The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm
BFJ
122,2
414
Received 13 June 2019
Revised 4 August 2019
16 September 2019
Accepted 4 October 2019
British Food Journal
Vol. 122 No. 2, 2020
pp. 414-431
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0007-070X
DOI 10.1108/BFJ-03-2019-0195
Trust factors for organic foods:
consumer buying behavior
Tsung Hung Lee, Chung-Jen Fu and Yin Yuan Chen
National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Douliu, Taiwan
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess the relationship between trust factors and buying behavior
among consumers in the organic food market in Taiwan.
Design/methodology/approach – The researchers developed a questionnaire using latent variables
including the trust factors, utilitarian attitudes, hedonic attitudes, buying behavior and demographic
information of consumers of organic foods. Confirmatory factor analysis and the structural equation
modeling were conducted using LISREL 8.80 for Windows.
Findings – The empirical results indicated that health content, locally produced products, organic food
labels and price premiums positively and significantly affected utilitarian and hedonic attitudes. Both
utilitarian attitudes and hedonic attitudes positively and significantly affected respondents’ buying behavior.
A series of theoretical implications were identified.
Practical implications – The researchers concluded that providing consumers with practical information
related to organic food, establishing local production facilities, developing content, standardizing labeling
procedures and promoting a new organic certification system for small-scale producers will encourage more
consumers to purchase organic food.
Originality/value – This study first examines the food trust buying behavior of organic foods and related
consumption behavior theory questions. It mainly takes the stimulus–organism–response model as the
foundation of its approach. Simultaneously, it also conforms to utilitarian behavior theory, and the process by
which consumers become better aware of organic foods’ quality.
Keywords Organic food, Attitude, Buying behaviour, Trust factors
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The production of organic foods, including meat, eggs and dairy products, is
environmentally friendly; it does not utilize antibiotics, growth hormones, pesticides,
chemical fertilizers or growth regulators (USDA, 2017). Organic foods are often regarded as
more friendly to environmental agriculture and, ultimately, as healthier than conventional,
non-organic foods. Although organic foods are superior to conventional foods (Popa et al.,
2018), existing verification methods do not convince all consumers to purchase such foods
(Daunfeldt and Rudholm, 2014). For example, since consumers who prefer organic foods can
often describe the health and environmental motivations for their choice, they are willing to
buy organic foods (Ditlevsen et al., 2019; Lea and Worsley, 2005). However, organic foods are
part of an emerging niche market, and consumers’ interest in consuming organic foods is
not high enough, making producers reluctant to produce more of such foods. Thus, in the US
organic food sales represented only 5.5 percent of total retail food sales in 2017 (OTA, 2019).
Because of the high cost of organic foods, farmers having limited access to such foods
and the risks of synthetic pesticide pollution from neighboring farms, less than 1.4 percent
of the world’s agricultural land is certified organic farmland, and organic food consumption
accounts for less than 5 percent of global food consumption (IFOAM, 2019; OTA, 2019); this
situation leaves the industry unable to expand its scale to compete with the conventional
food industry.
Organic products are high value and healthy, and trust is placed in the ecological
processes and animal welfare standards involved in the production of such products.
However, organic standards do not sufficiently cover other sustainability dimensions and
are rarely considered by policy makers as mainstream agriculture strategies (IFOAM, 2019;
Popa et al., 2018). Therefore, to overcome the stagnation of the organic industry and achieve
the goal of the sustainable development of the industry, it is crucial to consider the Trust factors
behaviors of consumers and to establish a multi-model of trust buying behavior for organic for organic
foods (SOAAN, 2018). foods
Rödiger and Hamm (2015) reviewed the literature from 2006 to 2015 and found that the
number of organic foods increased each year, with a corresponding increase in organic food
production. The field of organic food consumption has gained more scholarly attention,
primarily to investigate the influence of organic food characteristics on purchase intent. Lee 415
and Yun (2015) reviewed the literature from 1985 to 2000 and concluded that the inherent
characteristics of organic foods are predominantly self-benefiting factors (e.g. health, safety,
quality and taste) and that their external characteristics include altruistic factors
(e.g. environmental awareness, animal welfare and rural development).
The organic food trust factor is different from that of the organic food itself, and it affects
consumers’ organic food buying behavior (Massey et al., 2018). Consumers trust organic
foods and are willing to buy them overconventional foods (OTA, 2019; Ozguven, 2012).
Consumer trust in organic foods is established before the purchase (Kledal et al., 2011;
Massey et al., 2018). Fernqvist and Ekelund (2014) believe that trust factors play an
important role in influencing consumers’ organic food buying behaviors. Understanding
these buying behaviors can help increase organic food production (Shafie and Rennie, 2012).
Unfortunately, no studies have clarified the structural relationships among the trust factors,
attitudes and purchase behaviors of organic food consumers. This study thus explores the
content of trust factors for organic foods and then uses the theoretical model of stimulus–
organism–response (S-O-R) model to test the relationships among consumers’ trust factors,
buying attitudes and buying behaviors and to develop a theoretical model of consumers’
trust factors and buying behaviors. The study further investigates the relationships among
organic food trust factors and consumer buying attitudes.
This study sheds light on previously proposed but unexamined behavioral models of
organic consumers, and it offers a theoretical framework for researchers, decision makers,
managers and consumers in the field of organic foods.

Literature review
Theoretical background
A general pattern of human behavior is described by the S-O-R model (Mehrabian and
Russell, 1974). Lee and Yun (2015) propose a modified S-O-R model to explore consumer
organic food cognition and emotional impact behavior. Consumer buying behavior is caused
by the external stimulation of an internal physiological and psychological state within one’s
body, and the reaction to this stimulus is the final buying behavior (Rödiger and Hamm,
2015). In this study, according to Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974) S-O-R model, the stimulus
is the organic food trust factor, the subject is the utilitarian or enjoyable purchase attitude
and the reaction is the buying behavior. According to the theory of planned behavior
(Ajzen, 1991), the attitude is the trust factor produced by the internal and external
characteristics of organic foods, which stimulates sentiments and thus buying behaviors
related to the products themselves (Figure 1).

Theoretical framework and research hypotheses

Trust factors are defined as consumer attitudes that they feel contribute to their
assessments of trustworthiness when buying organic foods (Müller and Gaus, 2015). The
trust factors considered in this study, as determined by a review of the existing literature,
are the effects of organic foods and external characteristics on buying behavior, health
content, origin, organic labeling, local production via traditional methods, environmental
awareness, labeling that includes a description of food names and ingredients and food
safety (Basha et al., 2015). Scholars reviewed the relevant literature from 2003 to 2012 and
BFJ STIMULI ORGANISM RESPONSE
122,2
Organic food
Utilitarian
attitudes
Intrinsic Extrinsic Buying
characteristics characteristics behavior
416 Hedonic
attitudes
Trust factors

Figure 1. Cognition Emotion Action

Conceptual framework
Product Consumer quality perception process

found that food trust factors include health content, organic food, origin, branding,
production methods, environmental awareness and descriptions of food names and their
ingredients (Fernqvist and Ekelund, 2014). In addition, some scholars point out that the
main factors affecting organic food purchases are health content, hedonic attitude,
environmental awareness and food safety (Bauer et al., 2013).

Health content
Health content is one of the main trust factors for organic foods (Muhammad et al., 2015;
Yangui et al., 2016). Organic food products appear to be of higher nutritional value
compared to conventional food products (Popa et al., 2018). The relevant research has
confirmed that consumers trust the health content of organic foods, resulting in buying
behavior (Yazdanpanah et al., 2015).
The health content of organic foods includes safety, quality, nutritional ingredients, taste
and so on, leading to consumers have positive attitudes toward such foods (Hwang, 2016).
Organic foods are healthier than conventional foods (Prada et al., 2016), positively affecting
consumers’ healthy lifestyles (Goetzke et al., 2014). Consumers trust that organic foods are
healthful and are thus willing to buy them (Muhammad et al., 2015). Health content is related
to consumer preferences and affects buying behavior (Yangui et al., 2016). Research has
confirmed that the health content of organic foods affects consumer values, positively
affecting their buying attitudes (Chekima et al., 2017; Lee and Yun, 2015) and the buying
process, and drives consumers to feel enjoyment, affecting their hedonic buying attitudes
(Lee and Yun, 2015). Past organic food consumption positively affects attitudes toward
buying organic foods and purchasing intentions (Koklic et al., 2019). Basha and Lal (2019)
indicated that health and lifestyle had a significant influence on consumer attitudes and
purchase intentions. Therefore, this study proposes the following research hypothesis:
H1. The health content of organic foods impacts consumers’ utilitarian attitudes (H1a)
and hedonic attitudes (H1b).

Local production
Food production systems and food places of origin are inextricably linked, wherein
production affects consumer buying behavior for organic foods (Annunziata and Vecchio,
2016). Buyers of local foods have a fairly broad understanding of important drivers of the
demand for local foods, such as transparency, freshness and authenticity ( Jensen et al.,
2019). Local agricultural production involves different production and manufacturing
techniques and revitalizes land, which is important for environmental health and reduces Trust factors
pollution (Annunziata and Vecchio, 2016). Local conventional methods of production easily for organic
earn consumer trust; therefore, consumers are willing to pay higher prices to fund the foods
production of organic foods and more willing to purchase such foods.
Consumers believe that organic foods and local production complement each other and
that local organic farming is unaffected by imported organic foods (Hempel and Hamm,
2016). Consumers have a stronger preference for the local production of organic foods than 417
for organic foods from other regions. Combining organic farming with conventional
production methods can yield more attractive organic produce (Denver and Jensen, 2014).
Most consumers love organic food brands produced in their own localities (Van Loo et al.,
2014). The local production of organic foods is also considered beneficial for health and for
the environment (Kledal et al., 2011), affecting both utilitarian buying attitudes that increase
consumer satisfaction and affect hedonic buying attitudes.
Basha and Lal (2019) have indicated that support for local farmers, safety and trust
significantly affect consumer attitudes and purchasing intentions. Therefore, this study
proposes the following research hypothesis:
H2. The local production of organic foods positively impacts consumers’ utilitarian
attitudes (H2a) and hedonic attitudes (H2b).

Organic food labels

Organic food must be validated before government-approved certified organic labels can
be applied; this is one of the ways the government certifies organic foods and sets the
standards that distinguish organic from conventional foods (Schuldt and Hannahan, 2013).
The presence or absence of a certified organic sticker affects consumers’ buying behavior
toward organic foods (Meyerding and Merz, 2018), as organic labels provide consumers with
information and assurances that provide a basis for consumers’ trust in organic foods
( Janssen and Hamm, 2012). Labeling and certification have significant effects on organic
food marketing (Prentice et al., 2019). Consumers usually rely on third-party certifications,
such as organic labels, to indicate the organic content of foods and help them stay healthy
(Lee et al., 2013; Moser et al., 2011), developing both utilitarian and hedonic attitudes toward
buying organic foods (Lee and Hwang, 2016). Consumers also purchase organic foods due to
their trust in certified organic labels (Kauppinen-Räisänen et al., 2014).
Organic labeling is a government device that provides quality assurance for organic
foods (Loebnitz and Aschemann-Witzel, 2016). The presence of a certified organic label has
a positive influence on consumers’ buying attitudes and positively affects consumers’
buying behaviors (Bauer et al., 2013; Daunfeldt and Rudholm, 2014). The validity and
reliability of organic labeling also affects consumer trust factors (Rousseau and Vranken,
2013). The fraudulent labeling of organic foods has a negative impact on consumers’ trust
assessments of certified organic labels (Müller and Gaus, 2015). Thus, organic food labels
can be viewed as symbols that affect utilitarian and hedonic purchasing attitudes (Richetin
et al., 2016). Therefore, this study proposes the following research hypothesis:
H3. Certified organic labels on foods influence consumers’ utilitarian attitudes (H3a) and
hedonic attitudes (H3b).

Environmental consciousness
Since the organic food production processhas extrinsic benefits, an altruistic effect of organic
food may be an increase in consumer environmental consciousness; this is one of the factors
that encourages consumers to trust organic foods (Laureti and Benedetti, 2018; Yadav, 2016;
Yazdanpanah and Forouzani, 2015; Zander et al., 2013; Zander and Hamm, 2010). Scholars have
BFJ indicated that consumers who have environmental concerns are willing to pay higher prices for
122,2 organically produced food products (Basha and Lal, 2019). Increased environmental awareness
can positively affect consumer buying behavior for organic foods (Zander et al., 2013).
Organic food production is environmentally conscious, and this feature impacts the
buying behavior of consumers. Consumers are willing to pay higher prices for organic food
produced in an environmentally conscious manner (Zander and Hamm, 2010). Organic
418 food consumers have a heightened level of environmental awareness and a greater amount
of trust, which affect their buying attitudes and buying behaviors (Yazdanpanah and
Forouzani, 2015). Environmental awareness affects consumers who regularly and
frequently buy organic foods (Gorissen and Weijters, 2016), whereas food safety tends to
impact only occasional organic food consumers (Pino et al., 2012). Therefore, environmental
awareness affects consumers’ organic food buying behavior, which is conducive to the
sustainable development of the organic food industry.
Organic food production processes promote natural balance, with environmentally friendly
production and packaging, which positively affect consumers’ buying behavior (Onwezen,
2015). Environmental awareness leads consumers to perceive organic foods as pesticide free,
growth hormone free and antibiotic free, all of which affect consumers’ utilitarian buying
attitudes toward organic foods. Consumers perceive organic food production as a process that
cares about animal welfare and production equity, compassion and altruism, which provides
emotional gratification and positively influences hedonic buying attitudes (Zander et al., 2013).
Therefore, this study proposes the following research hypothesis:
H4. Environmental awareness affects consumers’ utilitarian attitudes (H4a) and hedonic
attitudes (H4b) toward organic foods.

Premium prices
The premium prices of organic foods make up for lower levels of production that are
associated with higher costs; premium prices are also trust factors for organic foods (Kledal
et al., 2011; Van Loo et al., 2013; Zander and Hamm, 2010). Consumers are willing to pay
higher prices for organic foods (Zander and Hamm, 2010); studies also show that premium
prices affect consumer buying behavior (Singh and Verma, 2017).
Consumers are willing to pay premium prices, indicating positive correlations between
knowledge, attitudes and frequency of organic food purchases (Van Loo et al., 2013).
Consumers consider organic food production to be very important and have a stronger
preference for organic food (Hempel and Hamm, 2016). Premium prices affect the processes
of consumer cognition and emotion; the premium prices of organic food not only affect
utilitarian buying attitudes but also make consumers feel happy and excited, exerting
positive influences on hedonic buying attitudes (Lee and Yun, 2015; Rödiger and Hamm,
2015). Therefore, this study proposes the following research hypothesis:
H5. The premium pricing of organic foods influences the buying attitudes that affect
consumers’ utilitarian attitudes (H5a) and hedonic attitudes (H5b).

Attitudes and buying behavior

Consumer’s buying attitudes toward organic foods can be divided into utilitarian and
hedonic types; utility comes from the function of organic foods and non-sensory factors that
produce practical satisfaction, while hedonic attitudes refer to how consumers use sensory
factors to obtain emotional satisfaction (Voss et al., 2003).
According to the theory of planned behavior and value-belief-norm theory, attitudes can
play a visible role in predicting behavioral intentions, such as those related to organic foods
(Ajzen, 1991; Stern et al., 1999). Many studies confirm positive relationships between buying
attitudes and buying behaviors (Lee and Hwang, 2016; Scalco et al., 2017; Yazdanpanah and Trust factors
Forouzani, 2015). for organic
In the organic food buying behavioral framework, scholars have found that positive foods
attitudes toward buying organic food positively affect organic food buying intentions
(Koklic et al., 2019). Utilitarian and hedonic attitudes toward buying organic foods influence
intentions to buy organic foods (Lee and Yun, 2015). Therefore, this study proposes the
following research hypothesis: 419
H6. Consumers’ utilitarian attitudes (H6a) and hedonic attitudes (H6b) positively affect
their buying behavior.

Methodology
Location and object of the study
In Taiwan, buying and learning about organic food occurs primarily via in-person sellers and
the internet. Organic food sellers’ main venues are farmers’ markets, stores selling organic
foods and direct marketing by small-scale farmers. For this study, the researchers confined
survey locations to organic farmers’ markets, where producers mainly sell their foods to
consumers in-person and can relay the characteristics of their organic foods, their production
environments and their food production methods to consumers directly. Trust in organic food
is built through mutual communication, which leads to actual buying behavior. Therefore, this
is an empirical study of organic market consumers in the real world.
The largest organic farmers’ markets in Taiwan are located in Taipei, Taoyuan, Miaoli,
Taichung, Yunlin, Chiayi, Tainan, Pingdong, Kaohsiung and Taidong (Organic Agriculture
Global Network, 2018). Over the course of the current study, which lasted from August to
December of 2016, some markets ceased operations, or were in the process of reorganization.
It is important to note that during this study period, there were many typhoons and
torrential rainstorms, which forced many markets to suspend operations as organic farmers
re-established their businesses. Therefore, this study investigated 14 organic farmers’
markets (Figure 2).

Research instruments
The researchers utilized two professional translators, one proficient in Chinese and one in
English, to prevent problems caused by inaccurate translations or cultural differences. Once
these professionals had agreed on a translation for the entire questionnaire, the researchers
discussed and revised all the items with the translators until consensus was reached. The
iterative nature of this procedure reduced deviations and errors in semantics that often
occur in translations.
Three relevant specialists (two professors interested in organic agriculture and one
organic food expert) were invited to evaluate and refine the research instrument. The
resulting questionnaire was first used in the field in a pilot study conducted from August 1
to August 31, 2016, in the Hing Organic Market and from August 27 to 28, 2016, in the
Tainan Organic Agricultural Market business district. Using a systematic sampling method
(one out of every ten consumers was sampled), a total of 103 questionnaires were completed.
The responses to the pilot questionnaire were analyzed, and the data obtained from valid
questionnaires were recorded. At the recommendations of the three outside experts, four
items were removed.
The pilot questionnaire was eventually finalized for use in the main study. The
questionnaire is composed of four parts, divided as follows: first, “Trust factors:” this part is
derived from the study of Müller and Gaus (2015), who developed the trust factors scale,
which consisted of five aspects: health content ( four items), local production ( four items),
organic food labels ( five items), environmental consciousness (three items) and premium
BFJ 120°E 121°E 122°E

122,2 Water Garden Organic Farmers’ Market

Mountain Organic Farmers’ Market
■ Taipei

25°N

Hope Organic Farmers’ Market

420
Smile Organic Farmers’ Market
MIT NCHU Organic Farmers’ Market
■ Taichung
NCHU Organic Farmers’ Market

24°N

Chaiyi Organic Farmers’ Market

■ Chiayi

NCKU Organic Farmers’ Market

Tainan Organic Farmers’ Market ■ Tainan
North Organic Farmers’ Market
23°N
Southern Organic Farmers’ Market ■ Kaohsiung
Taitung ■
Consumer Organic Farmers’ Market
■ Pingtung
N
NTTU Organic Farmers’ Market

Figure 2.
22°N
Organic farmers’ Sland Organic Organic Farmers’ Market 0 10,000 30,000 60,000 90,000
market map Meter

prices (three items), for a total of 19 items in this part. A seven-point Likert scale was
adopted, ranging from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree). Second, “Attitude:”
this set of items is derived from Voss’s et al. (2003) research attitude scale, divided into two
aspects: utilitarian attitudes ( five items) and hedonic attitudes ( four items), for a total of nine
questions. A seven-point Likert scale, ranging from one (low) to seven (high), was adopted
for each item. Third, “Buying behavior:” these items were modified from Lee and Shen’s
(2013) study, each requiring specific responses to the following: on average, the number of
times I buy organic food per month, the types of organic foods I typically purchase per
shopping trip and the total monthly cost of buying organic foods. Fourth, “Demographic
variables:” this set of items includes sex, marital status, age, education level, occupation,
place of residence, personal monthly income and the number of buying experiences, for a
total of eight items.

Data collection
A formal survey was conducted from September to December 2016. At least two
investigators were dispatched per survey session, which occurred during the hours of
operation of each farmer’s market. The questionnaires were distributed to respondents aged
18 years or order, providing them with the ability to answer questions independently of
other shoppers; consumers who were approached had completed an organic foods purchase.
Furthermore, customers were selected using a systemic sampling method in which one out
of every ten consumers present in the farmers’ markets was approached. Four research
assistants received training in data collection, including face-to-face questionnaires and
strategies for reducing the number of respondents who declined to participate, prior to the Trust factors
visit, and each investigator was required to wear an identification badge when visiting for organic
the site. Every respondent who returned a completed questionnaire received a ballpoint pen foods
from the investigator as a token of appreciation.
The investigators collected 1,138 valid questionnaires; 96 people were approached by the
investigators but declined to complete a questionnaire. The most common reason offered
was that the potential respondent was in too much of a hurry to participate. Questionnaires 421
completed by patrons who were making their first visit to purchase goods at the farmers’
market and who had been to the market twice without making a purchase were excluded,
resulting in 928 remaining valid questionnaires. The reliability of the questionnaire was
evaluated using Cronbach’s α coefficient, which was 0.938. The utilitarian attitude result
was 0.941, and the hedonic attitude result was 0.928; both analyses resulted in high values,
indicating that the questionnaire has high internal consistency.

Analytical method
IBM SPSS Statistics 24 for Windows was used to evaluate the descriptive statistics, perform
the item analysis and explore the profiles of the respondents. LISREL 8.80 for Windows was
used to conduct the confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling analysis.
Because the acceptable measurement model must be able to verify the convergent validity
and the discriminant validity of the research pattern, this study is based on the reliability of
individual projects proposed by Bagozzi and Yi (1988), who introduced the concept of
individual item reliability, estimating the significance level of the parameters, composition
reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), standardized residuals and five other
indicators to evaluate the reliability and validity of the measurement model.

Results
Demographic variables
The analysis of the demographic variables of the questionnaire’s respondents is shown
in Table I. Women accounted for more than 66.3 percent of the respondents; 77.3 percent
were married; the age range with the most representation was the 41–50 years-old bracket
(26.5 percent), followed by those aged 51–60 years (26.2 percent); 57.5 percent were college or
university educated, occupations were mostly in the service industry (22.6 percent);
consumers were primarily residents of Taichung, Changhua and Nantou Counties in central
Taiwan (34.2 percent); at last, the largest group of respondents (29.5 percent) indicated a
personal monthly income of NT$40,000–$20,001.

Measurement model
In this study, individual item reliability, the significance level of the estimation parameters,
and composite reliability were derived from a study by Bagozzi and Yi (1988). The AVE and
the standardized residuals were examined according to five indicators to evaluate the
convergent validity and discriminant validity of the measurement pattern. Using CFA to
evaluate the effectiveness of the measurement model (Kapuge, 2016; Koklic et al., 2019; Singh
and Verma, 2017; Ueasangkomsate and Santiteerakul, 2016), the evaluation parameters for the
overall model of this study include a χ2 value/df of 3.49, a goodness of fit index (GFI) value of
0.91, an adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) value of 0.88, a normed fit index (NFI) value
of 0.98, a non-normed fitness index (NNFI) value of 0.99, a comparative-fit index (CFI) value of
0.99, an incremental fit index (IFI) value of 0.99 and an RMR value of 0.058. The above
evaluation parameters all reached acceptable levels, indicating that the measurement model
appeared to fit the sample data well (Hair et al., 2010).
BFJ Variable n %
122,2
Gender
Female 615 66.3
Male 313 33.7
Marital status
422 Single 211 22.7
Married 717 77.3
Age (years old)
16–20 22 2.4
21–30 89 9.6
31–40 193 20.8
41–50 297 26.5
51–60 243 26.2
Over 61 135 14.5
Educational level
Junior high school and below 30 3.2
High school 181 19.5
University or college 534 57.5
Graduate school 183 19.7
Occupation
Office or teacher 180 17.6
Agriculturist, farmer, fisherman 62 6.7
Laborer 157 16.9
Service industry 210 22.6
Housewife 163 17.6
Retired 105 11.3
Student 51 5.5
Monthly income (NT$a)
⩽20,000 172 18.5
20,001–40,000 274 29.5
40,001–60,000 273 29.4
60,001–80,000 130 14
80,001–100,000 41 4.4
⩾100,001 38 4.1
Residence
Taipei, New Taipei City, Ilan 115 12.4
Taoyuan, Hsinchu, Miaoli 23 2.5
Taichung, Chunghwa, Nantou 317 34.2
Yunlin, Chiayi, Tainan 180 19.4
Table I. Kaohsiung, Pingtung 249 26.8
Profiles of the Hualien, Taitung 44 4.7
respondents Notes: n ¼ 928. a1 US$ ¼ 29.308 NT$ as of March 1, 2018

This study measured the factor loading, the error, the CR and the AVE of the latent variable,
as shown in Table II. CR represents internal consistency, and an acceptable CR value is at
least 0.6 (Hair et al., 2010); the CR values of this study were between 0.88 and 0.95, which are
well above the acceptable level of 0.6, therefore indicating high internal consistency. All items
in the factor loading exceeded 0.50, and the estimated parameters (t-values) were greater than
1.96, which shows that the values are statistically significant. All subjects had factor loadings
of more than 0.50 and achieved significance (tW1.96, po0.05), indicating that all the latent
variables in this study had excellent convergence validity (Hair et al., 2010). The AVE of the
 Factor
Trust factors
Measure item loadinga t-value AVE b
CRc for organic
foods
Health content 0.65 0.88
Organic food is healthier than non-organic food 0.74 18.51
Organic foods contain a lot of vitamins and minerals 0.8 17.03
Organic food is nutritious 0.86 14.29
Organic foods contain natural ingredients 0.81 16.74 423
Local production 0.56 0.84
Locally produced goods are more environmentally friendly 0.73 18.17
Locally produced goods are healthier 0.82 15.44
Locally produced goods taste better 0.7 18.69
The quality is better in locally produced goods 0.75 17.72
Organic food labels 0.78 0.95
The label helps me to identify which foods are organically grown 0.82 19.26
I trust the label to correctly identify organic foods 0.82 15.22
I have greater trust in organic foods when they have the label on them 0.92 14.75
I have confidence in the production standards for labeled organic foods 0.91 15.6
I consider the label to be a sign of the validity of food’s organic origin 0.86 17.65
Environmental conscious 0.68 0.86
The process of producing organic foods helps maintain a natural balance 0.81 16.28
Organic food is produced under friendly conditions 0.87 13.27
Organic food is packaged under friendly conditions 0.79 17.15
Premiums price 0.71 0.88
I believe the price of organic food is high 0.7 19.8
I am willing to pay more for organic food 0.93 8.85
I am willing to pay more for organic food because it is
environmentally friendly 0.79 11.59
Utilitarian attitudes 0.75 0.94
Ineffective/effective 0.9 16.33
Unhelpful/helpful 0.92 13.99
Unnecessary/necessary 0.84 18.43
Impractical/practical 0.84 18.1
Harmful/beneficial 0.83 18.67
Hedonic attitudes 0.74 0.92
Table II.
Not fun/fun 0.86 17.48
Factor loadings,
Dull/exciting 0.92 13.74 average variance
Not delightful/delightful 0.91 14.36 extracted (AVE) and
Not thrilling/thrilling 0.75 19.75 composite reliability
Notes: aAll the t-value of factor loadings larger than 1.96; bAVE, average variance extracted ¼ (Σλ2)/[Σλ2 +Σ(θ)]; (CR) of the
c
CR, composite reliability ¼ (Σλ) 2/[(Σλ)2 +Σ(θ)] measurement model

latent variable was used to evaluate the average variability of each of the observed variables
to this latent variable; the higher the value, the higher the degree of convergence and
discriminant validity, and the acceptable AVE was greater than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010). The
AVE values were ranged from 0.56 to 0.78, which were higher than 0.5 and show that this
study had ideal values for both convergent validity and discriminant validity.

Overall model assessment

This study also considered other fitness indicators and found a χ2 value/df of 3.63, a GFI
value of 0.91, an AGFI value of 0.89, an NFI value of 0.98, an NNFI value of 0.99, a CFI) value
of 0.99, a IFI value of 0.99, a root mean square error of approximation value of 0.053 and a
standardized root mean square residual of 0.044. Thus, the sampling data and the research
model developed in this study were in acceptable ranges, showing that they are well
matched as an acceptable model (Hair et al., 2010). The research model can properly explain
BFJ and predict causal relationships among the latent variables, such as trust factors, attitudes
122,2 and consumption behavior in the organic food market.
Figure 3 shows that health content has a significant influence on utilitarian attitude
(g11 ¼ 0.18, t ¼ 4.25, po0.001); thus, H1a was confirmed. Health content also had a significant
influence on hedonic attitude (g21 ¼ 0.11, t ¼ 2.08, po0.05); thus, H1b was confirmed. The
influence of local production on utilitarian attitude was significant (g12 ¼ 0.34, t ¼ 6.07,
424 po0.001); thus, H2a was supported. The influence of production on hedonic attitude was
significant (g22 ¼ 0.30, t ¼ 4.68, po0.001); thus, H2b was supported. The influence of organic
food labels on utilitarian attitude was significant (g13 ¼ 0.07, t ¼ 2.09, po0.05); thus, H3a was
supported. The influence of organic food labels on hedonic attitude was significant, and its
path coefficient is 0.08 (g23 ¼ 0.08, t ¼ 2.24, po0.05); thus, H3b was supported. The influence
of environmental consciousness on utilitarian attitude was non-significant (g14 ¼ 0.08, t ¼ 1.51,
pW0.05); thus, H4a was rejected; environmental consciousness did not have a significant
influence on hedonic attitude (g24 ¼ 0.05, t ¼ 0.77, pW0.05); thus, H4b was rejected. The
influence of premium prices on utilitarian attitude was a significant (g15 ¼ 0.26, t ¼ 2.09,
po0.01); thus, H5a was supported. The influence of premium prices on hedonic attitude was
significant (g25 ¼ 0.23, t ¼ 2.24, po0.01); thus, H5b was supported. Utilitarian attitude had a

Hc1

Hc2
0.74
Hc3 0.80

Hc4 0.86
Ua1 Ua2 Ua3 Ua4 Ua5
0.81
Lp1 Health content
1 0.89 0.92 0.84 0.85 0.83
Lp2 0.73

0.82 0.11*
Lp3
0.18***
0.70 Local
Lp4 production 0.34***
0.75 2 Utilitarian
Ol1 0.30*** attitudes
0.82 1 0.19**

Ol2 0.07* Bb1

0.32
0.92
Organic food
Buying
Ol3 labels Bb2
behavior 0.95
0.92 3 0.08*
3
Ol4 0.91 0.53 Bb3

Ol5 0.86 0.08

Environmental Hedonic 0.04
0.81 consciousness 0.05 attitudes
Ec1
4 2
0.87 0.26* : Significant
Ec2
0.79 : Not significant
0.23*
Ec3
Premium prices
0.70 5 0.75
Pp1 0.86 0.92 0.91
0.93
Pp2 Ha1 Ha2 Ha3 Ha4

0.91
Pp3
Figure 3.
Final structural model
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
significant influence on buying behavior (β31 ¼ 0.19, t ¼ 2.77, po0.01); thus H6a was Trust factors
supported. Hedonic attitude did not have a significant influence on buying behavior for organic
(β32 ¼ 0.04, t ¼ 0.66, pW0.05); thus, H6b was rejected. foods
Discussion
Regarding the relationships among the trust factors for organic foods, buying attitudes and
influences on consumers’ organic foods buying behavior, previous research has seldom used 425
empirical models to study these issues. This research thus makes use of Mehrabian and Russell’s
(1974) S-O-R model to assess a theoretical trust factors–attitudes–behavior model among
consumers of organic foods. Moreover, utilitarian and hedonic buying attitudes play intermediary
roles in the relationship between the trust factor and the buying behavior and can be used to help
researchers understand the trust buying behavior of organic food consumers. Therefore, this
study contributes to the literature on the purchase-related behavior of organic food consumers.
Compared to previous work that focuses on consumer purchase intent (Fernqvist and
Ekelund, 2014), this study uses the S-O-R model and the theory of planned behavior to
construct consumer organic food buying behavior patterns from the consumers’ trust factors
using multiple constructs (health content, local production, organic food labels, environmental
consciousness and premium prices) to define the predecessor variables; this can elicit more
accurate information regarding consumers’ buying behavior of organic foods.
This study found that trust in organic foods has a significant impact on practical buying
attitudes and buying behavior in the form of local production, health content, organic food
labeling and premium prices, which are most pronounced in production; these trust factors
indicate a significant increase in consumer demand for organic food production and
facilitate the creation of new marketing opportunities for organic farmers (Lee et al., 2018).
Consistent with previous research findings (Annunziata and Vecchio, 2016), this study finds
that consumers buy organic foods mainly because they trust in organically produced food
and see it as healthier, tastier, as a symbol of environmental friendliness and as a clean
production source. Therefore, organic foods are more advantageous to small farmers on a
local scale but pose great challenges for international enterprises.
Although high-priced food hampers buying behavior (Kledal et al., 2011), organically
conscious consumers are willing to pay a premium to buy organic food (Hempel and Hamm,
2016; Singh and Verma, 2017). Most studies have confirmed that product characteristics
such as the health content of organic foods affect consumer buying intentions (Asif et al.,
2018; Olson, 2017; Schäufele and Hamm, 2018). Organic production regulations only cover
farming methods, with no stipulations for specific health or nutritional ingredients;
nonetheless, the organic health food concept is deeply rooted in the hearts of consumers.
This study further found that consumers of organic foods hold health content to be a
significant trust factor and that it affects their buying behavior; this finding suggests that
trust in the health content of organic foods has the potential to fill gaps in organic food
consumers’ buying behavior. Therefore, more scientific data are needed to show that
organic foods are healthful and nutritious to increase consumer confidence in the health
content of organic foods and thus increase consumers’ purchases of organic foods.
This study confirms that the certified organic label affects consumer purchase intention
(Montefrio and Johnson, 2019; Richetin et al., 2016) and that organic labeling has an impact
on consumption, depending on the type of organic food (Lee et al., 2018). This study is based
on consumers’ trust in the organic label, which can be shown to influence buying behavior;
however, in the current study, trust in the organic label had the smallest influence on buying
behavior, which indicates that the current certified organic labeling system has not been
utilized in a way that enhances its trust function. Policy managers need to review the
existing organic standard certification system to enhance trust and buying behavior
through the organic labeling system in Taiwan.
BFJ In this study, there was no indication of a significant relationship between environmental
122,2 awareness and buying attitudes, which indicates that environmental awareness and buying
attitudes are irrelevant to consumers’ organic food buying behavior; these findings are
consistent with those of some other studies (Hidalgo-Baz et al., 2017). However, these
findings contradict the findings of the majority of previous studies (Nie et al., 2017;
Yazdanpanah and Forouzani, 2015). These studies find that consumers purchase organic
426 foods for themselves, caring more about their bodies than about the environment (Seufert
et al., 2017). This study shows that organic food is an environmentally beneficial mode of
production, which is the basic criterion of organic food, but there is no significant effect of
environmental awareness on buying attitude or buying behavior.
Scholars have confirmed that consumer trust in organic food can be influenced by the
mediating effect of their attitudes on their purchase intention or buying behavior (Lee and
Yun, 2015). Lee and Yun (2015) point out that utilitarian buying attitudes affect consumer
buying intentions more than hedonic buying attitudes and that consumers tend to approach
organic purchase intentions with a utilitarian buying attitude. This study found that
consumers use cognition as the basis for judging purchases of organic foods; utilitarian
buying behavior is a theoretical model of actual buying behavior, which can make the
organic food characteristics directly affect utilitarian attitudes and indirectly affect
purchase intentions. The extension to organic food trust directly affects practical buying
attitude and indirectly affects actual buying behaviors.
Utilitarian and hedonic buying attitudes toward food are related to the experience after
consumption as well as to the sensory experience (Labbe et al., 2015). This study verifies
the relationship between hedonic buying attitudes and buying behavior: consumers’
hedonic attitudes produce sensual pleasure and promote a recreational buying attitude,
which does not significantly affect actual buying behavior. Therefore, consumer buying
behavior is only affected by utilitarian attitudes and their feelings of trust. In other words,
consumer buying behavior is primarily based on utilitarian attitudes toward organic
food consumption.
Organic foods combined with local production produce the most significant consumer
trust purchase behavior (Hempel and Hamm, 2016). The organic food industry and related
management units use “local production and local consumption” as a marketing strategy,
encouraging consumers to buy organic foods that are produced locally and in season is
considered the most effective way to entice consumers to buy these foods (Hara et al., 2013).
Organic food markets should adapt to local economic and social conditions to meet the
needs of local consumption. Local market producers foster trust by directly conveying
their production methods to consumers. Consumers can also organize their own groups to
conduct professional and efficient inspections. Second-party verification is a simple
relationship between production and consumption, which effectively promotes consensus
between producers and consumers on food production and is conducive to the
establishment of beneficial, stable and common progress in production and consumption.
Examples include leisure and sightseeing agriculture and community-supported
agriculture programs. Although organic agriculture encourages local consumption, it is
evaluated by a credible certification body in accordance with recognized standards for
agricultural products that are generally considered advantageous. To ensure credibility,
organic foods pass a conformity assessment in the international market to enhance
consumer trust and achieve sales.

Conclusion
This study first examines trust buying behavior around organic foods and questions related
to consumption behavior theory. It extends the S-O-R model to develop a theoretical
behavioral framework for organic consumers. Simultaneously, it conforms to cognition,
motivation and behavior theory, as well as to the consumer quality perception process. Trust factors
Based on the S-O-R model, this paper investigates how consumers’ trust factors for organic for organic
foods (S) influence their buying attitude (O) and buying behaviors (R) and proposes a foods
theoretical trust factor → attitude → behavior model to fill the theoretical gap in organic
food consumption, which is the main contribution of this study.
The key to the consumer’s buying attitude is trust in organic foods; different trust factors
have different influences on buying attitude, and only utilitarian purchase attitudes affect 427
organic food buying behavior. The theoretical basis of this study and the two-dimensional
approach to buying attitudes can both be employed to understand consumers’ expectations
and buying behaviors based on trust factors for organic foods. If consumers trust organic
foods, they have a better buying attitude and engage in increased buying behavior, which
can establish a long-term interest relationship between buyer and seller. The most
important factor that affects consumer buying behavior is local production, followed by
price premiums, health content and certified organic labeling. Organic foods must
emphasize the influence of different trust factors on practical buying attitudes to reflect the
different choices of consumers, emphasizing local production, explaining price premiums,
reflecting cost reasons, providing a description of health content and improving the cost
burden of third-party verification of organic labeling. Most small-scale producers are unable
to shoulder such additional burdens. Furthermore, this study examines how to improve
consumer attitudes toward the utilitarian purchase of organic foods in a variety of ways.
The aim is to improve trust and expand the organic food trust purchase model.
Finally, the research suggests that policy makers and practitioners should strengthen
their advocacy regarding the practical information relayed to consumers about organic
foods, the establishment of local production standards, and the development of organic
foods’ triple labeling content and standards, building on the existing organic labeling
certification system and promoting the application of organic certification to
small-scale production to enhance consumer trust in organic foods. These actions can
promote purchases of organic foods by consumers, thereby increasing the value of the
organic industry.

References
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of plannedbehavior”, Organization Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Annunziata, A. and Vecchio, R. (2016), “Organic farming andsustainability in food choices: an analysis
of consumer preference in southern Italy”, Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, Vol. 8,
pp. 193-200.
Asif, M., Xuhui, W., Nasiri, A. and Ayyub, S. (2018), “Determinant factors influencing organic food
purchase intention and the moderating role of awareness: a comparative analysis”, Food Quality
and Preference, Vol. 63, pp. 144-150.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structure equation models”, Academic of
Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 76-94.
Basha, M.B. and Lal, D. (2019), “Indian consumers’ attitudes towards purchasing organically produced
foods: an empirical study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 215, pp. 99-111.
Basha, M.B., Mason, C., Shamsudin, M.F., Hussain, H.I. and Salem, M.A. (2015), “Consumers attitude
towards organic food”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 31, pp. 444-452.
Bauer, H.H., Heinrich, D. and Schäfer, D.B. (2013), “The effects of organic labels on global, local, and
private brands: more hype than substance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 8,
pp. 1035-1043.
Chekima, B., Igau, A., Wafa, S.A.W.S.K. and Chekima, K. (2017), “Narrowing the gap: factors driving
organic food consumption”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 166, pp. 1438-1447.
BFJ Daunfeldt, S.O. and Rudholm, N. (2014), “Does shelf-labeling of organic foods increase sales? Results
122,2 from a natural experiment”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 804-811.
Denver, S. and Jensen, J.D. (2014), “Consumer preferences for organically and locally produced apples”,
Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 31, pp. 129-134.
Ditlevsen, K., Sandøe, P. and Lassen, J. (2019), “Healthy food is nutritious, but organic food is healthy
428 because it is pure: the negotiation of healthy food choices by Danish consumers of organic food”,
Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 71, pp. 46-53.
Fernqvist, F. and Ekelund, L. (2014), “Credence and the effect on consumer liking of food: a review”,
Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 32, pp. 340-353.
Goetzke, B., Nitzko, S. and Spiller, A. (2014), “Consumption of organic and functional food: a matter of
well-being and health”, Appetite, Vol. 77, pp. 96-105.
Gorissen, K. and Weijters, B. (2016), “The negative footprint illusion: perceptual bias in sustainable
food consumption”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 50-65.
Hair, J.J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th
ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hara, Y., Tsuchiya, K., Matsuda, H., Yamamoto, Y. and Sampei, Y. (2013), “Quantitative assessment of
the Japanese ‘local production for local consumption’ movement: a case study of growth of
vegetables in the Osaka city region”, Sustainability Science, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 515-527.
Hempel, C. and Hamm, U. (2016), “How important is local food to organic-minded consumers”, Appetite,
Vol. 96, pp. 309-318.
Hidalgo-Baz, M., Martos-Partal, M. and González-Benito, Ó. (2017), “Assessments of the quality of
organic versus conventional products, by category and cognitive style”, Food Quality and
Preference, Vol. 62, pp. 31-37.
Hwang, J. (2016), “Organic food as self-presentation: the role of psychological motivation in older
consumers’ purchase intention of organic food”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 28, pp. 281-287.
IFOAM (2019), “Annual reports”, available at: www.ifoam.bio/sites/default/files/annualreport_2018.pdf
(accessed July 7, 2019).
Janssen, M. and Hamm, U. (2012), “Product labelling in the market for organic food: consumer
preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos”, Food Quality and
Preference, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 9-22.
Jensen, J.D., Christensen, T., Denver, S., Ditlevsen, K., Lassen, J. and Teuber, R. (2019), “Heterogeneity in
consumers’ perceptions and demand for local (organic) food products”, Food Quality and
Preference, Vol. 73, pp. 255-265.
Kapuge, K.D.L.R. (2016), “Determinants of organic food buying behavior: special reference to organic
food purchase intention of Sri Lankan customers”, Procedia Food Science, Vol. 6, pp. 303-308.
Kauppinen-Räisänen, H., Rindell, A. and Åberg, C. (2014), “Conveying conscientiousness: exploring
environmental images across servicescapes”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21
No. 4, pp. 520-528.
Kledal, P.R., Sirieix, L., El-Naggar, A.H. and Auersalmi, M. (2011), “Organic food consumers’ trade-offs
between local or imported, conventional or organic products in the Egyptian Metropolis of
Cairo”, African Journal of Business and Economic Research, Vol. 6 Nos 2-3, pp. 26-48.
Koklic, M.K., Golob, U., Podnar, K. and Zabkar, V. (2019), “The interplay of past consumption, attitudes
and personal norms in organic food buying”, Appetite, Vol. 137, pp. 27-34.
Labbe, D., Ferrage, A., Rytz, A., Pace, J. and Martin, N. (2015), “Pleasantness, emotions and perceptions
induced by coffee beverage experience depend on the consumption motivation (hedonic or
utilitarian)”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 44, pp. 56-61.
Laureti, T. and Benedetti, I. (2018), “Exploring pro-environmental food purchasing behaviour: an
empirical analysis of Italian consumers”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. 3367-3378.
Lea, E. and Worsley, T. (2005), “Australians’ organic food beliefs, demographics and values”, British Trust factors
Food Journal, Vol. 107 No. 11, pp. 855-869. for organic
Lee, H.C., Chang, C.T., Cheng, Z.H. and Chen, Y.T. (2018), “Will an organic label always increase food foods
consumption? It depends on food type and consumer differences in health locus of control”, Food
Quality and Preference, Vol. 63, pp. 88-96.
Lee, H.J. and Hwang, J. (2016), “The driving role of consumers’ perceived credence attributes in organic
food purchase decisions: a comparison of two groups of consumers”, Food Quality and
Preference, Vol. 54, pp. 141-151.
429
Lee, H.J. and 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, Vol. 39, pp. 259-267.
Lee, T.H. and Shen, Y.L. (2013), “The influence of leisure involvement and place attachment on
destination loyalty: evidence from recreationists walking their dogs in urban parks”, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 33, pp. 76-85.
Lee, W.C.J., Shimizu, M., Kniffin, K.M. and Wansink, B. (2013), “You taste what you see: do organic
labels bias taste perceptions”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 33-39.
Loebnitz, N. and Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2016), “Communicating organic food quality in China:
consumer perceptions of organic products and the effect of environmental value priming”, Food
Quality and Preference, Vol. 50, pp. 102-108.
Massey, M., O’Cass, A. and Otahal, P. (2018), “A meta-analytic study of the factors driving the purchase
of organic food”, Appetite, Vol. 125, pp. 418-427.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology, The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Meyerding, S.G. and Merz, N. (2018), “Consumer preferences for organic labels in Germany using the
example of apples – combining choice-based conjoint analysis and eye-tracking measurements”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 181, pp. 772-783.
Montefrio, M.J.F. and Johnson, A.T. (2019), “Politics in participatory guarantee systems for organic
food production”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 65, pp. 1-11.
Moser, R., Raffaelli, R. and Thilmany-McFadden, D. (2011), “Consumer preferences for fruit and
vegetables with credence-based attributes: a review”, International Food and Agribusiness
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 121-142.
Muhammad, S., Fathelrahman, E. and Ullah, R.U. (2015), “Factors affecting consumers’ willingness to
pay for certified organic food products in United Arab Emirates”, Journal of Food Distribution
Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 37-45.
Müller, C.E. and Gaus, H. (2015), “Consumer response to negative media information about certified
organic food products”, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 387-409.
Nie, Y.Y., Liang, A.R.D. and Chen, D.J. (2017), “Assessing the effect of organic-food short storytelling on
consumer response”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 37 Nos 15-16, pp. 968-985.
Olson, E.L. (2017), “The rationalization and persistence of organic food beliefs in the face of contrary
evidence”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 1007-1013.
Onwezen, M.C. (2015), “I did good, and we did bad: the impact of collective versus private emotions on
pro-environmental food consumption”, Food Research International, Vol. 76, pp. 261-268.
Organic Agriculture Global Network (2018), “Organic farmers’ markets”, available at: http://info.
organic.org.tw/supergood/front/bin/ptlist.phtml?Category=105865 (accessed January 15, 2018).
OTA (2019), “Organic market analysis”, available at: https://ota.com/resources/market-analysis
(accessed July 7, 2019).
Ozguven, N. (2012), “Organic foods motivations factors for consumers”, Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 62, pp. 661-665.
Pino, G., Peluso, A.M. and Guido, G. (2012), “Determinants of regular and occasional consumers’
intentions to buy organic food”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 157-169.
BFJ Popa, M.E., Mitelut, A.C., Popa, E.E., Stan, A. and Popa, V.I. (2018), “Organic foods contribution to
122,2 nutritional quality and value”, Trends in Food Science and Technology, Vol. 84, pp. 15-18.
Prada, M., Rodrigues, D. and Garrido, M.V. (2016), “Deliberate choices or strong motives: exploring the
mechanisms underlying the bias of organic claims on leniency judgments”, Appetite, Vol. 103,
pp. 8-16.
Prentice, C., Chen, J. and Wang, X. (2019), “The influence of product and personal attributes on organic
430 food marketing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 46, pp. 70-78.
Richetin, J., Mattavelli, S. and Perugini, M. (2016), “Increasing implicit and explicit attitudes toward an
organic food brand by referencing to oneself”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 55,
pp. 96-108.
Rödiger, M. and Hamm, U. (2015), “How are organic food prices affecting consumer behaviour?
A review”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 43, pp. 10-20.
Rousseau, S. and Vranken, L. (2013), “Green market expansion by reducing information asymmetries:
evidence for labeled organic food products”, Food Policy, Vol. 40, pp. 31-43.
Scalco, A., Noventa, S., Sartori, R. and Ceschi, A. (2017), “Predicting organic food consumption: a meta-
analytic structural equation model based on the theory of planned behavior”, Appetite, Vol. 112,
pp. 235-248.
Schäufele, I. and Hamm, U. (2018), “Organic wine purchase behaviour in Germany: exploring the
attitude-behaviour-gap with data from a household panel”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 63,
pp. 1-11.
Schuldt, J.P. and Hannahan, M. (2013), “When good deeds leave a bad taste: negative inferences from
ethical food claims”, Appetite, Vol. 62, pp. 76-83.
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N. and Mayerhofer, T. (2017), “What is this thing called organic? How organic
farming is codified in regulations”, Food Policy, Vol. 68, pp. 10-20.
Shafie, F.A. and Rennie, D. (2012), “Consumer perceptions towards organic food”, Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 49, pp. 360-367.
Singh, A. and Verma, P. (2017), “Factors influencing Indian consumers’ actual buying behaviour
towards organic food products”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 167, pp. 473-483.
SOAAN (2018), “Organic 3.0 for truly sustainable farming and consumption”, available at: www.ifoam.
bio/sites/default/files/organic_3.0_discussion_paper.pdf (accessed January 15, 2018).
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A. and Kalof, L. (1999), “A value-belief-norm theory of
support for social movements: the case of environmentalism”, Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 81-97.
Ueasangkomsate, P. and Santiteerakul, S. (2016), “A study of consumers’ attitudes and intention to buy
organic foods for sustainability”, Procedia Environmental Sciences, Vol. 34, pp. 423-430.
USDA (2017), “Organic agriculture”, available at: www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=
organic-agriculture (accessed January 15, 2018).
Van Loo, E.J., Caputo, V., Nayga, R.M. and Verbeke, W. (2014), “Consumers’ valuation of sustainability
labels on meat”, Food Policy, Vol. 49, pp. 137-150.
Van Loo, E.J., Diem, M.N.H., Pieniak, Z. and Verbeke, W. (2013), “Consumer attitudes, knowledge, and
consumption of organic yogurt”, Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 2118-2129.
Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R. and Grohmann, B. (2003), “Measuring the hedonic and
utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 310-320.
Yadav, R. (2016), “Altruistic or egoistic: which value promotes organic food consumption among young
consumers? A study in the context of a developing nation”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 33, pp. 92-97.
Yangui, A., Costa-Font, M. and Gil, J.M. (2016), “The effect of personality traits on consumers’
preferences for extra virgin olive oil”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 51, pp. 27-38.
Yazdanpanah, M. and Forouzani, M. (2015), “Application of the theory of planned behaviour to predict Trust factors
Iranian students’ intention to purchase organic food”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 107, for organic
pp. 342-352.
Yazdanpanah, M., Forouzani, M. and Hojjati, M. (2015), “Willingness of Iranian young adults to eat
foods
organic foods: application of the health belief model”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 41,
pp. 75-83.
Zander, K. and Hamm, U. (2010), “Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic
food”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 495-503. 431
Zander, K., Stolz, H. and Hamm, U. (2013), “Promising ethical arguments for product differentiation in
the organic food sector. A mixed methods research approach”, Appetite, Vol. 62, pp. 133-142.

Corresponding author
Tsung Hung Lee can be contacted at: thlee@yuntech.edu.tw

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com