bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423

Investigating psychosocial determinants in influencing

sustainable food consumption in Italy
Marco Vassallo, Maria Luisa Scalvedi and Anna Saba
Research Center for Food and Nutrition, Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA), Rome, Italy

Keywords
Sustainable food consumption, theory of
planned behaviour, subjective norms,
structural equation modelling, Italian food
context.
Correspondence
Marco Vassallo, Research Center for Food and
Nutrition, Council for Agricultural Research and
Economics (CREA), Via Ardeatina 546,
Rome I-00178, Italy.
E-mail: marco.vassallo@entecra.it
doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12268
Abstract
Italy, one of the most involved countries in organic farming, represents a European case
in the Mediterranean area concerning the sustainable food market, mainly based on
organic food. The aim of this study is to investigate the theory of planned behaviour
extended to past behaviour with particular attention to social pressure, in the context of
sustainable food products across Italy. Data were collected on a regional basis and across
different age classes and analyzed using structural equation modelling for a
representative sample of approximately 3000 self-reporting respondents who account for
a remarkable percentage (69%) of sustainable food products purchasing. The strongest
intention to buy these products was found in Northern and Central Italy while the South
and the Insular macro-regions exhibited the highest perceived purchasing barriers. The
complexity of social pressure in predicting the intention to buy highlighted a clear and
significant role of the Italian family in making sustainable food choices. However, the
other social referent others, such as important people, friends, society, differentiated their
contribution to these choices at territorial level. An exception to this latter trend was
found for the society concept that completely failed its support as subjective norm
predictor of intention. This may possibly be due to the fact that no sustainable food
market policy is univocally identified in Italy, not even with legal certification unless it
regards the organic sector. Nevertheless, past rewarding purchasing experience seemed to
be the most effective motivation for buying sustainable food products in Italy. In
conclusion, efforts both from the supply chain and political side should be made mainly
in terms of rewarding purchasing experience and legal certification on sustainable food
products.

Introduction sumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy

The consumer’s role in the sustainable food
market
Public Institutions all over the world have been encouraging
sustainable production and consumption for various decades.
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Develop-
ment, which took place in Rio in 1992, focused on rethinking
economic development and finding ways to stop the destruction
of irreplaceable natural resources and pollution of the planet,
leading to the adoption of an action plan (Agenda 21) to
achieve sustainable development worldwide. Consequently, a
number of international conferences and meetings had been
organized until 2012, when the UN Rio120 Conference
adopted the 10 Years Framework of Programs on sustainable
consumption and production (UN, Rio 2012). In parallel, the
European Union has always been working on the implementa-
tion of sustainable development policies and for that reason did
the European Commission (2008) present the Sustainable Con-
Action Plan, including a number of proposals to improve the
environmental performance of products and the demand for
more sustainable goods (Brunori and Lari, 2012). In this
respect, the EU policies consider the consumer as a sort of
‘key stakeholder’ in the sustainable development process and
thus encourage him/her to lead sustainable lifestyles. Accord-
ingly, EU citizens have increased their awareness about the
central role of the environment in daily life decisions and
choices, as the majority of them (slightly more than 80%)
believes that the impact of each product on the environment is
an important element in deciding which products to buy, and
almost 60% considered the environmental impact more impor-
tant than the product’s brand when making purchases (Euro-
pean Commission, 2009). Recent studies have concluded that
consumers substantially contribute to ecological and social
problems both directly, in the form of emissions deriving from
their consumption style, and indirectly by demanding and pay-
ing for goods which cause problematic side-effects along the

422 International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 422–434

C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
M. Vassallo et al.
value chain (Schrader and Thøgersen, 2011). In addition, food
consumers may want to pay more for quality, to be sympathetic
towards worker’s rights and the environment, to be pragmatic,
careful, selective and curious, to draw attention to details, to
demand for tailored products and services (Fabris, 2003, 2010).
So, they behave in a very complex way, being a multi-faceted
subject with conscious and non-conscious levels (K€oster, 2009).
In the food sector the new global socio-economic trends have
determined this new consumer profile. Furthermore, the decline
in Gross National Product (GNP) annual growth, the increasing
globalization and food crises (i.e. Bovine Spongiform Ence-
phalopathy – BSE- and the Asian flu virus) have boosted the
environmental consciousness of consumers in a way which has
made them more responsible (Briamonte and Giuca, 2010). As
a consequence, when a consumer is making decisions towards
buying food, he/she is more focused on extrinsic quality aspects
like brand, origin and quality certification rather than on the
usual intrinsic ones, such as the sensory and nutritional aspects
(Giuca, 2010).
Organic food as one of the most important
outcome of sustainable food products in Italy
Sustainable food products encompass this new demand as they
are produced taking into account sustainable development prin-
ciples aimed at achieving economic, environmental and social
goals in societies (Guido, 2009). From a marketing perspective,
examples of sustainable food products are organic products
(Thøgersen, 2010), those with a certification of origin (i.e.
PDO, etc.) fair trade products and possibly local products
(Briamonte and Giuca, 2010). In Italy, sustainability in the
agriculture sector concerns mainly organic production (Biasetti,
2013 – USDA’s Global Agriculture Information Network,
2013). Conversely, the Italian government does not currently
have any legal requirements when it comes to other issues of
sustainability farming, even though it subsidizes such sustain-
able practices (Biasetti, 2013 – USDA’s Global Agriculture
Information Network, 2013). Italian consumers have already
expressed a positive attitude towards organic food (Saba and
Messina, 2003) and organic food sales are still increasing in
Italy (18.9%, in large supermarket chains in 2011; from
110% to 120% in organic food specialized retails in 2011 –
source: Federbio, 2012a) leading the country to the sixth rank
in the world and second in Europe (after Spain) for organically
cultivated agricultural lands (source: FIBL IFOAM – The world
of organic agriculture, 2014). Conversely, official statistics
depict a heterogeneous geographical distribution of these sales:
organic food consumption is strongly concentrated in the North
macro-region (38.5% in Northwest and 32.9% in Northeast)
followed by the Central (20.7%) and the South (7.9%) macro-
regions. For the latter, the Italian trend of the organic food
market follows the stronger one in Northern Europe rather than
the weaker one in the Mediterranean area (Richter et al., 2007;
Thøgersen, 2010). Hence, Thøgersen (2010) stated that ‘investi-
gating the Italian case could help to identify effective strategies
for increasing the organic market in other Mediterranean
regions’ (p. 182).
International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 422–434
C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Sustainable food choices in Italy
The core determinants of the theory of planned
behaviour and its application to sustainable
food products
Currently, the most extensively applied theoretical framework
for predicting and understanding human behaviour are the
well-known theory of reasoned action (TRA; Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1980) and its extension the theory of planned behav-
iour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991). These theories have been widely
applied to consumer behaviours, including the field of food
choice (Beale and Manstead, 1991; Sparks et al., 1992; Towler
and Shepherd, 1992; Lloyd et al., 1993; Shepherd and Raats,
1995; Conner and Sparks, 1996; Sparks and Shepherd, 2002;
Tarkianen and Sundqvist, 2005; Veimer and Verbeke, 2006).
The predictive power of the model has been demonstrated in a
number of meta-analyses (Conner and Sparks, 1996; Godin and
Kok, 1996; Armitage and Conner, 2001). Briefly, both theories
hypothesize that human behaviour is based on the use of
rational and systematic information available to anyone when
making decisions (Madden et al., 1992). In the TRA, human
behaviour is under volitional control (Madden et al., 1992) in
that the individual’s behavioural intention predicts behaviour,
and the behavioural intention is, in turn, predicted by attitude
towards the behaviour (general feelings of favour or disfavour
for that behaviour) and subjective norms. These represent the
perceived social pressure whether or not to engage in a behav-
iour and reflects the influences that significant referent others
may exert on the execution of behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Atti-
tude towards the behaviour is, in turn, determined by a number
of beliefs and how they have been evaluated. In addition, the
TPB attempts to predict non-volitional behaviours, by incorpo-
rating perceptions of control over the behaviour as an addi-
tional predictor of both behavioural intention and behaviour
(Ajzen, 1991). Furthermore, Ajzen (2005) suggests that both
attitude and subjective norms can be further separated into dif-
ferent concepts respectively. The TPB has been successfully
applied to a lot of studies dealing with sustainable food choices
with different types of products and it has been found that atti-
tudes, beliefs, perceived behavioural control, subjective norms
and past buying behaviour influence intention to buy sustain-
ably produced foods, thus improving the knowledge of these
influential factors (Arvola et al., 2008; Dean et al., 2008;
Robinson and Smith, 2002; Saba and Messina, 2003; Tarkianen
and Sundqvist, 2005; Thøgersen, 2007; Vermeir and Verbeke,
2008; Zhu et al., 2013). Most importantly, a recent review by
Aertsens et al. (2009) on the TPB model with the extension of
Schwartz’ human values applied to organic foods consumption
enforced the usefulness of both theories in explaining determi-
nants. Specifically, for the TPB Aertsens et al. (2009) found
that ‘organic purchases are positively and significantly related
to intentions to purchase in combination with perceived behav-
ioural control. Intentions are, in turn, influenced by the attitude,
(personal and subjective) norms and perceived behavioural con-
trol’ (p. 1156).
Objective of the paper
On the basis of what has been presented here, the objective of
this article is to investigate the determinants of consumer
decision-making towards sustainable foods, (including organic
423
Sustainable food choices in Italy
Subjective Past
Norms Behaviour
Attitude Intention Behaviour
Perceived
Behavioural
Control
Figure 1 Conceptual diagram of the extended theory of planned
behaviour.
products), in Italy to gain insight into sustainable consumption
in a country of the Mediterranean area. To this end, an
extended version of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB)
which included a measure of past behaviour and measures of
the individual’s perception of social pressure taken from past
literature has been applied. The analyses will be performed
both at national level and across Italian macro regions. The
conceptual model is depicted in Fig. 1.
Material and methods
The sample
The study is based on a representative sample of 3025 Italian
consumers over 18 years of age and solely, or jointly, responsi-
ble for the family’s food shopping. Data were collected in June
2011 using a three-step quota-based sampling, with random-
walk in the third step. In the first step, the sample quota was
stratified in the 20 official Italian regions with four classes of
population size areas (i.e. under 10 000 inhabitants; from
10 001 to 30 000; from 30 001 to 100 000; over 100 000)
using data from the census performed in 2001 by the Italian
National Institute of Statistics (i.e. ISTAT). Then, in the second
step, 200 national sampling points were selected with compris-
ing all the biggest 45 municipalities (where 23.5% of Italian
population live) and randomizing the other remaining part in
respect of the aforementioned regional stratification. Finally, in
the third step, from each national sampling point, one or more
street addresses were randomly selected from the street guide.
Subsequently, 250 interviewers were used across Italy to apply
the random-walk procedure for randomly selecting the house-
holds and, therefore, the respondents to be interviewed. A
structured self-administered questionnaire was handed out to
each selected respondent. Later on, subjects were contacted by
phone to arrange an appointment to hand in the completed
questionnaire. At the end 3025 interviews were performed
which provided 3004 valid cases.
424
M. Vassallo et al.
The questionnaire
The questionnaire included three sections along with demo-
graphics. One of these sections measured the TPB variables
related to the consumption of products deriving from a sustain-
able and local agricultural system, and included questions
measuring the past behaviour and the perceived pressure from
important referent others. A definition of food produced accord-
ing to sustainable approaches was provided in the introduction
of the questionnaire: ‘Sustainable approaches to agriculture
are those technologies that work efficiently based on natural
processes minimizing the use of practices harmful to the soil,
and promoting sustainable energy including renewable energy
sources. Organic, biodynamic and integrated farming are com-
mon examples of sustainable agriculture techniques used in
Italy’. In the present research, only the results related to the
first section of the questionnaire will be analyzed and
discussed.
The TPB variables: measurement and coding
The questionnaire encompassed measures of behaviour, behav-
ioural intention, attitude towards behaviour, subjective norms,
perceived behavioural control and past behaviour to purchase
sustainable food products (hereafter SFPs) as aforementioned
defined. The sequence of questions in the questionnaire was
randomized to avoid routinized answers. Almost all responses
were scored on seven-point Likert-type scales using different
labels when they occur, with the exception of one question
regarding the behaviour scored on a nine-point scale.
According to Armitage and Conner (1999) one item meas-
uring self-reported behaviour with reference to the last month
was proposed and adapted: ‘In the course of last month, how
often have you bought SFPs?’ Two unipolar scales were used:
one with showing all the 7 labels (i.e. hardly ever coded as 1,
sometimes coded as 2, less than once a week coded as 3, once
a week coded as 4, twice a week coded as 5, more than twice a
week but not every day coded as 6, every day coded as 7) and
another one with 9 anchors, but showing only the extreme
labels (ranging from 1 5 hardly ever to 9 5 every day).
Behavioural intention was measured by two items adapted
from Vermeir and Verbeke (2008) and Fishbein and Ajzen
(2010). The first one was worded: ‘I intend to buy SFPs in the
next days’ (ranging from 1 5 extremely unlikely to
7 5 extremely likely). The second item was: ‘I want to buy
SFPs in the next days’ (ranging from 1 5 definitely do not to
7 5 definitely do). Attitudes towards buying sustainable food
products were measured by three items rated on seven-point
scale adapted from Vermeir and Verbeke (2008): ‘buying SFPs
is. . .’ ranging from: (a) 1 5 bad to 7 5 good; (b) 1 5 unwise to
7 5 wise; (c) 1 5 useless to 7 5 meaningful.
Measures of subjective norms consisted of four items rated
on a seven-point scale. One question regarded a general subjec-
tive norm and it was adapted from Fishbein and Ajzen (2010):
‘Most people who are important to me think that I (should not/
should; ranging from 1 5 should not, to 7 5 should) buy SFPs’.
Two questions measured the subjective norms of two important
referent others, such as family and friends, and they were
adapted from Vermeir and Verbeke (2008): ‘My family thinks
that I (should not/should) buy SFPs’, and ‘My friends think
International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 422–434
C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
M. Vassallo et al.
that I (should not/should) buy SFPs’. Family and friends are
two common subjects assumed as influencing groups whose
opinion are important for people (Childers and Rao, 1992;
Bagozzi et al., 2004; Ajzen and Sheikh, 2013). One question
measuring the society pressure in the broad sense was finally
proposed and adapted from Vermeir and Verbeke (2008): ‘The
society is expecting that I (should not/should) buy SFPs’.
Perceived behavioural control was measured by two items
reflecting the difficulty dimension (Sparks et al., 1997;
Trafimov et al., 2002) of the perceived availability in finding
SFPs. The items were adapted from Sparks et al. (1997) and
Vermeir and Verbeke (2008) as follows: ‘Is it easy finding
SFPs in your neighborhood?’ (ranging from 1 5 extremely diffi-
cult to 7 5 extremely easy) and ‘Is it easy finding SFPs at the
market?’ (both items ranging from 1 5 extremely difficult to
7 5 extremely easy).
Past behaviour was measured by one item adapted from the
studies of Hagger et al. (2001) and Bamberg, Ajzen and
Schmidt (2003): ‘How often have you bought SFP in the past 6
months?’ (hardly ever coded as 1, seldom coded as 2, occasion-
ally coded as 3, often coded as 4, very often coded as 5, always
coded as 6).
Data analysis
Frequencies and mean differences among TPB items were
investigated using Chi-square and ANOVAs together with
Tukey tests respectively. The causal relationships between the
TPB latent variables were analyzed using structural equation
modelling (SEM) (Bollen, 1989; J€oreskog and S€orbom, 2002)
with the maximum likelihood (ML) method of estimation.
Cases presenting missing data were deleted using list-wise
deletion.
In all SEM analyses, the perceived behavioural control items
have been recoded so that higher numbers indicate higher bar-
riers (Thøgersen, 2007).
Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs) for the whole country
and for each macro-region were performed on the latent varia-
bles to achieve the convergent and the discriminant validity
among constructs (Kline, 2005) and then to validate the mea-
surement model (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). All CFAs and
structural models were performed by arbitrarily setting one
indicator to unity, for each different latent variable, to define
the scale of the factor (Kline, 2005).
Multi-group confirmatory factor analyses were performed to
check for cross-cultural validity across the five macro-regions.
Cross-cultural validity refers to the extent to which data col-
lected by the same multi-item measurement instrument are
comparable across different cultural environments (Bredahl,
2001). Configural and metric invariance of the measures is
needed, so that cross-regional comparisons of structural path
coefficients can be meaningfully explained (Steenkamp and
Baumgartner, 1998).
Descriptive statistics and ANOVA tests were performed
using SPSS v20; the SEMs were constructed using LISREL
8.80 for Windows (J€oreskog and S€orbom, 2007).
International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 422–434
C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Sustainable food choices in Italy
Results
Main descriptive statistics
A complete socio-demographic profile of the sample together
with a self-reported behaviour of purchasing SFPs for the total
country and each macro-region is depicted in Table 1. Similar
patterns across macro-regions were found for gender, age
classes while significant differences, resulted for the educa-
tional level, household size and place of residence.
It was noteworthy that only 31.2% of Italian consumers
‘hardly ever’ purchased SFPs in the last month, whereas 69%
did ‘sometimes’ and even more (cumulative percentage up to
the ‘every day’). Regular consumers (purchase at least once a
week) were about 27% in Italy, the Northeast and Central
macro-regions show the highest values respectively of 32.5%
and 31.5%, while the Northwest, South and Insular the lowest
(respectively 23.9%, 23.8% and 25.5%).
Descriptive statistics and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
are depicted in Table 2, for each item and factor respectively.
The Cronbach’s alpha values resulted around .8 and .9 for all
TPB constructs, exhibiting a very good internal consistency of
the measures (Kline, 2005).
Looking at the TPB items mean values it was remarkable
that lower scores concerning behaviour and past behaviour
were found in the Northwest, South and Insular rather than in
the other two macro-regions (i.e. Northeast and Central).
Besides, South and Insular exhibited perceived behavioural
control (towards overcoming the difficulty to perform the pur-
chasing behaviour of SFPs) mean values lower than the
national one).
Marginal mean differences among attitude, intention and sub-
jective norms items were found across the studied area. These
means resulted all positive presenting scores over 4 on 7-point
scale. In particular, mean attitude measures were higher than 5,
indicating that most respondents, across all national territory,
had positive attitudes towards buying SFPs.
Measurement models and measurement
invariance
Normality checks on the manifest variables found the distribu-
tions to have kurtosis and skewness quite close to |1| with some
indices >j1j but under j2j (results not shown, but they can be
acquired from the first author). However, high non-normality is
usually associated with kurtosis >7 and skewness >2 (West
et al., 1995; Boomsma and Hoogland, 2001). Subsequently, the
measurement TPB models at national and regional level were
tested using the CFAs. The CFAs’ goodness of fit indices (see
Table 3) were found quite good according to the cutoff criteria
(Bentler, 1990; Hu and Bentler, 1999; Browne and Cudeck,
1993). All factor loadings (results not shown, but they can be
acquired from the first author) were significantly and substan-
tially found different from zero and over .50, indicating conver-
gent validity (Kline, 2005).
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on subjective norms
items did not result in loading one common factor either for
country or each macro-region (Italy: Chi-square (df 5 2) 5
123.61; P < .000; RMSEA 5 .143; Northwest: Chi-square
425
Sustainable food choices in Italy M. Vassallo et al.

Table 1 Socio-demographic profile of the sample, together with the self-reported purchase of sustainable food products, for the whole country and
each macro-region; %

Italy Northwest Northeast Central South Insular

N 5 3004 N 5 814 N 5 557 N 5 600 N 5 699 N 5 334

Gender*
Male 39.9 40.2 39.1 40.2 39.6 40.7
Female 60.1 59.8 60.9 59.8 60.4 59.3
Age class*
18-34 24.6 25.1 23.7 25.2 24.5 24.3
35-64 52.7 52.6 54.4 52.3 52.4 51.2
>64 22.7 22.4 21.9 22.5 23.2 24.6
Educational level
No formal or less than primary 8.6 6.6 8.1 7.3 11.9 9.6
Primary school 5.9 6.0 8.4 4.0 5.0 6.3
Pre-high school 25.0 26.2 24.6 22.2 25.9 26.3
High school 44.7 45.1 42.2 50.7 40.6 46.1
Graduate 14.1 14.4 14.7 13.5 15.3 10.8
Post graduate 1.4 1.2 1.4 2.3 1.0 0.9
Missing 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0
Household size
One person 15.1 16.6 19.6 12.2 14.2 11.4
Two people 30.1 33.8 33.2 31.5 24.5 24.9
Three people 23.8 24.9 22.1 27.3 21.9 21.9
Four people 22.9 18.9 19.2 22.8 27.5 29.0
More than four people 8.1 5.8 5.9 6.2 12.0 12.6
Missing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Sustainable food purchased in the last month
Hardly ever 31.2 34.0 26.8 27.0 33.8 33.7
Sometimes 34.4 36.4 33.1 32.0 34.3 35.8
Less than once a week 7.3 5.7 7.6 9.4 8.2 4.8
Once a week 12.2 11.6 14.7 14.4 9.3 11.1
Twice a week 7.3 6.3 9.4 9.1 6.2 5.4
More than twice a week 6.7 5.5 7.0 6.7 7.4 7.2
Every day 1.1 0.5 1.4 1.3 0.9 1.8

*Chi-square not significant at the 95% confidence level for the distributions across macro-regions.

(df 5 2) 5 30.46; P< .000; RMSEA 5 .134; Northeast: Chi-
square (df 5 2) 5 9.79; P < .001; RMSEA 5 .085; Central:
Chi-square (df 5 2) 5 50.00; P < .000; RMSEA 5 .202; South:
Chi-square (df 5 2) 5 20.97; P < .000; RMSEA 5 .117; Insular:
Chi-square (df 5 2) 5 34.73; P < .000; RMSEA 5 .223),
although they showed an high internal consistency (see
Cronabach’s alphas in Table 2). This latter result is not surpris-
ing, as it is a common misconception to consider measures as
valid in loading a common factor basing only on the reliability
values (Bollen, 1989; page 207). Hence, even though the four
items of subjective norms are good reliable measures (i.e. free
of random error) they are not valid in measuring a common
factor. As a consequence, all the four items were introduced
singularly, programmed as they were a single factor, in the
TPB-CFAs, to preserve their unique information (Brown, 2006;
Bollen and Davis, 2009) of the subjective norms predictor
according to the TPB model. In addition, this latter strategy
(Brown, 2006) allowed to examine the estimated correlations
between the TPB factors and the single SN indicators before
imposing subsequent structural relations. The estimated zero-
order correlations (see Table 3) among the TPB factors were
all found significant and almost all under .85, still showing evi-
dence for distinctiveness of the factors (i.e. discriminant valid-
ity; Kline, 2005), especially for the ones regarding the
subjective norms supporting the individuality of these single
measures. Exception to discriminant validity was found in
behaviour and past behaviour. These latter correlations resulted
quite large (ranging from .91 to .94), although still significantly
under 1.00. According to the Steenkamp and Baumgartner
(1998), configural and metric invariance needs to be achieved
so as to assess the cross-cultural validity across the five macro-
regions. Configural invariance was assessed by looking for
identical factor patterns in the CFAs, performed simultaneously
across the five areas. The fit of the configural invariance
(Chi-Square (df 5 230) 5 950.64, P < 0.001, RMSEA 5 .073,
CFI 5 .99, TLI-NNFI 5 .98, SRMR 5 .030, AIC 5 1540.64)
was satisfactory, implying that the survey instrument measures
the same underlying latent constructs in all macro-regions. To
achieve metric invariance (at least partial) the literature stipu-
lates that at least one factor loading per latent variable (in addi-
tion to the one fixed at unity to define the scale of each latent
construct) must be metrically invariant (be equal) (Steenkamp
and Baumgartner, 1998). Hence, a full metric invariance (all
factor loadings constrained to be equal across macro-regions)

426 International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 422–434

C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
M. Vassallo et al. Sustainable food choices in Italy

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and reliabilities of the TPB variables for the whole country and macro-regions

Italy Northwest Northeast Central South Insular

N 5 3004 N 5 814 N 5 557 N 5 600 N 5 699 N 5 334

Mean/SD r1 Mean/SD r Mean/SD r Mean/SD r Mean/SD r Mean/SD r

B
In the course2 2.54/1.60 0.72 2.38a/1.51 0.70 2.74b/1.65 0.71 2.73b/1.63 0.77 2.45a/1.59 0.72 2.47a/1.64 0.69
In the course 3 3.81/2.24 0.72 3.69a/2.24 0.70 4.08b/2.23 0.71 3.98a,b/2.27 0.77 3.63a/2.20 0.72 3.70a/2.26 0.69
Cronbach a 0.81 0.79 0.81 0.85 0.81 0.79
BI
I intend to buy4 4.57/1.79 0.82 4.38a/1.78 0.81 4.57a,b/1.84 0.80 4.63a,b/1.68 0.84 4.78b/1.74 0.79 4.47a/1.98 0.85
I want to buy5 4.74/1.73 0.82 4.50a/1.70 0.81 4.66a,b/1.82 0.80 4.83b,c/1.63 0.84 4.99b,c,d/1.64 0.79 4.76a,b/1.88 0.85
Cronbach a 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.91 0.88 0.92
ATB
(negative/positive) 5.58/1.47 0.79 5.45a/1.41 0.78 5.67a,b/1.45 0.75 5.56a,b/1.47 0.82 5.59a,b/1.54 0.79 5.72b/1.52 0.81
(unwise/wise) 5.63/1.43 0.85 5.45a/1.39 0.85 5.68b/1.45 0.80 5.66b/1.39 0.86 5.69b/1.47 0.86 5.76b/1.56 0.87
(useless/meaningful) 5.48/1.55 0.81 5.29a/1.56 0.80 5.52a,b/1.52 0.79 5.50a,b/1.51 0.84 5.54a,b/1.58 0.80 5.67b/1.59 0.82
Cronbach a 0.91 0.90 0.88 0.92 0.91 0.92
SN6
important people 4.95/1.68 0.69 4.74a/1.62 0.63 4.89a,b/1.73 0.65 5.03b,c/1.71 0.73 5.05b,c/1.68 0.76 5.24c/1.62 0.65
family 4.91/1.62 0.73 4.67a/1.60 0.70 4.84a,b/1.64 0.68 4.96b,c/1.60 0.77 5.06b,c/1.59 0.77 5.17c/1.65 0.70
society 4.81/1.52 0.48 4.70a/1.44 0.47 4.77a.b/1.51 0.38 4.84a,b/1.55 0.48 4.84a,b/1.55 0.58 5.02b/1.56 0.45
friends 4.64/1.64 0.70 4.45a/1.45 0.66 4.67a,b/1.54 0.67 4.63a,b/1.54 0.75 4.73b/1.58 0.72 4.87b/1.62 0.71
Cronbach a 0.82 0.80 0.78 0.84 0.86 0.81
PBC7
neighborhood 4.10/1.79 0.68 4.26a/1.72 0.66 4.45a/1.74 0.68 4.37a/1.73 0.76 3.72b/1.77 0.67 3.42c/1.85 0.64
market 4.04/1.64 0.68 4.29a/1.53 0.66 4.27a 1.61 0.68 4.25a/1.63 0.76 3.65b/1.61 0.67 3.54b/1.78 0.64
Cronbach a 0.81 0.79 0.74 0.86 0.80 0.78
PB8
past 6 months 2.60/1.21 - 2.48a/1.15 - 2.78b/1.23 - 2.71b,c/1.23 - 2.55a,c/1.20 - 2.49a/1.25 -

1, item-total correlation; 2, hardly ever, sometime, less than once a week, once a week, twice a week, more than twice a week (but not every day),
every day (7-point scale); 3, hardly ever – every day (9-point scale); 4, extremely unlikely – extremely likely; 5, definitely do not – definitely do; 6, I
should not buy – I should buy; 7, extremely difficult – extremely easy; 8, hardly ever, seldom, occasionally, often, very often, always (6-point scale).
Note I: Means sharing superscript within a row are not significantly different at the 95% confidence level (ANOVA, Tuckey test, P < 0.05).
Note II: B, BI, ATB, SN, PBC, PB respectively stand for behaviour, behavioural intention, attitude towards a behaviour, subjective norms, perceived
behavioural control, past behaviour.

was performed (Chi-Square (df 5 250) 5 973.29, P < .001,
RMSEA 5 .071, CFI 5 .99, TLI-NNFI 5 .98, SRMR 5 .031,
AIC 5 1523.29). Then, the global goodness of fit indices of the
full metric models were compared with the configural ones. The
chi-square difference test is usually applied to compare nested
models. However, the limitations of this latter index are well-
known (violation of multi-normality assumptions, model com-
plexity, sample size etc.; Schermelleh-Engel and Moonsbrugger,
2003). Consequently, other fit indices, especially the Akaike’s
Information Criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1987) in simulation study
(Williams and Holahan, 1994), were used both as an alternative
method and further support to the model comparison test as rec-
ommended by Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998). The model
associated with the lowest AIC has to be considered the optimal
and most parsimonious model (Rigdon, 1999). Hence, full metric
invariance was supported as the Chi-square difference test was
not significant (difference between Chi-Squares 5 22.65,
P > 0.05, Chi-Square (20; 0.05) 5 31.40), RMSEA and AIC
decreased, whereas CFI, NNFI and SRMR stayed the same. Thus,
the un-standardized solutions may meaningfully be compared
across the five macro-regions.
TPB structural models across the whole country
and the five macro-regions
All the TPB models performed satisfactorily across the whole
national territory and in every macro-region both in terms of fit
indices and explained variances of behaviour (B) and behaviou-
ral intention (BI) (see Table 4).
At the national level, the strongest predictor of B was the
past behaviour (PB) followed by BI and perceived behavioural
control (PBC). Interestingly, even though PB confirmed its
strong role in predicting B across the macro-regions as well,
for the other two predictors of B an opposite situation occurred:
in the Northwest, Northeast and Central Italy, BI was the sec-
ond most important predictor of B, whereas in the South and
Insular was PBC. When passing to BI as criterion variable, the
attitude towards behaviour (ATB) resulted the most important
predictor followed by the PB for the whole country and macro-
regions with the exception of the Insular. This latter showed a
PBC as the second most important antecedent of BI. Looking
at the indirect and total effects of the determinants on B,
depicted in Table 5, PB still strongly performed on behaviour

International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 422–434 427

C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Sustainable food choices in Italy M. Vassallo et al.

Table 3 Estimated correlations among TPB latent factors – for the whole country and macro-regions

Italy Northwest Northeast Central South Insular

B <–> BI .73 .75 .83 .76 .65 .71

B <–> ATB .55 .58 .61 .58 .49 .47
B <–> PBC 2.60 2.52 2.54 2.60 2.69 2.74
B <–> PB .92 .93 .91 .93 .91 .94
B <–> SN-P .47 .48 .45 .57 .41 .46
B <–> SN-F .52 .56 .52 .57 .47 .50
B <–> SN-S .28 .26 .26 .36 .29 .23
B <–> SN-Fr .46 .46 .52 .56 .42 .35
BI <–> ATB .78 .78 .76 .81 .85 .66
BI <–> PBC 2.43 2.47 2.39 2.45 2.43 2.60
BI <–> PB .65 .66 .71 .68 .57 .65
BI <–> SN-P .63 .58 .54 .73 .73 .55
BI <–> SN-F .69 .67 .63 .76 .75 .64
BI <–> SN-S .38 .38 .26 .47 .48 .26
BI <–> SN-Fr .58 .58 .53 .69 .64 .40
ATB <–> PBC 2.32 2.39 2.22 2.37 2.38 2.28
ATB <–> PB .55 .56 .59 .58 .51 .48
ATB <–> SN-P .67 .60 .57 .74 .77 .64
ATB <–> SN-F .69 .66 .60 .68 .76 .78
ATB <–> SN-S .46 .46 .33 .49 .53 .42
ATB <–> SN-Fr .62 .56 .57 .70 .65 .62
PBC <–> PB 2.52 2.43 2.46 2.53 2.60 2.63
PBC <–> SN-P 2.25 2.27 2.22 2.33 2.29 2.27
PBC <–> SN-F 2.31 2.33 2.29 2.37 2.35 2.37
PBC <–> SN-S 2.29 2.31 2.23 2.41 2.34 2.24
PBC <–> SN-Fr 2.32 2.37 2.28 2.42 2.35 2.30
PB <–> SN-P .44 .43 .42 .53 .41 .42
PB <–> SN-F .48 .47 .50 .52 .46 .50
PB <–> SN-S .25 .24 .21 .33 .27 .21
PB <–> SN-Fr .41 .38 .47 .52 .38 .31
SN-P <–> SN-F .72 .66 .66 .79 .78 .70
SN-P <–> SN-S .39 .38 .29 .39 .50 .29
SN-P <–> SN-Fr .60 .51 .60 .66 .66 .58
SN-F <–> SN-S .41 .38 .32 .42 .52 .37
SN-F <–> SN-Fr .64 .62 .60 .68 .66 .61
SN-Fr <–> SN-S .48 .45 .38 .52 .54 .50
Goodness-of-fit indices
Effective sample size 2905 783 534 583 683 322
NT Chi-Square (df) 549.76 (46) 277.62 (46) 120.64 (46) 180.07 (46) 233.43 (46) 138.88 (46)
P-value .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
RMSEA .061 .080 .055 .071 .077 .079
90% CI for RMSEA .057–.066 .071–.089 .043–.067 .060–.082 .068–.087 .064–.095
CFI .99 .99 .99 .99 .99 .99
NNFI .99 .97 .99 .98 .98 .97
SRMR .019 .024 .028 .021 .025 .030

Note: B, BI, ATB, PBC, PB, SN-P, SN-F, SN-Fr, SN-S respectively stand for behaviour, behavioural intention, attitude towards a behaviour, perceived
behavioural control, past behaviour, subjective norms important people, family, friends, society.
Note II: According to Bollen (1989) since the self-reported behaviour has been measured through two items with two different scales they have been
calibrated for the structural equation modeling analyses. In this respect, the item with 7-anchors has been multiplied by the correction factor (i.e., 9/7)
as a 9-point scale accounts for evident larger variance along with an increasing of reliability (see Bollen, 1989; p. 183).

both directly and indirectly through BI providing the highest
total effect in the Northwest and Central Italy (i.e. total effect
of 1.29), even in comparison to the national one (i.e. total
effect of 1.19). PBC provided also a significant total effect
across all the national territory showing the highest values in
the Insular (i.e. 2.30) and South (i.e. 2.25). Specifically to the
North, finding SFPs in the Northeast seemed to be more diffi-
cult (i.e. total effect of 2.22) than what found as for Northwest
(i.e. total effect of2.15) and Central (i.e. total effect of 2.17).
Considering the single measures of social pressure has per-
mitted to draw attention to their individual contribution (see
Table 4): (a) the ‘society’ did not provide any influence; (b)

428 International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 422–434

C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
M. Vassallo et al. Sustainable food choices in Italy

Table 4 Unstandardized solutions (standardized between brackets) of TPB models for the whole country and macro-regions

Italy Northwest Northeast Central South Insular

B BI .22 (.19) .23 (.20) .38 (.33) .26 (.19) .16 (.14) .12 (.11)
B PB 1.12 (.73) 1.21 (.75) .92 (.61) 1.21 (.74) 1.06 (.72) 1.11 (.74)
B PBC 2.18 (2.14) 2.12 (2.10) 2.18 (2.14) 2.16 (2.12) 2.24 (2.19) 2.25 (2.20)
R2B 5 .89 .90 .89 .90 .87 .92
BI PBC 2.10 (2.10) 2.12 (2.11) 2.12 (2.10) 2.03* (2.03) 2.07* (2.07) 2.42 (2.36)
BI ATB .53 (.44) .50 (.41) .57 (.45) .48 (.40) .60 (.54) .58 (.43)
BI PB .30 (.23) .36 (.26) .41 (.31) .30 (.24) .16 (.12) .22 (.16)
BI SN-Important People .06 (.06) .04* (.04) .04* (.04) .02* (.02) .08 (.09) .14 (.12)
BI SN-Family .19 (.19) .16 (.16) .16 (.16) .27 (.28) .14 (.14) .12* (.11)
BI SN-Society 2.03* (2.03) 2.03* (.03) 2.04* (2.03) .02* (.02) 2.03* (2.03) 2.06* (2.05)
BI SN-Friends .04 (.04) .11 (.11) 2.01* (2.01) .05* (.06) .07 (.07) 215 (2.14)
R2BI 5 .71 .72 .71 .78 .76 .67
Effective sample size 2905 783 534 583 683 322
Goodness-of-fit indices
NT Chi-Square (df) 606.62 (51) 299.68 (51) 134.76 (51) 197.68 (51) 272.39 (51) 144.88 (51)
P-value .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
RMSEA .061 .079 .056 .070 .080 .076
90% CI for RMSEA .057–.066 .070–.088 .044–.067 .060–.081 .071–.089 .061–.090
CFI .99 .99 .99 .99 .99 .99
NNFI .99 .97 .99 .98 .98 .97
SRMR .021 .026 .030 .023 .029 .031

Note: * not significant at the 95% confidence level. Note II: B, BI, ATB, PBC, PB respectively stand for behaviour, behavioural intention, attitude
towards a behaviour, perceived behavioural control, past behaviour.

‘friends’ were found not significant in the Northeast and Cen-
tral, but they were in the whole country, Northwest, South,
Insular – with negative sign in this latter macro-region exhibit-
ing a significant negative suppression phenomenon (i.e. unstan-
dardized path coefficient of 2.15); (c) ‘family’ resulted the
most expected predictor of BI towards buying SFPs in the
whole country and macro-regions with the exception of the
Insular; (d) ‘important people’ were found significant in the
whole country, in the South (i.e. unstandardized path coefficient
of .08) and in the Insular with the strongest impact in this latter
macro-region (i.e. unstandardized path coefficient of .14). Con-
cerning the negative suppression found for the subjective norm
‘friends’ in the Insular macro-region, it is worthwhile describ-
ing how it has occurred and what has been the straightforward
interpretation. In multi-regression and path analysis a negative
suppression occurs when a predictor has a positive zero-order
correlation with the criterion, but lower than the one with other
predictors and thus not high enough to preserve a positive
direct effect (Maassen and Bakker, 2001). In addition, the sup-
pression phenomenon requires attention when interpreting
results, since a researcher should not conclude that ‘a direct
effect contrary to what expected is operating’ (Maassen and
Bakker, 2001; p. 268). Actually the suppression has to be inter-
preted together with other predictors significantly involved with
the criterion (Maassen and Bakker, 2001). In this case the two
significant predictors influencing BI (i.e. the target criterion)
were ‘important people’ and ‘friends’. Looking at Table 3 for
the Insular group, it was noteworthy that the zero-order correla-
tion between ‘important people’ and ‘friends’ was of .58 while
the corresponding correlations with the intention were respec-
tively lower (i.e. .55 and .40), thus a negative suppression
could exist. Hence and still according to Maassen and Bakker
(2001; p. 255) interpretation: consumers from the Insular gave
much more consideration to opinions of ‘important people’
when making decisions on buying SFPs not only because they
could be also friends. This fortified the empirical evidence that
‘important people’, effectively different from friends, played a
not marginal role in influencing intention to buy sustainable
food in the Insular macro-region. Nevertheless and all things
considered, when looking also at the indirect effects (see Table
5) of these subjective norms on B, mediated by BI, ‘family’
preserved its positive role in the whole country and macro-
regions (although with exception of the Insular), social pressure
of ‘friends’ persisted to be significant only in the whole country
and Northwest, whereas ‘important people’ only at country
level and society’ did not play any significant role in any place.
Discussion and conclusions
This study highlighted an interesting involvement in purchasing
sustainable food products (SFPs backing to wording, hereafter)
in Italy, as slightly more than one fourth of the sample declared
to purchase these products on a regular basis (about 27% from
‘every day’ to ‘once a week’) and 69% acquired them at least
‘sometimes’. In spite of this consumer involvement, the share
of regular consumers of sustainable food products was under
the potential quota, as the majority of Italians go grocery shop-
ping at least once a week (87.5%; source: Censis, 2010). Fur-
thermore, this purchasing tendency showed significant
differences among macro-regions, – much higher in the North-
east and Center – underlining an unbalanced sustainable food
consumption in Italy (de Magistris and Gracia, 2008) The
extended TPB model proposed here contributed to the under-
standing of psychological drivers and barriers of sustainable

International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 422–434 429

C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Sustainable food choices in Italy M. Vassallo et al.

Table 5 Effects decomposition unstandardized (Std) coefficients for the whole country and macro-regions

ATB PBC PB SN-P SN-F SN-S SN-Fr

Italy Behaviour
Direct effect - –.18(–.14) 1.12(.73) - - - -
Total indirect effects .12(.08) –.02(–.02) .07(.04) .01(.01) .04(.04) –.01*(–.01)* 0.1(.01)
Total effect .12(.08) –.20(–.16) 1.19(.77) .01(.01) .04(.04) –.01*(–.01)* 0.1(0.1)
Northwest Behaviour
Direct effect - –.12(–.10) 1.21(.75) - - - -
Total indirect effects .12(.08) –.03(–.02) .08(.05) .01*(.01) .04(.03) –.01*(–.01) .03(.02)
Total effect .12(.08) –.15(–.12) 1.29(.80) .01*(.01) .04(.03) –.01*(–.01) .03(.02)
Northeast Behaviour
Direct effect - –.18(–.14) .92(.61) - - - -
Total indirect effects .22(.15) –.04(–.03) .16(.10) .01*(.01) .06(.03) –.01*(–.01) .00*(.02)
Total effect .22(.15) –.22(–.17) 1.08(.71) .01*(.01) .06(.03) –.01*(–.01) .00*(.02)
Central Behaviour
Direct effect - –.16(–.12) 1.21(.74) - - - -
Total indirect effects .12(.08) –.01*(–.01) .08(.05) .01*(.00) .07(.05) .01*(.00) .01*(.01)
Total effect .12(.08) –.17(–.13) 1.29(.79) .01*(.00) .07(.05) .01*(.00) .01*(.01)
South Behaviour
Direct effect - –.24(–.19) 1.06(.72) - - - -
Total indirect effects .10(.07) –.01*(–.01) .03(.07) .01*(.01) .02(.02) .00*(.00) .01*(.01)
Total effect .10(.07) –.25(–.20) 1.08(.79) .01*(.01) .02(.02) .00*(.00) .01*(.01)
Insular Behaviour
Direct effect - –.25(–.20) 1.11(.74) - - - -
Total indirect effects .07(.05) –.05(–.04) .03*(.01) .02*(.01) .01*(.01) –.01*(–.01) –.02*(–.02)
Total effect .07(.05) –.30(–.24) 1.14(.75) .02*(.01) .01*(.01) –.01*(–.01) –.02*(–.02)

Note: * not significant at the 95% confidence level. Note II: B, ATB, PBC, PB, SN-P, SN-F, SN-Fr, SN-S respectively stand for behaviour, attitude
towards a behaviour, perceived behavioural control, past behaviour, subjective norms important people, family, friends, society.

food consumption and highlighted interesting issues explaining
the unbalanced purchasing trend in Italy.
The relation between consumers’ intention to buy and self-
reported buying was weaker in the South and Insular macro-
regions compared with the North of Italy, highlighting an Ital-
ian territorial peculiarity which partially reflects the differences
between Northern Europe and the Mediterranean for the
organic market and organic food consumption, and thus for sus-
tainable food products (Padel et al., 2008; Thøgersen, 2010).
Moreover, the perception of potential barriers on availability of
sustainable food products – on the market and in the neighbor-
hood – was found to be higher for consumers in the South and
the Insular macro-regions reflecting the different actual avail-
ability of organic food in the Italian market (de Magistris and
Garcia, 2008; Lunati and Zucconi, 2012; Federbio, 2012a,b).
Past experience in purchasing sustainable food products
appeared to be the effective driver overcoming perceived bar-
riers and, therefore, has played a significant future role in sus-
tainable diets and food habits over the course of time. This
result confirms the important role of past behaviour in buying
sustainably produced foods (Robinson and Smith, 2002; Ajzen,
2011; Smith et al., 2007) and the necessity to secure rewarding
purchasing experiences in terms of quality, that must be at least
as high as the one for conventional products, as well as in
terms of trust that the purchased sustainable product has
actually been produced in an environmentally friendly way
(Thøgersen and Olander, 2006). Strong efforts of having tangi-
ble rewards after purchasing sustainable food products should
always be made (possibly also with environmental messages on
the products; Sellahewa and Martindale, 2010), especially in
Mediterranean countries, such as Italy, where knowledge and
recognition of organic food products are not comparable to the
North of Europe (Torjusen et al., 2004; de Magistris and
Gracia, 2008).
Concerning the subjective norms measured with four referent
others (‘important people’, ‘family’, ‘friends’ and ‘society’),
confirmatory factor analysis did not provide acceptable results
in loading one common factor either for the whole country or
for the individual macro-regions. So, unlike other studies which
found a common construct of subjective norms when using
such four referent others (Bagozzi et al., 2004; Vermeir and
Verbeke, 2008), these items were unable to share an acceptable
common variance and, therefore, were singularly included into
the TPB structural model to preserve their own contribution
(i.e. unique variance) as subjective norms variables in influenc-
ing the intention to buy sustainable food products. The lack of
having a shared common factor regarding those four referent
others was presumably due to the empirical evidence that they
do not have the same weight in the intentional decision-making
process and that the opinions of these referents can differ (Eck-
hardt et al., 2008). This is especially true for a complex context
such as sustainability that requires many more measures for
capturing a common factor of subjective norms. Having com-
mon factors is better than dealing with single measures because
they explain the concept better and more precisely than the lat-
ter. Nevertheless, as in this study, should the researcher have

430 International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 422–434

C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
M. Vassallo et al.
only a few single reliable measures of subjective norms which
are unable to form a common vision of the perceived social
pressure, they can, and are strongly advised to, further investi-
gate the single contribution of these subjective norms in TPB,
because they are still part of the theory as well as evidence of
high level of heterogeneity in that perceived social pressure
under investigation. Furthermore, this strategy of including
(when necessary) single items in covariance-based latent path
models outperforms the old-fashioned way of the multiple
regression analysis in which single items of subjective norms
were averaged and included in a TPB model (Ajzen and
Sheikh, 2013). It is true because the path analysis-based SEM
(unlike multiple regression) simultaneously explores direct,
indirect and total effects of those singular referent items of sub-
jective norms on intention, taking into account that these items
do not share a common variance in a satisfactory way. On the
contrary, the strategy of averaging the items with good reliabil-
ity masks this missing communality while it is occurring.
The singular input of the four referent others was generally
found to be less important than attitudes in influencing behav-
ioural intention, indicating that the Italian sample was mainly
attitudinally controlled (Godin et al., 2005; Trafimnov and Fin-
lay, 1996). However, the referent ‘family’, compared with the
others, showed its important role in predicting intention to buy
sustainable food products in almost the entire Italian territory,
the only exception being the Insular macro-region, where the
general referent ‘important people’, not necessarily related to
friends or family, played a stronger role. In this respect, as the
perceived social pressure for sustainable food consumption
appeared mainly to come from a family context, (in which
food habits, preferences and traditions are well formed and
consolidated), this finding would indicate that food choices are
still influenced by family and tradition in Italy in the area of
sustainable consumptions. This finding shows that the family is
an important referent for maintaining group membership and
cohesion, in which individuals are more motivated to adhere to
norms (Trafimnov and Finlay, 1996; Larimer et al., 2004), and,
as a consequence, represents a potential channel of intervening
to promote more sustainable food consumptions. Conversely,
the fact that the general referent ‘important people’ appeared to
be the most significant social actor only in the Insular area
(where sustainable food consumption was lower than in the
other macro-areas and the emotional attachment to traditions
was generally stronger) might indicate that sustainable food
consumption is still far from the daily food behaviours in that
region. However, more research would be needed especially in
other Mediterranean countries, where food cultures and tradi-
tions, as in Italy, are still very strong. Furthermore, the Italian
Government, as in other Mediterranean countries, strongly pre-
serves its own country’s food tradition, adopting protection pol-
icies of local specialties as part of the national heritage,
identity (Kurzer and Cooper, 2007; Thøgersen, 2010) and cul-
ture (Parasecoli, 2004). Accordingly, it also seems to be neces-
sary for the Italian Government to turn most, or even all, of the
traditional agricultural system into a sustainable process to
render food products culturally acceptable. Actually, sustain-
able food market policies are not univocally identified in Italy,
not even with legal certification on what ‘sustainable’ stands
for, unless they are organic-oriented (Biasetti, 2013). As a
International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 422–434
C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Sustainable food choices in Italy
result, this study also found that the concept ‘society’ as refer-
ent others completely failed its perceived pressure reflecting
this not univocal position of society as a whole with regard to
sustainable food consumption.
In summary, this sort of Italian duality likely contributes to
clarify the reasons why Italy represents a case in the European
panorama in relation to sustainable consumption (Thøgersen,
2010). From the market side, a positive organic food consump-
tion trend – comparable to that one in the North of Europe –
has been showed; from the political side, a tendency to protect
a wide variety of local and traditional food products along with
unclear certification on sustainable food has emerged as well.
However, the information obtained from this study might be
used by policy makers and food supply chain actors in develop-
ing more effective policies and strategies regarding sustainable
food consumption, working on the availability of the products,
supporting family purchasing and assuring both quality reward-
ing experiences at a fair value for money and providing clearer
and more transparent information regarding the environment.
These findings provide evidence on factors that influence sus-
tainable food consumption that could be extended, for the most
part, to those areas where sustainable food consumption is still
less developed, such as the South of Italy and, probably, to
other Mediterranean countries. It could also contribute to over-
come both potential barriers perceived by consumers and
higher premium prices for sustainable food products compared
with those of other local and traditional quality foods.
Limitations and future challenges
This study was not based on actual behaviour, but on a self-
reported behaviour towards sustainable foods as a general cate-
gory, without any reference to any real specific product existing
on the marketplace. It is therefore strongly recommended to
include real sustainable food products in future research, when-
ever possible, but with taking into account that investigating
consumer attitudes towards sustainability with focusing on
selected product categories and/or labels might make the results
difficult to be generalized (Grunert et al., 2014). Future
research is also needed to investigate the effect of beliefs on
attitudes to test the complete TPB model including a set of pos-
sible positive and negative beliefs, concerning values, life
styles, price, and trust in European eco-labels, so as to explore
more concrete advantages and disadvantages of sustainable
food products. Further research is also important to verify
whether a similar Italian picture takes place also in other Medi-
terranean countries and thus getting insight into the reason why
differences between Northern and Southern European countries
as regards the sustainable food products consumption occur.
Furthermore, as this study has demonstrated, it would be
important and insightful to include more items to measure per-
ceived social pressure. In fact, the subjective norms towards
sustainable food products consumption have appeared to be a
multi-dimensional construct that requires more attention to
understand its complex heterogeneity, and thus more measures
are necessary. For example, ‘important people’ may encompass
a wider range of individuals beyond the expected family mem-
bers or friends as well as ‘society’ that, in turn, can include a
substantial variety of aspects worth looking into. Hence, mixed
431
Sustainable food choices in Italy
approaches that involve qualitative and quantitative researches
are needed to catch many proper aspects of society as well as
referent others in influencing the intention to buy sustainable
food.
Acknowledgements
This study was conducted with financial support from the Italian
Ministry for Agricultural, Food, and Forestry Policies (MiPAAF)
project REGALIM, which is an acronym that means ‘monitoring
the dietary habits of each main geographical area of Italy – char-
acterization of territory and social structure for responsible food
consumption to safeguard the culture and traditions’. Further-
more, this study does not necessarily reflect, and in no way antici-
pates, the MiPAAF future policy in this area.
Thanks are due to Anna Bettina Baader for support in Eng-
lish editing.
References
Aertsens, J., Verbeke, W., Mondelaers, K. & Van Huylenbroeck, G.
(2009) Personal determinants of organic food consumption: a review.
British Food Journal, 111, 1140–1167.
Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behav-
iour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2005) Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior, 2nd edn. Open Uni-
versity Press/McGraw- Hill, Milton-Keynes, England.
Ajzen, I. (2011) The theory of planned behavior: reactions and reflec-
tions. Psychology & Health, 26, 1113–1127.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting
Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, NJ.
Ajzen, I. & Sheikh, S. (2013) Action versus inaction: anticipated affect in
the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
43, 155–162.
Akaike, H. (1987) Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332.
Anderson, J.C. & Gerbing, D.W. (1988) Structural equation modeling in
practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Armitage, C.J. & Conner, M. (1999) Distinguishing perceptions of con-
trol from self-efficacy: predicting consumption of a low-fat diet using
the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
29, 72–90.
Armitage, C.J. & Conner, M. (2001) Efficacy of the theory of planned
behaviour: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 40, 471–499.
Arvola, A., Vassallo, M., Dean, M., Lampila, P., Saba, A., L€ahteenm€aki,
L. & Shepherd, R. (2008) Predicting intentions to purchase organic
food: the role of affective and moral attitudes in the theory of planned
behaviour. Appetite, 50, 443–454.
Bagozzi, R.P., Moore, D.J. & Leone, L. (2004) Self-control and the self-
regulation of dieting decisions: the role of prefactual attitudes, subjec-
tive norms, and resistance to temptation. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 26, 199–213.
Bamberg, S., Ajzen, I. & Schmidt, P. (2003) Choice of travel mode in the
theory of planned behavior: the roles of past behavior, habit, and rea-
soned action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 175–188.
Beale, D.A. & Manstead, A.S.R. (1991) Predicting mothers’ intentions to
limit frequency of infants’ sugar intake: testing the theory of planned
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 285–301.
Bentler, P.M. (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Biasetti, D. (2013) Italy and sustainable agriculture overview. [WWW
document]. URL http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publi-
432
M. Vassallo et al.
cations/Italy%20and%20Sustainable%20Agriculture%20Over-
view%20_Rome_Italy_2-11-2013.pdf (accessed on December 2015).
Bollen, K.A. (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley
Press, NY.
Bollen, K.A. & Davis, W.R. (2009) Causal indicator models: Identification,
estimation, and testing. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 498–522.
Boomsma, A. & Hoogland, J.J. (2001) The robustness of LISREL model-
ing revisited. In Structural Equation Modeling: Present and Future
(ed. by R. Cudeck, S. Du Toit & D. S€ orbom), pp. 139–164. Scientific
Software International Inc., Chicago, IL.
Bredahl, L. (2001) Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase
intentions with regard to genetically modified foods-results of a cross-
national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24, 23–61.
Briamonte, L. & Giuca, S. (2010) Comportamenti e consumi socialmente
responsabili nel sistema agroalimentare. Roma, INEA. [WWW docu-
ment]. URL http://dspace.inea.it/bitstream/inea/476/1/agres_consumo.
pdf (accessed on October 2014).
Brown, T.A. (2006) Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research.
The Guilford Press, NY.
Browne, M.W. & Cudeck, R. (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model
fit. In Testing Structural Equation Models (ed. by K.A. Bollen & J.S.
Long), pp. 136–162. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Brunori, G. & Lari, A. (2012) Strategie per il consumo sostenibile: dal-
l’efficienza alla sufficienza. [WWW document]. URL http://www.
agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/pdf.php?id_articolo5956 (accessed on
October 2014).
Censis. (2010) Primo rapporto sulle abitudini alimentari degli italiani.
[WWW document]. URL http://www.largoconsumo.info/102011/
DOCAbitudinialimentaricensiscoldiretti-1011.pdf (accessed on
October 2014).
Childers, T.L. & Rao, A.R. (1992) The influence of familial and peer-
based reference groups on consumer decisions, Journal of Consumer
Research, 19, 198–211.
Conner, M. & Sparks, P. (1996) The theory of planned behavior and
health behaviors. In Predicting Health behavior (ed. by M. Conner &
P. Norman), pp. 121–162. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.
Dean, M., Raats, M.M. & Shepherd, R. (2008) Moral concerns and con-
sumer choice of fresh and processed organic foods. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 38, 2088–2107.
de Magistris, T. & Gracia, A. (2008) The decision to buy organic food
products in Southern Italy. British Food Journal, 110, 929–947.
Eckhardt, A., Laumer, S. & Weitzel, T. (2008) Reconsidering
Subjective Norm – A Multilayer-Framework for Modeling Normative
Beliefs in IT Adoption. Proceedings of the 14th AMCIS. Toronto,
Canada.
European Commission. (2008) Sustainable consumption and production
and sustainable industrial policy (SCP/SIP) action plan. Environment
DG. [WWW document]. URL http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/
pdf/scp_newsletter_05_2010.pdf (accessed on October 2014).
European Commission. (2009). Europeans’ attitudes towards the issue of
sustainable consumption and production. Eurobarometer surveys.
[WWW document]. URL http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_
256_en.pdf (accessed on October 2014).
Fabris, G. (2003) Il Nuovo Consumatore: Verso Il Postmoderno. Franco
Angeli, Milano.
Fabris, G. (2010) La Societ a Post-Crescita. Consumi e Stili di Vita. Egea,
Milano.
Federbio. (2012a) L’agricoltura biologica in Italia. [WWW document].
URL http://www.federbio.it/files/794.pdf (accessed on October 2014).
Federbio. (2012b) Il biologico Italiano in movimento. [WWW document].
URL http://promozionecertificazioni.cibus.it/PDF/Napoli%2002-05-13.
pdf (accessed on October 2014).
FIBL – IFOAM. (2014) The world of organic agriculture. [WWW
document]. URL https://www.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/
1636-organic-world-2014.pdf (accessed on October 2014).
International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 422–434
C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
M. Vassallo et al.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (2010) Predicting and Changing Behavior: The
Reasoned Action approach. Psychology Press, New York.
Giuca, S. (2010) Forme di responsabilita sociale certificata in agricoltura
biologica: il ruolo della marca e dei marchi di qualita. In: I Metodi di
Produzione Sostenibile nel Sistema Agroalimentare (ed. by L. Bria-
monte & R. Pergamo), pp. 111–136. INEA, Roma; 111–136. [WWW
document]. URL http://dspace.inea.it/bitstream/inea/519/1/Agres_
Metodi.pdf (accessed on October 2014).
Godin, G. & Kok, G. (1996) The theory of planned behavior: a review of
its applications to health-related behaviors. American Journal of
Health Promotion, 11, 87–98.
Godin, G., Conner, M. & Sheeran, P. (2005) Bridging the intention-
behaviour gap: the role of moral norm. British Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 44, 497–512.
Grunert, K., Hieke, S., Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food
products: consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy,
44, 177–189.
Guido, G. (2009) Behind Ethical Consumption. Peter Lang, Bern.
Hagger, M.S., Chatzisarantis, N. & Biddle, S.J.H. (2001) The influence of
self-efficacy and past behaviour on the physical activity intentions of
young people. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 711–725.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
J€oreskog, K. & S€orbom, D. (2002) LISREL 8: Structural Equation Model-
ing with the Simplis Command Language, Fifth printing. Scientific
Software International Inc., Lincolnwood, IL.
J€oreskog, K. & S€orbom, D. (2007) LISREL 8.80 for Windows. Scientific
Software International Inc., Chicago, IL.
Kline, B.R. (2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Model-
ing, 2nd edn. The Guilford Press, NY.
K€oster, E.P. (2009) Diversity in the determinants of food choice: a
psychological perspective. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 70–
82.
Kurzer, P. & Cooper, A. (2007) What’s for dinner? European farming
and food traditions confront American biotechnology. Comparative
Political Studies, 40, 1035–1058.
Larimer, M.E., Turner, A.P., Mallett, K.A. & Geisner, I.M. (2004)
Predicting drinking behavior and alcohol-related problems among
fraternity and sorority members: examining the role of descriptive
and injunctive norms. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18,
203–212.
Lloyd, H., Paisley, C. & Mela, D.J. (1993) Changing to a low fat diet:
attitudes and beliefs of UK consumers. European Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 47, 361–373.
Lunati, F. & Zucconi, S. (2012) I consumi alimentari biologici di fronte
alla crisi economica osservatorio SANA (salone internazionale del bio-
logico e naturale). Nomisma: Bologna. [WWW document]. URL
http://www.slideshare.net/silviazeta/nomisma-per-sana-il-consumi-ali-
mentari-bio-di-fronte-alla-crisi-economica (accessed on October
2014).
Maassen, G.H. & Bakker, A.B. (2001) Suppressor variables in path mod-
els. Sociological Methods & Research, 30, 241–270.
Madden, T.J., Ellen, P.S. & Ajzen, I. (1992) A comparison of the theory
of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 3–9.
Padel, S., Jasinska, A., Rippin, M. & Schaack, D. (2008) The European
market for organic food. In The World of Organic Agriculture—Statis-
tics and Emerging Trends 2008 (ed. by H. Willer, M. Yussefi-Menzler
& N. Sorensen), pp. 131–39. Earthsca, London.
Parasecoli, F. (2004) Food Culture in Italy. Greenwood Press, Westport.
Richter, T., Padel, S., Willer, H. & Yussefi, M. (2007) The European
market for organic food. In The World of Organic Agriculture—Statis-
tics and Emerging Trends 2007 (ed. by H. Willer & M. Yussefi), pp.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 422–434
C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Sustainable food choices in Italy
143–154. International Federation of Organic agriculture movements
(IFOAM), Bonn, Germany & Research Institute of Organic Agricul-
ture FiBL, Frick, Switzerland.
Rigdon, E.E. (1999) Using the Friedman method of ranks for model com-
parison in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Model-
ing, 6, 219–232.
Robinson, R. & Smith, C. (2002) Psychosocial and demographic varia-
bles associated with consumer intention to purchase sustainable pro-
duced foods as defined by the Midwest food alliance. Journal of
Nutrition Education and Behaviour, 34, 316–325.
Saba, A. & Messina, F. (2003) Attitudes towards organic food and risk/
benefit perception associated with pesticides. Food Quality and Pref-
erence, 14, 637–645.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbruger, H. & M€ uller, H. (2003) Evaluating
the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and
descriptive-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research
Online, 8, 23–74.
Schrader, U. & Thøgersen, J. (2011) Putting sustainable consumption
into practice. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 3–8.
Sellahewa, J.N. & Martindale, W. (2010) The impact of food processing
on the sustainability of the food supply chain. In Delivering Food
Security with Supply Chain Led Innovations: Understanding Supply
Chains, Providing Food Security, Delivering Choice, pp. 91–97. Asso-
ciation of Applied Biologists, Royal Holloway, Egham, UK, 7-9 Sep-
tember 2010.
Shepherd, R. & Raats, M.M. (1995) Attitudes and beliefs in food habits.
In Food Choice, Acceptance and Consumption (ed. by H.L. Meiselman
& H.J.H. MacFie), pp. 346–364. Blackie Academic and Professional,
London.
Smith, J.R., Manstead, A., Terry, D., Louis, W. (2007) Interaction
effects in the theory of planned behaviour: the interplay of self-
identity and past behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
37, 2726–2750.
Sparks, P. & Shepherd, R. (2002) The role of moral judgments within
expectancy-value-based attitude-behavior models. Ethics & Behavior,
12, 299–321.
Sparks, P., Hedderley, D. & Shepherd, R. (1992) An investigation into
the relationship between perceived control, attitude variability and the
consumption of two common foods. European Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 22, 55–71.
Sparks, P., Guthrie, C.A. & Shepherd, R. (1997) The dimensional struc-
ture of the perceived behavioral control construct. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 27, 418–438.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M, & Baumgartener, H. (1998) Assessing
measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal
of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90.
Tarkiainen, A. & Sundqvist, S. (2005) Subjective norms, attitudes and
intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food. British Food
Journal, 107, 808–822.
Thøgersen, J. (2007) Consumer decision making with regard to organic
food products, In Traditional Food Production Facing Sustainability:
A European Challenge (ed. by M.T.D.N. Vaz, P. Vaz, P. Nijkamp &
J.L. Rastoin). Farnham, Ashgate.
Thøgersen, J. (2010) Country differences in sustainable consumption: the
case of organic food. Journal of Macromarketing, 30, 171–185.
Thøgersen, J. & Olander, F. (2006) The dynamic interaction of personal
norms and environment-friendly buying behavior: a panel study. Jour-
nal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1758–1780.
Torjusen, H., Sangstad, L., Jensen, K.O.D. & Kjærnes, U. (2004) Euro-
pean Consumers’ Conceptions of Organic Food. A Review of Avail-
able Research. Professional Report, No. 4-2004. Oslo, Norway:
National Institute for Consumer Research.
Towler, G. & Shepherd, R. (1992) Application of Fishbein and Ajzen’s
expectancy-value model to understanding fat intake. Appetite, 18,
15–27.
433
Sustainable food choices in Italy
Trafimnow, D. & Finlay, K.A. (1996) The importance of subjective
norms for a minority of people: between-subjects and within-subjects
analyses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 820–828.
Trafimov, D., Sheeran, P., Conner, M., Finlay, K.A. (2002) Evidence that
perceived behavioural control is a multidimensional construct: per-
ceived control and perceived difficulty. British Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 41, 101–121.
UN. (2012) A 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable con-
sumption and production patterns, Rio120, June 2012. [WWW docu-
ment]. URL http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org (accessed on
October 2014).
Veimer, I. & Verbeke, W. (2006) Sustainable food consumption: explor-
ing the consumer ‘‘attitude – behavioral intention’’ gap. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 169–194.
434
M. Vassallo et al.
Vermeir, I. & Verbeke, W. (2008) Sustainable food consumption
among young adults in Belgium: theory of planned behavior and
the role of confidence and values. Ecological Economics, 64, 542–
553.
West, S.G., Finch, J.F. & Curran, P.J. (1995) Structural equation models
with non-normal variables: problems and remedies. In Structural
Equation Modelling: Concepts, Issues and Applications (ed. by R.H.
Hoyle), pp. 56–75. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Williams, L.J. & Holahan, P.J. (1994) Parsimony-based fit indices for
multiple-indicator models: do they work? Structural Equation Model-
ing, 1, 161–189.
Zhu, Q., Li, Y., Geng, Y., Qi, Y. (2013) Green food consumption inten-
tion, behaviors and influencing factors among Chinese consumers.
Food Quality and Preference, 28, 279–286.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 40 (2016) 422–434
C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V