s willingness to pay a premium for organic
fruits in China: A double-hurdle analysis. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 16(1), 126.
Weatherell, C.; Tregear, A.; Allison, J. In search of the concerned consumer: UK public
perceptions of food, farming and buying local. J. Rural Stud. 2003, 19, 233–244.
Williams, R. A. (2020). Ordinal independent variables. SAGE Publications Limited.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and
application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59-70.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end
model and synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22.
Zumbo, B. D., & Zimmerman, D. W. (1993). Is the selection of statistical methods governed
by level of measurement?. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 34(4), 390.
59
Appendices
Appendix A: Questionnaire
Q2 Beste meneer/mevrouw,
Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek! Mijn naam is Guus van den Munckhof,
masterstudent Marketing aan de Radboud Universiteit in Nijmegen. Het doel van dit onderzoek en
deze master thesis is om erachter te komen welke aspecten een invloed hebben op de mate waarin een
supermarkt als milieuvriendelijk wordt gezien.
Het invullen van de enquête duurt ongeveer 5 minuten. Deelname is geheel vrijwillig en anoniem, en
u kunt op ieder gewenst moment stoppen met het invullen van de enquête. Uw gegevens worden
uitsluitend gebruikt voor dit onderzoek. U kunt te allen tijde uw deelname stoppen door de vragenlijst
niet verder in te vullen en deze browser af te sluiten. Uw persoonlijke informatie zal dan niet worden
opgeslagen.
Door naar de volgende pagina te gaan bevestigt u dat u 18 jaar of ouder bent, en dat uw gegevens
mogen worden gebruikt voor dit onderzoek.
Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname!
Q53 Op de volgende pagina ziet u een afbeelding van een schap in een supermarkt. Hierna wordt u
gevraagd om te beoordelen hoe milieuvriendelijk de desbetreffende winkel is. Hierbij is het belangrijk
te vermelden dat het niet gaat om uw kennis en mening over bestaande supermarkten, en dat u bij het
bepalen van uw antwoord puur afgaat op het schap dat u voor u ziet.
60
Manipulation 1
Figure 2: Manipulation 1, not containing organic products, for the utilitarian product category
(VectorStock, n.d.; Albert Heijn, n.d.c.; n.d.d.; Deen Supermarkten, n.d.a.; n.d.b.)
Q12 Geef aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen:
Helemaal
mee oneens
Gedeeltelijk
mee oneens Neutraal
Gedeeltelijk
mee eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Dit is een
milieuvriendelijke
winkel o o o o o Consumenten doen
aankopen bij deze
winkel vanwege de
milieuvriendelijkheid
van de winkel
o o o o o
De winkel is goed
ingeburgerd op het
gebied van
milieukwesties o o o o o
De winkel is de beste
maatstaf op het
gebied van
milieuverplichtingen o o o o o
De winkel is
succesvol op het
gebied van
milieuprestaties o o o o o
61
Q22 Hierna volgen nog enkele vragen over de productcategorie die u zojuist heeft gezien. Bij deze
vragen is het belangrijk dat u de gehele productcategorie in gedachte neemt, los van dit onderzoek en
los van het aspect "milieuvriendelijkheid".
Q45 Voor mij is de productcategorie yoghurt:
1 2 3 4 5
Niet leuk o o o o o Leuk
Saai o o o o o Spannend
Niet heerlijk o o o o o Heerlijk
Opwindend o o o o o Niet
opwindend
Onaangenaam o o o o o Aangenaam
Q46
1 2 3 4 5
Niet
effectief o o o o o Effectief
Niet nuttig o o o o o Nuttig
Niet
functioneel o o o o o Functioneel
Nodig o o o o o Onnodig
Onpraktisch o o o o o Praktisch
Q47 Hierna volgen nog enkele vragen over biologische producten in het algemeen.
Q9 Biologische producten zijn voor mij...
62
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Onbelangrijk o o o o o o o Belangrijk
Irrelevant o o o o o o o Relevant
Betekenisloos o o o o o o o Betekenisvol
Waardeloos o o o o o o o Waardevol
Interessant o o o o o o o Saai
Niet spannend o o o o o o o Spannend
Onaantrekkelijk o o o o o o o Aantrekkelijk
Niet nodig o o o o o o o Nodig
63
Q20 Wat is uw leeftijd?
________________________________________________________________
Q19 Wat is uw geslacht?
o Man
o Vrouw
o Anders
Q10 Wat is uw hoogst afgeronde opleiding?
o Basisonderwijs
o Voortgezet Onderwijs
o MBO
o HBO
o WO Bachelor
o WO Master
Q35 Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek. Voor vragen kunt u mij per mail bereiken
64
Manipulation 2
Figure 3: Manipulation 2, containing an organic PLB, for the utilitarian product category
(VectorStock, n.d.; Albert Heijn, n.d.c.; n.d.d.; n.d.e.; Deen Supermarkten, n.d.a; n.d.b.)
Q48 Geef aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen:
Helemaal
mee oneens
Gedeeltelijk
mee oneens Neutraal
Gedeeltelijk
mee eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Dit is een
milieuvriendelijke
winkel o o o o o Consumenten doen
aankopen bij deze
winkel vanwege de
milieuvriendelijkheid
van de winkel
o o o o o
De winkel is goed
ingeburgerd op het
gebied van
milieukwesties o o o o o
De winkel is de beste
maatstaf op het
gebied van
milieuverplichtingen o o o o o
De winkel is
succesvol op het
gebied van
milieuprestaties o o o o o
65
Q27 Hierna volgen nog enkele vragen over de productcategorie die u zojuist heeft gezien. Bij deze
vragen is het belangrijk dat u de gehele productcategorie in gedachten neemt, los van dit onderzoek en
los van het aspect "milieuvriendelijkheid".
Q43 Voor mij is de productcategorie yoghurt:
1 2 3 4 5
Niet leuk o o o o o Leuk
Saai o o o o o Spannend
Niet heerlijk o o o o o Heerlijk
Opwindend o o o o o Niet
opwindend
Onaangenaam o o o o o Aangenaam
Q44
1 2 3 4 5
Niet
effectief o o o o o Effectief
Niet nuttig o o o o o Nuttig
Niet
functioneel o o o o o Functioneel
Nodig o o o o o Onnodig
Onpraktisch o o o o o Praktisch
66
Q47 Hierna volgen nog enkele vragen over biologische producten in het algemeen.
Q9 Biologische producten zijn voor mij...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Onbelangrijk o o o o o o o Belangrijk
Irrelevant o o o o o o o Relevant
Betekenisloos o o o o o o o Betekenisvol
Waardeloos o o o o o o o Waardevol
Interessant o o o o o o o Saai
Niet spannend o o o o o o o Spannend
Onaantrekkelijk o o o o o o o Aantrekkelijk
Niet nodig o o o o o o o Nodig
67
Q20 Wat is uw leeftijd?
________________________________________________________________
Q19 Wat is uw geslacht?
o Man
o Vrouw
o Anders
Q10 Wat is uw hoogst afgeronde opleiding?
o Basisonderwijs
o Voortgezet Onderwijs
o MBO
o HBO
o WO Bachelor
o WO Master
Q35 Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek. Voor vragen kunt u mij per mail bereiken
68
Manipulation 3
Figure 4: Manipulation 3, containing an organic NB, for the utilitarian product category
(VectorStock, n.d.; Albert Heijn, n.d.c.; n.d.d.; n.d.f.; Deen Supermarkten, n.d.a; n.d.b.
Q49 Geef aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen:
Helemaal
mee oneens
Gedeeltelijk
mee oneens Neutraal
Gedeeltelijk
mee eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Dit is een
milieuvriendelijke
winkel o o o o o Consumenten doen
aankopen bij deze
winkel vanwege de
milieuvriendelijkheid
van de winkel
o o o o o
De winkel is goed
ingeburgerd op het
gebied van
milieukwesties o o o o o
De winkel is de beste
maatstaf op het
gebied van
milieuverplichtingen o o o o o
De winkel is
succesvol op het
gebied van
milieuprestaties o o o o o
69
Q29 Hierna volgen nog enkele vragen over de productcategorie die u zojuist heeft gezien. Bij deze
vragen is het belangrijk dat u de gehele productcategorie in gedachte neemt, los van dit onderzoek en
los van het aspect "milieuvriendelijkheid".
Q41 Voor mij is de productcategorie yoghurt:
1 2 3 4 5
Niet leuk o o o o o Leuk
Saai o o o o o Spannend
Niet heerlijk o o o o o Heerlijk
Opwindend o o o o o Niet
opwindend
Onaangenaam o o o o o Aangenaam
Q42
1 2 3 4 5
Niet
effectief o o o o o Effectief
Niet nuttig o o o o o Nuttig
Niet
functioneel o o o o o Functioneel
Nodig o o o o o Onnodig
Onpraktisch o o o o o Praktisch
Q47 Hierna volgen nog enkele vragen over biologische producten in het algemeen.
Q9 Biologische producten zijn voor mij...
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Onbelangrijk o o o o o o o Belangrijk
Irrelevant o o o o o o o Relevant
Betekenisloos o o o o o o o Betekenisvol
Waardeloos o o o o o o o Waardevol
Interessant o o o o o o o Saai
Niet spannend o o o o o o o Spannend
Onaantrekkelijk o o o o o o o Aantrekkelijk
Niet nodig o o o o o o o Nodig
71
Q20 Wat is uw leeftijd?
________________________________________________________________
Q19 Wat is uw geslacht?
o Man
o Vrouw
o Anders
Q10 Wat is uw hoogst afgeronde opleiding?
o Basisonderwijs
o Voortgezet Onderwijs
o MBO
o HBO
o WO Bachelor
o WO Master
Q35 Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek. Voor vragen kunt u mij per mail bereiken
72
Manipulation 4
Figure 3: Manipulation 4, not containing organic products, for the hedonic product category
(VectorStock, n.d.; Albert Heijn, n.d.g.; n.d.h.; n.d.i.; n.d.j.)
Q50 Geef aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen:
Helemaal
mee oneens
Gedeeltelijk
mee oneens Neutraal
Gedeeltelijk
mee eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Dit is een
milieuvriendelijke
winkel o o o o o Consumenten doen
aankopen bij deze
winkel vanwege de
milieuvriendelijkheid
van de winkel
o o o o o
De winkel is goed
ingeburgerd op het
gebied van
milieukwesties o o o o o
De winkel is de beste
maatstaf op het
gebied van
milieuverplichtingen o o o o o
De winkel is
succesvol op het
gebied van
milieuprestaties o o o o o
73
Q30 Hierna volgen nog enkele vragen over de productcategorie die u zojuist heeft gezien. Bij deze
vragen is het belangrijk dat u de gehele productcategorie in gedachte neemt, los van dit onderzoek en
los van het aspect "milieuvriendelijkheid".
Q39 Voor mij is de productcategorie chocolade:
1 2 3 4 5
Niet leuk o o o o o Leuk
Saai o o o o o Spannend
Niet heerlijk o o o o o Heerlijk
Opwindend o o o o o Niet
opwindend
Onaangenaam o o o o o Aangenaam
Q40
1 2 3 4 5
Niet
effectief o o o o o Effectief
Niet nuttig o o o o o Nuttig
Niet
functioneel o o o o o Functioneel
Onnodig o o o o o Nodig
Praktisch o o o o o Onpraktisch
74
Q47 Hierna volgen nog enkele vragen over biologische producten in het algemeen.
Q9 Biologische producten zijn voor mij...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Onbelangrijk o o o o o o o Belangrijk
Irrelevant o o o o o o o Relevant
Betekenisloos o o o o o o o Betekenisvol
Waardeloos o o o o o o o Waardevol
Interessant o o o o o o o Saai
Niet spannend o o o o o o o Spannend
Onaantrekkelijk o o o o o o o Aantrekkelijk
Niet nodig o o o o o o o Nodig
75
Q20 Wat is uw leeftijd?
________________________________________________________________
Q19 Wat is uw geslacht?
o Man
o Vrouw
o Anders
Q10 Wat is uw hoogst afgeronde opleiding?
o Basisonderwijs
o Voortgezet Onderwijs
o MBO
o HBO
o WO Bachelor
o WO Master
Q35 Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek. Voor vragen kunt u mij per mail bereiken
76
Manipulation 5
Figure 6: Manipulation 5, containing an organic NB, for the hedonic product category
(VectorStock, n.d.; Albert Heijn, n.d.g.; n.d.h.; n.d.i.; n.d.j.; n.d.k.)
Q51 Geef aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen:
Helemaal
mee oneens
Gedeeltelijk
mee oneens Neutraal
Gedeeltelijk
mee eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Dit is een
milieuvriendelijke
winkel o o o o o Consumenten doen
aankopen bij deze
winkel vanwege de
milieuvriendelijkheid
van de winkel
o o o o o
De winkel is goed
ingeburgerd op het
gebied van
milieukwesties o o o o o
De winkel is de beste
maatstaf op het
gebied van
milieuverplichtingen o o o o o
De winkel is
succesvol op het
gebied van
milieuprestaties o o o o o
77
Q31 Hierna volgen nog enkele vragen over de productcategorie die u zojuist heeft gezien. Bij deze
vragen is het belangrijk dat u de gehele productcategorie in gedachte neemt, los van dit onderzoek en
los van het aspect "milieuvriendelijkheid".
Q37 Voor mij is de productcategorie chocolade:
1 2 3 4 5
Niet leuk o o o o o Leuk
Saai o o o o o Spannend
Niet heerlijk o o o o o Heerlijk
Opwindend o o o o o Niet
opwindend
Onaangenaam o o o o o Aangenaam
Q38
1 2 3 4 5
Niet
effectief o o o o o Effectief
Niet nuttig o o o o o Nuttig
Niet
functioneel o o o o o Functioneel
Onnodig o o o o o Nodig
Praktisch o o o o o Onpraktisch
Q47 Hierna volgen nog enkele vragen over biologische producten in het algemeen.
Q9 Biologische producten zijn voor mij...
78
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Onbelangrijk o o o o o o o Belangrijk
Irrelevant o o o o o o o Relevant
Betekenisloos o o o o o o o Betekenisvol
Waardeloos o o o o o o o Waardevol
Interessant o o o o o o o Saai
Niet spannend o o o o o o o Spannend
Onaantrekkelijk o o o o o o o Aantrekkelijk
Niet nodig o o o o o o o Nodig
79
Q20 Wat is uw leeftijd?
________________________________________________________________
Q19 Wat is uw geslacht?
o Man
o Vrouw
o Anders
Q10 Wat is uw hoogst afgeronde opleiding?
o Basisonderwijs
o Voortgezet Onderwijs
o MBO
o HBO
o WO Bachelor
o WO Master
Q35 Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek. Voor vragen kunt u mij per mail bereiken
80
Manipulation 6
Figure 7: Manipulation 6, containing an organic PLB, for the hedonic product category
(VectorStock, n.d.; Albert Heijn, n.d.g.; n.d.h.; n.d.i.; n.d.j.; n.d.l.)
Q52 Geef aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen:
Helemaal
mee oneens
Gedeeltelijk
mee oneens Neutraal
Gedeeltelijk
mee eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Dit is een
milieuvriendelijke
winkel o o o o o Consumenten doen
aankopen bij deze
winkel vanwege de
milieuvriendelijkheid
van de winkel
o o o o o
De winkel is goed
ingeburgerd op het
gebied van
milieukwesties o o o o o
De winkel is de beste
maatstaf op het
gebied van
milieuverplichtingen o o o o o
De winkel is
succesvol op het
gebied van
milieuprestaties o o o o o
81
Q32 Hierna volgen nog enkele vragen over de productcategorie die u zojuist heeft gezien. Bij deze
vragen is het belangrijk dat u de gehele productcategorie in gedachte neemt, los van dit onderzoek en
los van het aspect "milieuvriendelijkheid".
Q33 Voor mij is de productcategorie chocolade:
1 2 3 4 5
Niet leuk o o o o o Leuk
Saai o o o o o Spannend
Niet heerlijk o o o o o Heerlijk
Opwindend o o o o o Niet
opwindend
Onaangenaam o o o o o Aangenaam
Q34
1 2 3 4 5
Niet
effectief o o o o o Effectief
Niet nuttig o o o o o Nuttig
Niet
functioneel o o o o o Functioneel
Onnodig o o o o o Nodig
Praktisch o o o o o Onpraktisch
Q47 Hierna volgen nog enkele vragen over biologische producten in het algemeen.
Q9 Biologische producten zijn voor mij...
82
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Onbelangrijk o o o o o o o Belangrijk
Irrelevant o o o o o o o Relevant
Betekenisloos o o o o o o o Betekenisvol
Waardeloos o o o o o o o Waardevol
Interessant o o o o o o o Saai
Niet spannend o o o o o o o Spannend
Onaantrekkelijk o o o o o o o Aantrekkelijk
Niet nodig o o o o o o o Nodig
83
Q20 Wat is uw leeftijd?
________________________________________________________________
Q19 Wat is uw geslacht?
o Man
o Vrouw
o Anders
Q10 Wat is uw hoogst afgeronde opleiding?
o Basisonderwijs
o Voortgezet Onderwijs
o MBO
o HBO
o WO Bachelor
o WO Master
Q35 Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek. Voor vragen kunt u mij per mail bereiken
84
Appendix B: Original scales and translation
Table 11: original scales, translation and adaption for the variable perceived eco-friendliness
Perceived eco-friendliness (Punyatoya,
2014)
Translation and adaptation
To me, this is an environment-friendly
brand.
Dit is een milieuvriendelijke winkel.
I do think that consumers buy this brand
because of its environment-friendliness.
Consumenten doen aankopen bij deze
winkel vanwege de
milieuvriendelijkheid van de winkel.
I do think that the brand is well
established about environmental
concerns.
De winkel is goed ingeburgerd op het
gebied van milieukwesties.
I feel that the brand is the best benchmark
of environmental commitments.
De winkel is de beste maatstaf op het
gebied van milieuverplichtingen.
I feel that the brand is successful about
environmental performance.
De winkel is succesvol op het gebied
van milieuprestaties.
Table 12: original scales, translation and adaption for the variable organic involvement
Organic involvement (Zaichkowsky,
1994)
Translation and adaptation
To me, organic products are… Biologische producten zijn voor mij…
Unimportant / important Onbelangrijk/ belangrijk
Irrelevant / relevant Irrelevant/ relevant
Means nothing to me / means a lot to me Betekenisloos/ betekenisvol
Worthless / valuable Waardeloos/ waardevol
Boring/ interesting Saai/ interessant
Unexciting/ exciting Niet spannend/ spannend
Unappealing/ appealing Onaantrekkelijk/ aantrekkelijk
Not needed/ needed Niet nodig/ nodig
85
Table 13: original scales, translation and adaption for the hedonic value of the product
categories
Hedonic value (Voss et al., 2003) Translation and adaptation
To me, the product category of yogurt/
chocolate is…
Voor mij is de productcategorie
yoghurt/ chocolade…
Not fun/ fun Niet leuk/ leuk
Dull/ exciting Saai/ spannend
Not delightful/ delightful Niet heerlijk/ heerlijk
Not thrilling/ thrilling Niet opwindend/ opwindend
Unenjoyable/ enjoyable Onaangenaam/ aangenaam
Table 14: original scales, translation and adaption for the utilitarian value of the product
categories
Utilitarian value (Voss et al., 2003) Translation and adaptation
To me, the product category of yogurt/
chocolate is…
Voor mij is de productcategorie
yoghurt/ chocolade…
Not effective/ effective Niet effectief/ effectief
Not helpful/ helpful Niet nuttig/ nuttig
Not functional/ functional Niet functioneel/ functioneel
Not necessary/ necessary Onnodig/ nodig
Not practical/ practical Onpraktisch/ praktisch
86
Appendix C: Manipulation check
Q1 Bedankt voor uw deelname. In deze enquête wordt getest of consumenten verschillende types
producten correct herkennen, en hoe zij ze beoordelen. Voordat de enquête begint, is het belangrijk dat
u de volgende definities leest.
Biologische voedingsproducten: Bij het produceren van biologische voedingsproducten wordt zo
veel mogelijk rekening gehouden met milieu- en dierenwelzijn. Zo worden geen chemische
bestrijdingsmiddelen gebruikt, wordt er geen gebruik gemaakt van genetische modificatie, en krijgt
vee betere leefomstandigheden dan normaal gebruikelijk is.
Huismerk: Een winkelmerk dat de naam van de desbetreffende winkelketen draagt. Het kan gezien
worden als het “eigen merk” van deze winkel, waaronder het verschillende types producten verkoopt.
A-merk: een merk dat door een bepaalde producent wordt geproduceerd, en (inter)nationaal wordt
verkocht in verschillende winkelketens, onder één merknaam. In tegenstelling tot een huismerk wordt
een A-merk door de producent verkocht aan retailers. A-merken hebben over het algemeen een grote
naamsbekendheid en een goede reputatie.
Hierna krijgt u 12 verschillende producten te zien uit twee verschillende productcategorieën. U wordt
gevraagd aan te geven wat voor type merk u herkent: huismerk of A-merk, en biologisch of niet-
biologisch. Verder krijgt u nog een aantal vragen over de productcategorie.
87
Q11
Figure 8: Non-organic yogurt from the NB Campina
(Albert Heijn, n.d.c.)
Q8 Dit merk is een...
o Huismerk
o A-merk
o Weet niet
Q9 Dit product is...
o Biologisch
o Niet-biologisch
o Weet niet
88
Q14
Figure 9: Non-organic chocolate from the NB Ritter Sport
(Albert Heijn, n.d.g.)
Q12 Dit merk is een...
o Huismerk
o A-merk
o Weet niet
Q13 Dit product is...
o Biologisch
o Niet-biologisch
o Weet niet
89
Q15
Figure 10: Organic yogurt from the NB Arla
(Albert Heijn, n.d.f.)
Q16 Dit merk is een...
o Huismerk
o A-merk
o Weet niet
Q17 Dit product is...
o Biologisch
o Niet-biologisch
o Weet niet
90
Q18
Figure 11: Non-organic chocolate from the NB Côte d’Or
(Albert Heijn, n.d.h.)
Q19 Dit merk is een...
o Huismerk
o A-merk
o Weet niet
Q20 Dit product is...
o Biologisch
o Niet-biologisch
o Weet niet
91
Q22
Figure 12: Non-organic yogurt from the AH PLB
(Albert Heijn, n.d.d.)
Q23 Dit merk is een...
o Huismerk
o A-merk
o Weet niet
Q24 Dit product is...
o Biologisch
o Niet-biologisch
o Weet niet
92
Q25
Figure 13: Non-organic chocolate from the NB Verkade
(Albert Heijn, n.d.j.)
Q26 Dit merk is een...
o Huismerk
o A-merk
o Weet niet
Q27 Dit product is...
o Biologisch
o Niet-biologisch
o Weet niet
93
Q28
Figure 14: Organic yogurt from the AH Bio PLB
(Albert Heijn, n.d.e.)
Q29 Dit merk is een...
o Huismerk
o A-merk
o Weet niet
Q30 Dit product is...
o Biologisch
o Niet-biologisch
o Weet niet
94
Q31
Figure 15: Organic chocolate from the AH Bio PLB
(Albert Heijn, n.d.l.)
Q32 Dit merk is een...
o Huismerk
o A-Merk
o Weet niet
Q33 Dit product is...
o Biologisch
o Niet-biologisch
o Weet niet
95
Q34
Figure 16: Non-organic yogurt from the NB Melkunie
(Deen Supermarkten, n.d.b.)
Q35 Dit merk is een...
o Huismerk
o A-merk
o Weet niet
Q36 Dit product is...
o Biologisch
o Niet-biologisch
o Weet niet
96
Q37
Figure 17: Organic chocolate from the NB Côte d’Or
(Albert Heijn, n.d.k.)
Q38 Dit merk is een...
o Huismerk
o A-merk
o Weet niet
Q39 Dit product is...
o Biologisch
o Niet-biologisch
o Weet niet
97
Q41
Figure 18: Non-organic yogurt from the NB Melkan
(Deen Supermarkten, n.d.a.)
Q42 Dit merk is een...
o Huismerk
o A-merk
o Weet niet
Q43 Dit product is...
o Biologisch
o Niet-biologisch
o Weet niet
98
Q40
Figure 19: Non-organic chocolate from the AH PLB
(Albert Heijn, n.d.i.)
Q44 Dit merk is een...
o Huismerk
o A-merk
o Weet niet
Q45 Dit product is...
o Biologisch
o Niet-biologisch
o Weet niet
Q46 Tot slot volgen nog een paar vragen over de productcategorieën, yoghurt en chocolade. Het is de
bedoeling dat u aangeeft hoe u de twee productcategorieën beoordeelt.
99
Q47 Voor mij is de productcategorie chocolade:
1 2 3 4 5
Niet leuk o o o o o Leuk
Saai o o o o o Spannend
Heerlijk o o o o o Niet heerlijk
Niet
opwindend o o o o o Opwindend
Onaangenaam o o o o o Aangenaam
Q48 Voor mij is de productcategorie chocolade:
1 2 3 4 5
Effectief o o o o o Niet
effectief
Nuttig o o o o o Niet nuttig
Niet
functioneel o o o o o Functioneel
Nodig o o o o o Onnodig
Praktisch o o o o o Onpraktisch
100
Q49 Voor mij is de productcategorie yoghurt:
1 2 3 4 5
Effectief o o o o o Niet
effectief
Niet nuttig o o o o o Nuttig
Niet
functioneel o o o o o Functioneel
Onnodig o o o o o Nodig
Onpraktisch o o o o o Praktisch
Q50 Voor mij is de productcategorie yoghurt:
1 2 3 4 5
Niet leuk o o o o o Leuk
Saai o o o o o Spannend
Niet heerlijk o o o o o Heerlijk
Opwindend o o o o o Niet
opwindend
Onaangenaam o o o o o Aangenaam
Q51 Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname!
101
Appendix D: Factor Analysis
Table 15: KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy.
,810
Bartlett's Test of
Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 1886,039
df 210
Sig. ,000
Table 16: Total variance explained by factors
102
Table 17: Pattern matrix
103
Appendix E: Manipulation check results
Table 18: Manipulation check results
Product Is the brand organic or
not?
%
Correct
Is this a PLB or an
NB?
%
Correct
Campina: non-
organic NB
(Yogurt)
Correct: 7 (Non-organic)
Incorrect: 4 (Organic)
Don’t know: 1
58.3% Correct: 12 (NB) 100%
Ritter Sport: non-
organic NB
(Chocolate)
Correct: 10 (Non-organic)
Don’t know: 2
83.3% Correct: 11 (NB)
Don’t know: 1
91.7%
Arla: Organic NB
(Yogurt)
Correct: 12 (Organic)
100% Correct: 10 (NB)
Don’t know: 2
83.3%
Côte d’Or: Non-
organic NB
(Chocolate)
Correct: 8 (Non-organic)
Incorrect: 2 (Organic)
Don’t know: 2
66.7% Correct: 12 (NB) 100%
AH: Non-organic
PLB (Yogurt)
Correct: 5 (Non-organic)
Incorrect: 4 (Organic)
Don’t know: 3
41.7% Correct: 12 (PLB) 100%
Verkade: Non-
organic NB
(Chocolate)
Correct: 9 (Non-organic)
Don’t know: 3
75% Correct: 12 (NB) 100%
AH Bio: Organic
PLB (Yogurt)
Correct: 12 (Organic) 100% Correct: 12 (PLB) 100%
AH Bio: Organic
PLB (Chocolate)
Correct: 11 (Organic)
Incorrect: 1 (Non-organic)
91.7% Correct: 12 (PLB) 100%
MelkUnie: Non-
organic NB
(Yogurt)
Correct: 8 (Non-organic)
Incorrect: 1 (Organic)
Don’t know: 3
66.7% Correct: 10 (NB)
Incorrect: 1 (PLB)
Don’t know: 1
83.3%
Côte d’Or:
Organic NB
(Chocolate)
Correct: 11 (Organic)
Incorrect: 1 (Non-organic)
91.7% Correct: 12 (NB) 100%
Melkan: Non-
organic NB
(Yogurt)
Correct: 8 (Non-organic)
Incorrect: 2 (Organic)
Don’t know: 2
66.7% Correct: 10 (NB)
Incorrect: 2 (PLB)
83.3%
AH: Non-organic
PLB (chocolate)
Correct: 11 (Non-organic)
Don’t know: 1
91.7% Correct: 11 (PLB)
Incorrect: 1 (NB)
91.7%
104
Table 19: Hedonic score of product categories in final questionnaire
ProductCategory N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
HedonicScore Yogurt 82 3,5244 1,01299 ,11187
Chocolate 76 3,9912 ,69703 ,07995
Table 20: Independent samples t-test of hedonic value of product categories
Table 21: Utilitarian score of product categories in final questionnaire
Group Statistics
ProductCategory N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
UtilitarianScore Yogurt 82 3,4902 ,82800 ,09144
Chocolate 76 2,9526 ,79187 ,09083
Table 22: Independent samples t-test of utilitarian value of product categories
105
Appendix F: ANCOVA assumptions
Table 23: Assumption of normality for the variable type of brand
Table 24: Assumption of normality for the variable product category
Table 25: Assumption of normality for the variable gender
106
Table 26: Assumption of equality of variances
Table 27: Assumption of linearity
107
Table 28: Assumption of homogeneity of variances, second iteration
Table 29: Assumption of independence of factors and covariate for the factor type of brand
Table 30: Assumption of independence of factors and covariate for the factor product
category
108
Table 31: Assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes
109
Appendix G: ANCOVA
Table 32: Estimates for both product categories
Table 33: Pairwise comparisons for both product categories
Table 34: Estimates for the three types of brands
110
Table 35: Pairwise comparisons for the three types of brands
Table 36: Parameter estimates of the ANCOVA results