EESC - dialogue between farmers and consumers -

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "EESC - dialogue between farmers and consumers -"

Transcription

1 EESC - dialogue between farmers and consumers - Responsible consumption across Europe: How do consumers take ethical and environmental issues into account when making their purchases? Sebastian Koos

2 Agenda 1. What is responsible consumption? 2. To what degree does responsible consumption take place in Europe and globally? 3. Why do consumers engage in responsible consumer behaviour? 4. What enables and hinders consumers to engage in such behaviour? 5. How much power do the consumers have? 2

3 1. Consumer Responsibility What is responsible consumption?

4 1. Definitions o Political consumption: actions by people who make choices among producers and products with the goal of changing objectionable institutional or market practices (Micheletti 2003: 2). o Sustainable consumption: the use of goods and services that respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life, while minimizing the use of natural resources, toxic materials and emissions of waste and pollutants over the life-cycle, so as not to jeopardise the needs of future generations. (OECD 2002: 16) Responsible consumption: Actions by people who take into account the public consequences in the obtainment and private usage of economic goods and services. 4

5 1. Manifestations Two basic manifestations: 1. Boycott punishment 2. Positive buying or buycott reward 5

6 2. The rise of responsible consumption To what degree does responsible consumption take place in Europe and globally?

7 2. The rise of responsible consumption from 1997 to 2010 across 8 European countries Organic food (in p.c.) 60 Ependiture (in per capita Fair Trade (in p.c.) Participation in boycotts (in %) Share of respondents (in %) Note: Mean values across: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. Sources: Fair Trade in Europe (Krier 2001; 2005; 2007; Martinelli 1998); The World of Organic Agriculture (Richter and Padel 2005; Schaer 2009; Willer and Toralf 2004; Willer and Yussefi 2007); European Social Survey (2002/3 to 2009/10); European Value Study (1999/2000). 7

8 2. Organic food consumption in per capita across Europe 1997 to Denmark Expenditure for organic food ( p.c) EU-7 Sweden Germany USA France Netherlands Great Britain Spain Note: Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, USA. Sources: The World of Organic Agriculture (Richter and Padel 2005; Schaer 2009; Willer and Toralf 2004; Willer and Yussefi 2007); BÖLW ( ) 8

9 2. Market share of organic food of total food market 1997 to 2008 in (%) 8 Germany Market share of organic food (in %) Denmark Sweden Great Britain USA Denmark USA Germany Sweden Great Britain Note: Sources: Daugbjerg and Sonderskov (2012). 9

10 3. Explaining consumer behavior Why do consumers engage in responsible consumer behaviour?

11 3. A simple model of consumer behavior o Desires: action is purposefully oriented towards certain ends (Weber 1920). o Constraints: action is restricted by opportunities (Elster 1989). o Beliefs: proposition about the world held to be true govern actions (Hedström 2005) Desires Actor Beliefs Consumption Constraints 11

12 3. Desires o Theoretical expectations: Pro-environmental, post-materialist, altruistic values guide organic food consumption. o Empirical findings: Organic food consumption is driven by proenvironmental and post-materialist values and preferences. Also self-interest plays an important role (health, quality, being fashionable). 12

13 3. Cultural Change in Europe Materialist Values Mixed Values Post-materialist Values Note: Inglehart Scale. Mean values across: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. Source: Eurobarometer Trendfile. Post-materialism has important impact on organic food consumption! 13

14 3. Constraints o Theoretical expectations: Individual resources and opportunities restrict organic food consumption by monetary, transaction and opportunity costs. o Empirical findings: Especially household income and higher prices for organic goods restrict purchases. Furthermore, the availability of organic (labeled) goods is an important constraint. 14

15 3. Purchasing Power and Consumer Price (Food) across Europe 1995 to , Netto per capita income in (PPS) 18, , , , , , , , ,000.0 Purchasing power (in PPS) Consumer price index (2005=100) Consumer price index Note: Mean values across: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. Sources: Eurostat Harmonised indices of consumer prices (HICP) ; Eurostat Household Income. 15

16 3. Average price premiums of organic food (in %) across 7 European countries in 2001 (28 products) Average price premium (in %) Germany Netherlands Belgium Denmark France Great Britain Sweden Sources: Hamm and Gronefeld (2004). 16

17 3. Willingness to pay more for organic food (apples) 100 EU Logo Governmental Logo WTP more for organic apples (in%) Demeter Soil Asscociation 8 26 Germany Denmark Great Britain Note: Willingness to pay in percent above market price. Sources: Janssen and Hamm (2011). 17

18 3. Willingness to pay more for organic food (eggs) EU Logo Governmetn Logo WTP more for organic apples (in%) Demeter Soil Association Germany Denmark Great Britain Note: Willingness to pay in percent above market price. Sources: Janssen and Hamm (2011). 18

19 3. Beliefs o Theoretical expectations: Beliefs that organic food is better for the environment, healthier, of better quality, fashionable, more ethical and safer govern organic food consumption. o Empirical findings: People belief organic food is: 1. Healthier 2. Better for environment 3. Better quality and higher food safety 4. Fashionable 19

20 3. Socio-demographic profile o There is little consistency in sociodemographic findings, but most studies find organic food consumers are: Female Older Have children Are better educated Have a medium to high income These factor seem to be changing! 20

21 4. Contextual determinants What enables and hinders consumers to engage in such behaviour?

22 4. The contextual embeddedness of responsible consumption Culture Food Scares Media coverage Labeling Retailing Structures Desires Beliefs Constraints Consumption Affluence 22

23 4. Food Scares across Europe Note: *Imported Animals; - Limited information. Source: Knowles et al. (2007), page 54. Food scares have some limited impact on organic food consumption. 23

24 4. Media Coverage of organic food in Denmark 1996 to 2002 (Jyllands- Posten) Total number of news items Positive and negative reports (%) Jahr Total positiv negativ 0 Note: Articles about organic food and percentage of relative negative and positive framing. Source: Thøgersen (2006), page

25 4. Media Coverage of organic food in Germany 1992 to 2010 (Süddeutsche Zeitung) Total number of news items Positive and negative reports (%) Total Positive Negative Media coverage has indirect impact on organic food consumption. Note: Articles about organic food and percentage of relative negative and positive framing. Source: Archive of Süddeutsche Zeitung, own analysis. 0 25

26 4. Labeling In general: o Labels: market-based voluntary policy instruments, often jointly organized and issued by states and private NGOs. o Most important policy innovation for increasing responsible consumption, because of: Standards Information Recognition Availability Availability (presence and suppyl) of labeled products has an important positive effect on organic consumption. 26

27 4. Organic Labeling Three important aspects: 1. Number of organic labels Consumer confusion Findings: no impact 2. State involvement into labeling Better information, possible sanctions and higher trust. no impact 3. Credibility of labels and certification Trust in label strong impact 27

28 4. Retailing Structures o Sales channels: corner stores & specialized shops - versus - supermarkets Countries differ in their retailing structures. The dominance of supermarkets in a country as a main sales channel of organic food increases organic food sales. 28

29 4. Affluence as a low cost condition Predicted Probabilities Self-Transcendence Values High Affluence (Switzerland) Low Affluence (Poland) Affluence provides an economic opportunity structure (low cost condition) and increases organic food consumption. 29

30 4. The Financial Crisis Organic food expenditure in per capita across Europe 1997 to Denmark Expenditure for organic food ( p.c) EU-7 Sweden Germany USA France Netherlands Great Britain Spain

31 4. The Financial Crisis Fair Trade expenditure in per capita across Europe 2004 to Great Britain 10 5 Denmark Sweden Netherlands Belgium France Germany 0 Spain

32 5. Consumer power How much power do consumers have? What to learn?

33 5. Consumer sovereignty Two positions: o Liberal position (Von Mises): The real bosses, in the capitalist system of market economy, are the consumers (1944). o Critical position (Adorno & Horkheimer): Consumer as a subordinate to the culture industry (1944). Some truth to both! 33

34 5. The power of consumers Increasing power of consumers due to: o Higher affluence o Larger selection and supply of goods o Better shopping opportunities o More information (consumer and testing associations, labels, internet) Change from seller to buyer market But: o Complexity of modern mass markets o Limited power of consumer sanctions 34

35 5. Summary o Consumption patterns have changed considerably during the last decades. Responsible consumption is on the rise. o Reasons are changing values, economic conditions, consumer policies (labeling) and beliefs about good food. o Some limitations remain, mainly due to economic restrictions, a lack of information and trust. 35

36 Thank you very much! Sebastian Koos

37 Backup Slides

38 Organic consumption (2007) Denmark 106 Austria Luxembourg Germany 64 Sweden 53 Great Britain 42 Italy Netherlands France Belgium Ireland Spain Finland Portugal Greece Czech Republik Slovenia 2 Hungary 2 Poland Quelle: World of Organic Agriculture

39 2. Fair Trade expenditure in per capita across Europe 2004 to Expenditure for Fair Trade goods (in p.c.) United Kingdom Denmark Sweden Netherlands Belgium France Germany USA Spain