(Un)acceptable protein shift: Consumer attitudes toward retail-led interventions promoting sustainable diets

IF 6 1区 经济学 Q1 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY
Noah Linder , Magnus Bergquist , Pär Bjälkebring , Malin Jonell
{"title":"(Un)acceptable protein shift: Consumer attitudes toward retail-led interventions promoting sustainable diets","authors":"Noah Linder ,&nbsp;Magnus Bergquist ,&nbsp;Pär Bjälkebring ,&nbsp;Malin Jonell","doi":"10.1016/j.foodpol.2025.102971","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Transforming global and local food systems is essential for achieving current sustainability goals. A significant lever for the food sector is promoting a dietary shift away from animal-based proteins towards more plant-based options. Food retailers, positioned at the centre of the value chain, hold a uniquely influential role, as they have the capacity to shape the behaviours of both producers and consumers. However, consumer acceptability is a precondition for implementing behavioural change interventions, and there is a current knowledge gap regarding public acceptability of various retail-led interventions. In this study, we assess consumer acceptability of five categories of food retail-led interventions: <em>information-based</em>, <em>norms-based</em>, <em>choice architecture</em>, <em>price-based</em>, and <em>choice restriction</em>. In this mission we developed a survey and recruited a nationally representative sample (n = 424), we found price manipulations and choice restrictions to be less accepted than strategies building on information, norms, and choice architecture. Furthermore, a multi-level model showed that perceived effectiveness, fairness, and freedom of choice were significant predictors of acceptance for the interventions, with the exception that freedom of choice did not predict support for either the norm-based intervention or choice architecture. Lastly, we showcase how older age, positive meat attitudes, and strong meat-buying habits hindered acceptance, while biospheric values, environmental identity, and altruism facilitated it. Two potential courses of retailer action are identified: (1) immediately implement high-support interventions based on information, social norms, and choice architecture and (2) explore how to convey intervention effectiveness to increase consumer acceptability of price-based interventions and choice restrictions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":321,"journal":{"name":"Food Policy","volume":"136 ","pages":"Article 102971"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Policy","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919225001769","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Transforming global and local food systems is essential for achieving current sustainability goals. A significant lever for the food sector is promoting a dietary shift away from animal-based proteins towards more plant-based options. Food retailers, positioned at the centre of the value chain, hold a uniquely influential role, as they have the capacity to shape the behaviours of both producers and consumers. However, consumer acceptability is a precondition for implementing behavioural change interventions, and there is a current knowledge gap regarding public acceptability of various retail-led interventions. In this study, we assess consumer acceptability of five categories of food retail-led interventions: information-based, norms-based, choice architecture, price-based, and choice restriction. In this mission we developed a survey and recruited a nationally representative sample (n = 424), we found price manipulations and choice restrictions to be less accepted than strategies building on information, norms, and choice architecture. Furthermore, a multi-level model showed that perceived effectiveness, fairness, and freedom of choice were significant predictors of acceptance for the interventions, with the exception that freedom of choice did not predict support for either the norm-based intervention or choice architecture. Lastly, we showcase how older age, positive meat attitudes, and strong meat-buying habits hindered acceptance, while biospheric values, environmental identity, and altruism facilitated it. Two potential courses of retailer action are identified: (1) immediately implement high-support interventions based on information, social norms, and choice architecture and (2) explore how to convey intervention effectiveness to increase consumer acceptability of price-based interventions and choice restrictions.
(不可接受的)蛋白质转变:消费者对促进可持续饮食的零售主导干预的态度
改变全球和地方粮食系统对于实现当前的可持续性目标至关重要。食品行业的一个重要杠杆是促进饮食从动物性蛋白质转向更多的植物性选择。食品零售商位于价值链的中心,具有独特的影响力,因为它们有能力塑造生产者和消费者的行为。然而,消费者的可接受性是实施行为改变干预措施的先决条件,目前在公众对各种零售主导的干预措施的可接受性方面存在知识差距。在这项研究中,我们评估了消费者对五类食品零售主导的干预措施的接受程度:基于信息的、基于规范的、选择架构的、基于价格的和选择限制的。在这项任务中,我们开展了一项调查,并招募了一个具有全国代表性的样本(n = 424)。我们发现,与基于信息、规范和选择架构的策略相比,价格操纵和选择限制更不容易被接受。此外,一个多层次模型显示,感知有效性、公平性和选择自由是干预接受度的重要预测因素,但选择自由不能预测对基于规范的干预或选择架构的支持。最后,我们展示了老年人、积极的肉类态度和强烈的肉类购买习惯如何阻碍了人们对肉类的接受,而生物圈价值观、环境认同和利他主义则促进了人们对肉类的接受。本文确定了零售商的两个潜在行动路线:(1)立即实施基于信息、社会规范和选择架构的高支持干预;(2)探索如何传达干预效果,以提高消费者对基于价格的干预和选择限制的接受程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Food Policy
Food Policy 管理科学-农业经济与政策
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.60%
发文量
128
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: Food Policy is a multidisciplinary journal publishing original research and novel evidence on issues in the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policies for the food sector in developing, transition, and advanced economies. Our main focus is on the economic and social aspect of food policy, and we prioritize empirical studies informing international food policy debates. Provided that articles make a clear and explicit contribution to food policy debates of international interest, we consider papers from any of the social sciences. Papers from other disciplines (e.g., law) will be considered only if they provide a key policy contribution, and are written in a style which is accessible to a social science readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信