Next Article in Journal
Improving the Biogas Production and Methane Yield in a UASB Reactor with the Addition of Sulfate
Previous Article in Journal
Comprehensive Analysis of PM1 Composition in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic Basin: A Three-Year Urban Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 20
10.3390/su152014895
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Factors Influencing Consumers’ Behaviour towards Purchasing Organic Foods: A Theoretical Model

by
Birsen Yilmaz
1,2
1
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Cukurova University, Balcali, 01330 Adana, Türkiye
2
Department of Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Hyderabad 500046, India
Sustainability 2023, 15(20), 14895; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014895
Submission received: 15 August 2023 / Revised: 27 August 2023 / Accepted: 6 September 2023 / Published: 16 October 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Consumers’ interest in organic food has increased over time and this has resulted in a generally positive attitude towards organic food products. The main reasons behind these findings are that consumers generally perceive organic foods as more nutritious and healthier than non-organic foods. Recently, consumers’ concerns about the environment and animal welfare have become part of the main drivers. Hence, this paper investigated the association between stimulus factors, perceived values (health value, environmental value, animal welfare and food safety) and consumers’ organic purchasing behaviour using the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) theoretical model. Also, the relationship between socio-demographic characteristics and purchasing behaviour has been discussed. Data were collected via an online questionnaire from 330 organic food consumers who live in different cities in Turkey. The collected data were analysed using SPSS and SmartPLS 3. Marital status, education employment status and age were significantly related to consumer purchasing behaviour, while gender, income and chronic disease did not influence the actual buying of organic foods. Benefits of consuming organic foods, sustainable consumption attitudes and positive moral attitudes significantly affected perceived values (health value, environment value, animal welfare and food safety). Perceived values did not have a significant effect on consumer purchasing behaviour. This research allows for a better comprehension of consumers’ buying behaviour towards organic food products, which will be helpful for organic sellers in terms of developing strategies and growing the organic food market.

1. Introduction

The eating habits and lifestyle changes of consumers can be affected by many factors such as health, social, economic, and cultural factors. One of the main focus areas of marketing researchers is to examine these factors and identify the determinants of consumer behaviours. In recent years, there has been an increase in the consumption of functional and organic foods due to the consumers’ desire to be healthier [1,2]. Especially because of COVID-19, there has been an increase in the number of people who prefer organic products and support local producers. It has been shown that the main determining factors in the purchasing decisions of individuals are socio-demographic, psychological, physical, behavioural and cognitive characteristics, in addition to health, convenience, and sensory appeal (i.e., taste/flavour) [1,3,4,5].
Although organic production systems have a long history, they have become more popular in recent years and the demand for organic products has increased steadily, especially in developed countries [6]. The Codex Alimentarius Commission defines organic agriculture as “organic agriculture is a holistic production management system which promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity”. Minimizing external inputs and avoiding synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are the fundamentals of organic farming [7]. In some countries, “biological” or “ecological” can be used instead of organic farming to be able to describe the organic system more precisely [7]. In the past decade, consumers’ preferences have drastically changed due to the fact that organic products are not only healthier but are also considered eco-friendly [8]. It is significant to highlight that sustainable methods such as organic farming include human, environmental and animal health in contrast to green revolution technologies [9].
Consumer research plays a vital role in the production and marketing of organic products. According to recent data from the Organic Trade Association, organic sales in the US reached $61.9 billion in 2020 with an increase of 12.4% (this increase was 5% in 2019). Organic non-foods did not have the same extraordinary growth as organic foods. On the other hand, because of the global pandemic, consumer habits changed, and they have started to cook at home more than before the pandemic. In addition, shopping at local and big-scale markets has increased [10]. In a study conducted in Italy, it was found that individuals tended to farmers or organic purchasing groups for fruit and vegetables during the pandemic period [5]. In another study, which was also conducted during the pandemic, participants mostly consumed fruit and vegetables and less meat or dairy products. The main drivers of consuming organic products were caring about environmental concerns, supporting local producers and reducing the use of harmful compounds like pesticides, while the price of organic products was the top deterrent to purchasing this food [11].
Research on the perception of consumers has identified factors that influence consumers’ organic food consumption behaviour, which can be categorized as intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic factors include features (the quality, shelf life, nutritional value and taste of the food) of the food that cannot be changed without altering the product. On the other hand, extrinsic factors are external to the product such as market, social beliefs, environment, availability and location of purchase [12]. Additionally, the origin (animal/plant-based) of the food can be a factor that impacts the consumers’ perception towards organic foods. It has been reported that consumers tend to buy more plant-based organic foods (organic vegetables and fruits), when compared with animal-based organic foods (dairy products and fish) [13]. The studies on perception of the consumers for plant-based organic foods have shown that the reasons why organic ones are preferred to conventional ones are that they do not contain/contain a very low amount of pesticides, do not to use genetically modified organisms, have a higher nutritional value, and the interests in supporting local producers and contributing to local economic development. Similar motivation factors have been reported in studies regarding animal-based organic foods and consumers’ perception. Additionally, it is significant to point out that animal welfare is one of the main reasons for the consumers to purchase organic animal-based products considering the conditions of conventional poultry and dairy farming. The health benefits of omega-3 fatty acids have been extensively shown in the literature [14]. Regardless of being of animal/plant origin, consumers pay attention to products which have a higher nutrition value. Both organic dairy products and meat have higher omega-3 fatty acid content than their conventional counterparts, although different results have been reported in the literature [15,16,17]. Recently, there has been a drastic interest towards vegan diets mostly due to environmental concerns as well as animal health and well-being. Hence, consumers may be more inclined to choose plant-based organic products over animal-based organic products [18,19].
It has been stated that consumer-perceived values such as health, functional and environmental values may play significant parts in promoting the purchase of organic food (Figure 1) [20]. Liu et al. (2021) reported that buying behaviour was significantly and positively influenced by perceived values and sustainable consumption attitudes. The effect of sustainable consumption attitude and environmental value on organic purchasing behaviour differed according to gender [21]. Consumers’ intentions have been found to be related to social, emotional and epistemic values while their choice behaviour had an association with conditional and epistemic values. The most important predictor of consumers’ intention and choice behaviour was found to be epistemic value [22]. Mohammed (2020) showed that trust, subjective norms, utilitarian and hedonic values influenced consumers’ buying intentions positively [23]. Many studies reported that the primary motivation for buying and consuming foods labelled organic is related to health, which is followed by local origin, environment, food safety, animal welfare and biodiversity in a different order according to the study [11,24,25].
Despite frequent studies on consumer purchases of organic food, there are still significant gaps in the literature. Organic practices are generally considered to be more sustainable than conventional farming practices. However, there is limited research on purchasing organic food as a result of following a sustainable lifestyle. Türkiye (formerly known as Turkey) is an important country in terms of agriculture and animal husbandry, however, studies on the attitudes and behaviours of consumers towards organic foods are limited and focused on similar topics. Therefore, this study aims to understand the following questions based on a theoretical model: (1) Is there a relationship between socio-demographic characteristics and consumers’ organic food purchasing behaviour? (2) Is there a relationship between perceived values and organic food purchasing behaviour? As far as it is known, this is the first study that tries to answer these questions and fill in the gaps for the Turkish population.

2. Theoretical Research Model and Hypotheses

In this study, a model known as the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR), which has been used by many researchers in previous studies on the purchasing behaviour of individuals, was used [21,26,27]. Mehrabian and Russell were the ones who first proposed the SOR model [28]. The SOR model explains the relationship between stimuli like external factors that have an impact on organisms such as human emotions and cognition and the reaction that people have to the stimulus such as behaviours. Input, which is all kinds of external elements connected to the environment, is referred to as the stimulus. According to the SOR model, consumers’ psychology (emotion, motivation, perception, memory and learning) and consumers’ characteristics (cultural, social and personal) have a significant role in how they react to an environmental stimulus [29]. This paradigm also contends that feelings are influenced by both conscious and unconscious observations as well as interpretations of the environment [26]. The customers’ internal perception, which includes significant components like perceived values, is referred to as an organism. Perceived values serve as both a significant signal to predict consumer purchase behaviours (R- response) and the internal driving factor behind customers’ decisions to select a specific product (Figure 2) [30].
Considering the existing data, it can be concluded that consumers’ dimensions regarding organic food consumption can be categorized into three main factors, which are health concerns, environmental concerns, and ethical concerns. One of the most common reasons why organic products are preferred over conventional alternatives is that organic products are thought to be healthier. The concept of health mainly includes the concepts of organic products being more nutritious than non-organic ones, reducing the risk of diseases and containing less or being free from pesticides, hormones, and other possible harmful chemicals, which are extensively used in conventional practices [31]. When consumers consider these concepts, they agree to pay more for organic foods [32]. In addition, food safety, sensitivity to the environment (reducing carbon emissions and preserving biodiversity) and animal welfare, supporting local producers, supporting sustainable and ethical farming practices, such as fair labour practices are common motivational factors in purchasing organic products [19]. Overall, consumers’ dimensions regarding organic food consumption can have a significant impact on their purchasing behaviour or intention.
Hence, it has been aimed to understand the stimulus, which may affect the perceived values of the participants. According to the framework of the present study, four perceived values, which are health value, environmental value, animal welfare and food safety, have been included in the study. As a result, the following hypotheses have been suggested in this study:
H1a: 
Norms have a positive effect on health value.
H1b: 
Norms have a positive effect on environment value.
H1c: 
Norms have a positive effect on animal welfare.
H1d: 
Norms have a positive effect on food safety.
H2a: 
Health consciousness has a positive effect on health value.
H2b: 
Health consciousness has a positive effect on environment value.
H2c: 
Health consciousness has a positive effect on animal welfare.
H2d: 
Health consciousness has a positive effect on food safety.
H3a: 
Benefits of consuming organic have a positive effect on health value.
H3b: 
Benefits of consuming organic have a positive effect on environment value.
H3c: 
Benefits of consuming organic have a positive effect on animal welfare.
H3d: 
Benefits of consuming organic have a positive effect on food safety.
H4a: 
Information-seeking has a positive effect on health value.
H4b: 
Information-seeking has a positive effect on environment value.
H4c: 
Information-seeking has a positive effect on animal welfare.
H4d: 
Information-seeking has a positive effect on food safety.
H5a: 
Positive moral attitude has a positive effect on health value.
H5b: 
Positive moral attitude has a positive effect on environment value.
H5c: 
Positive moral attitude has a positive effect on animal welfare.
H5d: 
Positive moral attitude has a positive effect on food safety.
H6a: 
Self-identity has a positive effect on health value.
H6b: 
Self-identity has a positive effect on environment value.
H6c: 
Self-identity has a positive effect on animal welfare.
H6d: 
Self-identity has a positive effect on food safety.
H7a: 
Sustainable consumption attitudes have a positive effect on health value.
H7b: 
Sustainable consumption attitudes have a positive effect on environment value.
H7c: 
Sustainable consumption attitudes have a positive effect on animal welfare.
H7d: 
Sustainable consumption attitudes have a positive effect on food safety.
It has been reported that perceived values affect the consumer decision-making process in addition to being a key determinant of this process. Perceived values may also shed light on consumers’ psychological motivations for selecting a particular product. Luo et al. (2022) investigated the relationship between consumers’ perceived value and satisfaction, and energy-saving products purchase intention and found that consumer satisfaction is influenced by a perceived value, which differs for every consumer [33]. Perceived values such as price, quality, emotional and environmental values have been found to be significantly and positively related to consumer purchase attitudes [34]. Similarly, consumer-perceived values, which were emotional, conditional, social and functional values, were found as significant contributors to buying green products [35]. Therefore, in addition to the above-mentioned hypotheses, the effect of perceived values on consumer purchasing behaviour is also considered as other hypotheses in this study:
H8a: 
Health value has a positive effect on consumer buying behaviour.
H8b: 
Environment value has a positive effect on consumer buying behaviour.
H8c: 
Animal welfare has a positive effect on consumer buying behaviour.
H9: 
Food safety has a positive effect on consumer buying behaviour.
It has been reported that the socio-demographic characteristics of individuals may influence their purchasing behaviour. Women are more likely to favour buying and eating organic food, which is associated with their lifestyle. In contrast, men are more likely to pay a higher price for organic products. Women are more knowledgeable about organic food than men, and younger customers typically have more objective information than more experienced ones [36,37]. As a result, the following hypothesis has been suggested in this study:
H10: 
The organic food buying behaviour of consumers varies according to their sociodemographic characteristics.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants and Data Collection

Cross-sectional data (n: 330) were collected between April 2022 and October 2022 via an online questionnaire, which was prepared by the researcher. The reason for the online application of the survey is the reduction of social distance and the participants’ reporting that they feel more comfortable. The participants were selected from big cities, considering the cities where access to organic products is easy and the number of organic producers is higher than in other cities. The inclusion criteria of participants were defined as buying and consuming organic foods, not being under 19 or over 65 years old, not having a cognitive problem or other advanced diseases that affect decision-making skills to answer the questionnaires, and not being a pregnant or lactating woman. Before filling out the questionnaire, the participants were informed about the study.
The questionnaire consisted of four sections: (i) sociodemographic characteristics and information about organic foods, (ii) reasons for individuals to buy organic products, (iii) sustainable foods consumption attitudes and (iv) organic food consumption scale. This study used 5-point Likert scales in which questions ranged from “5: strongly agree” to “1: strongly disagree”. The organic food consumption scale have been developed and validated by Içli et al. in 2019 and it has been reported that the scale can be used in Turkish population [38].
The study was approved by the Çukurova University Faculty of Medicine Non-Invasive Clinical Research Ethics Committee (approval number: 39).

3.2. Data Analysis

The obtained data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows 25.0 and SmartPLS 3 program. SmartPLS 3 was employed to evaluate the degrees of influence exerted by various factors. SmartPLS 3 is used for partial least squares structural equation modelling, which is a multivariate statistical technique that can be used to analyse causal relationships between latent variables. Latent variables are constructs that cannot be directly measured, but are inferred from multiple indicators. After data collection, the model has been created and variables have been classified as per the previous literature and scales that were used in the study [38,39,40].
Descriptive statistical methods were used while evaluating the data. “Reliability analysis” was conducted to test the reliability of the scales. Cronbach’s alpha consistency analysis has been used to assess the validity of the data.

4. Results

4.1. Characteristics of the Participants

The socio-demographic characteristics of the participants are given in Table 1. A total of 27.6% of the participants were between the ages of 18–20, 25.2% were between the ages of 21–23, 15.8% were between the ages of 24–26, and 31.4% were 27 years and older. A total of 57% of the participants were married and 64.8% were working. The education level of the majority was undergraduate (72.4%) or graduate (10.0%). Most of the participants (92.1%) stated that organic foods are healthier than non-organic foods. The majority of the participants were female with higher education. Women, in general, are more willing to buy organic foods. On the other hand, higher education is mostly associated with better knowledge about healthier foods. This might explain the characteristics that are present in the study population.

4.2. Reliability and Validity of the Model

Within the scope of the measurement model, the reliability and validity values of the variables were checked. In this context, the composite reliability (CR) value, the average variance extracted (AVE) value for convergent validity, rho_A and Cronbach’s alpha values for reliability analysis were calculated. CR, AVE, rho_A and Cronbach’s alpha values for the factors are presented in Table 2. CR values should be above 0.70 and AVE values should be 0.40 or above [41]. The CR values are above 0.70. This shows that the scales are at a sufficient level of reliability. It is seen that all the AVE values related to the factors are above 0.50. This shows that convergent validity of the scales is provided. Factor loads above 0.40 indicate that it is at an acceptable level.
The results of the reliability analysis of the variables used in the study are also given in Table 2. Cronbach alpha and rho_A values higher than 0.60 indicate that the scales used are reliable. This shows that the internal consistency of the variable used in the study is sufficient. On the other hand, as a result of the validity, three stimulus factors (two from health value and one from norms) were excluded from the study because their factor loading was low.

4.3. Model Analysis Results

The model analysis results are given in Table 3 and Figure 3. Briefly, benefits of consuming organic (β = 0.402, p < 0.05), positive moral attitude (β = 0.246, p < 0.05) and sustainable consumption attitudes (β = 0.129, p < 0.05) had a statistically significant and positive effect on health value. Sustainable consumption attitudes had a statistically significant and positive effect on the environment value (β = 0.109, p < 0.05) and animal welfare (β = 0.135, p < 0.05). In addition, the benefits of consuming organic (β = 0.479, p < 0.05) had a statistically significant and positive effect on food safety.
Based on the theoretical research model, ten different hypotheses (as mentioned in Section 2) were suggested to be significant for the present study. According to the results of the model analysis, several of the hypotheses were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). It was hypothesized that consuming organic food had a positive effect on the health value (H3a) and this relationship was found to be significant in the model. Further, it has been shown that a positive moral attitude (H5a) and sustainable consumption attitudes (H7a) had a significant relationship with the health value. There was an association between the environment value and sustainable consumption attitudes (H7b) while benefits of consuming organic was associated with food safety (H3d) as hypothesized. Lastly, consumers’ buying behaviour was analysed, but unlike the hypotheses (H8a, H8b, H8c and H8d), no significant associations were found.
Next, it was checked whether socio-demographic characteristics are related to consumers’ buying behaviour (H10). Further analysis has been made to understand the relationship between socio-demographic characteristics and consumer purchasing behaviour. Marital status, education employment status and age were significantly related to consumer purchasing behaviour (p < 0.05), while gender, income and chronic disease did not influence the actual buying towards organic foods.

5. Discussion

The motivational factors affecting the organic food purchasing attitudes and behaviours of adult consumers were examined with the SOR model in this study. Under the mediating effect of the perceived values, which were health value, environment value, animal welfare and food safety, the relationship between norms, health consciousness, benefits of consuming organic, information-seeking, positive moral attitude, self-identity, sustainable consumption attitudes and organic buying behaviour has been studied.
Socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, income, education, marital status and family size are known to affect the purchasing behaviour of consumers [42]. Therefore, marketing techniques are composed by considering socio-demographic characteristics [43]. In this study, while marital status, educational status, employment status and age were found to be associated with organic food purchasing behaviour (p < 0.05), gender, income and chronic disease do not affect the actual organic purchasing behaviour. Similarly, some authors reported that gender does not affect consumers’ attitudes and behaviours towards organic food purchase [23,44]. On the other hand, some studies showed that gender affects consumer purchasing behaviours [45,46]. Although organic food consumption has been increasing over time, the literature has been inconclusive about the role of gender in this trend [45]. Age and education have been found the demographic factors that may influence consumers’ buying behaviour similar to the present study [23]. Higher levels of education are associated with a higher possibility of buying organic foods, which may be because customers who have higher education levels are more likely to be health-conscious and aware of the advantages of organic foods [47]. Income is thought to be a key characteristic in the demographics of customers for affecting the purchasing of organic food. Higher-income households are more likely to buy organic products [48]. However, in this study, income was not related to consumer behaviours (p > 0.05). The reason why gender, income and chronic disease did not affect the consumers’ purchasing behaviour in the present study may be related to the influence of COVID-19. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers are eager to find both high-quality and safe foods [21]. Another reason could be that individuals are becoming more interested in organic foods, which are more environmentally friendly, as a result of sustainable nutrition awareness regardless of gender [49]. These results indicate that environmental concerns and health awareness might be more significant predictors of organic food purchasing behaviour than gender, income or chronic disease.
Research using a structural equation model largely confirms the findings of earlier studies, according to which a person’s willingness to purchase organic food is determined by health consciousness and environmental awareness [46,50]. Moreover, it is suggested that consumers’ lifestyle, which is mainly regulated health by health considerations and environmental protection, is closely associated with food consumption patterns and purchasing motivation [51]. According to the findings of the present study, perceived values, which are health value, environment value, animal welfare and food safety, were significantly influenced by the benefits of consuming organic and sustainable consumption attitudes. These results are similar to some studies in the literature. Kataria et al. (2016) reported that sustainability labels were significant criteria for consumers while making a purchase decision [52]. Similarly, Liu et al. (2021) found that sustainable consumption attitudes had positive and significant influences on perceived values and purchase behaviour [21]. Consumers who have a high sustainable consumption attitude also have higher perceived values for organic foods. It can be stated that they are also more likely to purchase organic products [21]. A study conducted in Bangladesh showed that organic food buyers generally believe that organic food is more nutritious, flavourful and better for the environment [53].
Although animal welfare is a multifaceted concept, it can be grouped into four criteria, namely feeding, health, housing and optimized emotional states [54]. The World Organisation for Animal Health defines “animal welfare” as follows: “Animal welfare means the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies. An animal experiences good welfare if the animal is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress, and is able to express behaviours that are important for its physical and mental state. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and appropriate veterinary care, shelter, management and nutrition, a stimulating and safe environment, humane handling, and humane slaughter or killing. While animal welfare refers to the state of the animal, the treatment that an animal receives is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment” [55]. The increasing population leads to some initiatives to increase efficiency in food production systems. However, this situation also brings with it some concerns. While fertilizers used to increase production negatively affect soil, environment and biodiversity, the welfare of farm animals can be ignored in animal production systems. This situation causes consumers to demand more ethical and sustainable production systems such as organic production and tend to buy products obtained with this production system [56,57,58]. In the present study, it has been found that the sustainable consumption attitude had significant and positive effects on animal welfare and environment value, as expected. Ma and Chang (2022) showed that there was a significant positive relationship between consumer attitude and green value and animal welfare value [59]. Consumers’ attitudes regarding animal welfare can differ because it is a moral issue, based on their culture, region of residence or individual circumstances. Hyland et al. (2022) reported that buying products that are friendly to animal welfare was not always a reflection of concern for animal welfare in Ireland [56].
According to the literature, customer attitudes may be influenced by perceived values. Experiences and knowledge have an impact on attitudes because attitudes are learnt. Consumer attitudes affect the purchase behaviour of consumers [60]. In a study, perceived values have been found to be significant and had positive influences on the purchase behaviour of consumers [21]. The relationship between the perceived value and intention for purchasing energy-saving products has been studied. While some perceived values had a positive effect on the intention to purchase energy-saving products, the social value did not have that effect according to the structural equation modelling analysis [33]. Le-Anh and Nguyen-To (2020) reported that perceived values and attitudes towards organic food positively influence purchase intentions. Surprisingly, environmental concern does not significantly affect attitudes towards organic food, differing from some past research results [61]. Social relationship value was found to be the most significant influencing factor of consumer perceived value on repeat purchase intention [62]. Food safety incidents and consumer environment orientation were found to impact consumers’ perception of organic food according to the result from a SOR model [63]. The present study has revealed that perceived values, which were health value, environmental value, animal welfare and food safety, had no significant effect on purchase behaviour. However, perceived values were mediating factors between organic foods purchasing behaviour and stimulus factors (Figure 3). There are a few potential alternative explanations for the non-supported hypotheses of the present study. Perceived values may not be strong enough to overcome other factors such as the price of the organic foods. The present study does not include any information about the price and consumer purchasing behaviour. The reason why price-related questions were not included in the study is to avoid discomfortable results regarding participants based on previous experience. By avoiding price-related questions, I tried to create a more comfortable environment for the participants and obtain more accurate results. Furthermore, it is known that there is a trend towards organic products as a result of social media [64,65]. The findings of a study suggest that social media can be a valuable tool for consumers who are interested in selecting organic food. By providing information about organic food and making it easier for consumers to find and purchase organic food, social media can help to increase the demand for organic food [64]. Taking into consideration the results from different studies along with the present study, it can be concluded that perceived values may have an influence on consumer purchasing behaviour and it may differ according to the composition and characteristics of the groups. Hence, it is significant to point out that further studies with a larger size would be helpful to better understand the customers’ attitudes and perceived values.
There are studies that have dealt with variables other than those proposed in the present study to understand the consumer behaviour regarding purchasing or not purchasing organic food. It is significant to point out that many variables could be associated with consumers’ decision-making process. Several studies focused on different variables such as the price of organic food and ethnocentrism, which may have an impact on consumers’ purchasing behaviour [66]. A review of research on consumer behaviour regarding the price of organic food from 2000 to 2013 found that most studies used a SOR paradigm. The majority of studies looked at price elasticity of demand and willingness-to-pay for organic food, with mixed and contradictory results. Few studies looked at affective processes or price knowledge. The authors recommend improving sampling techniques and data collection methods to improve the explanatory power of research [65]. Another review’s results with a specific focus on extra virgin olive oil shed light on differences in evaluations based on label type, the influence of ethnocentrism on perception and purchase intent, and the importance of different variables in the decision-making process of consumers [67].

6. Conclusions

This study aimed to understand the association between consumers’ organic purchasing behaviour, perceived values (health value, environmental value, animal welfare and food safety) and stimulus factors (norms, health consciousness, benefits of consuming organic, information-seeking, positive moral attitude, self-identity and sustainable consumption attitudes) using the SOR theoretical model. Also, the effect of socio-demographic characteristics on purchasing behaviour has been studied.
The results showed that marital status, education employment status and age were significantly related to consumer purchasing behaviour, while gender, income and chronic disease did not influence the actual buying towards organic foods. Perceived values (health value, environment value, animal welfare and food safety) were significantly influenced by the benefits of consuming organic, sustainable consumption attitudes and positive moral attitudes.
The results of this study provide useful information for the organic food industry’s long-term growth as well as for further related studies. Since perceived values influence consumers’ organic decision-making process and purchasing behaviour, the food industry, especially organic food sellers can consider these values to be able to answer the consumers’ demand for organic products. It should be noted that even though there are some similar results from different studies, many studies, however, have reported different reasons for buying organic foods. Therefore, strategies should be developed taking into account the characteristics and expectations of specific groups along with specific situations like COVID-19. In addition, analysing the data using different software with more advanced interfaces would provide a better understanding of the consumers’ behaviours.
This study has some limitations along with the significant results. First, the anthropometric measurements of the participants could not be taken. Additionally, body composition could not be measured. Another limitation is that the present study employed a set of measure indicators that were derived from previous scholarly works that focused on the concept of self. To enhance the validity and reliability of these indicators, future research endeavours may consider conducting additional validation procedures or exploring alternative measurement approaches that are grounded in distinct theoretical frameworks. Although the present study included a concrete amount of data regarding sustainability, it is still suggested to combine sustainability with organic food purchase even in more detail. Lastly, considering the impact of the price of the organic products on consumers’ purchasing behaviour, it is suggested to cover the decision-making process including all possible parameters that may be associated with purchasing a product.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Çukurova University Faculty of Medicine Non-Invasive Clinical Research Ethics Committee (approval number: 39).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author (B.Y.).

Acknowledgments

The author is most thankful to Ebru Melekoğlu for her help regarding data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rizzo, G.; Testa, R.; Schifani, G.; Migliore, G. The Value of Organic plus. Analysing Consumers’ Preference for Additional Ethical Attributes of Organic food Products. Soc. Indic. Res. 2023, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Migliore, G.; Rizzo, G.; Bonanno, A.; Dudinskaya, E.C.; Tóth, J.; Schifani, G. Functional food characteristics in organic food products—The perspectives of Italian consumers on organic eggs enriched with omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Org. Agric. 2022, 12, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nystrand, B.T.; Olsen, S.O. Relationships between functional food consumption and individual traits and values: A segmentation approach. J. Funct. Foods 2021, 86, 104736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Baker, M.T.; Lu, P.; Parrella, J.A.; Leggette, H.R. Consumer Acceptance toward Functional Foods: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Di Renzo, L.; Gualtieri, P.; Pivari, F.; Soldati, L.; Attinà, A.; Cinelli, G.; Leggeri, C.; Caparello, G.; Barrea, L.; Scerbo, F.; et al. Eating habits and lifestyle changes during COVID-19 lockdown: An Italian survey. J. Transl. Med. 2020, 18, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rehber, P.D.E.; Turhan, Ş.; Vural, H. Organic Farming: A Historical Perspective. J. Biol. Environ. Sci. 2018, 12, 113–122. [Google Scholar]
  7. Codex Alimentarius Commision. Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
  8. Wei, S.; Liu, F.; She, S.; Wu, R. Values, Motives, and Organic Food Consumption in China: A Moderating Role of Perceived Uncertainty. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 736168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Behera, K.K.; Alam, A.; Vats, S.; Sharma, H.P.; Sharma, V. Organic Farming History and Techniques. In Agroecology and Strategies for Climate Change; Lichtfouse, E., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 287–328. [Google Scholar]
  10. Organic Trade Association. 2022 Organic Industry Survey; Organic Trade Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  11. Pires, A.R.; Costa, C.A.; Moura, A.P.; Guiné, R.P.F. Exploratory Insights into Consumption and Commercialization of Organic Products during COVID-19 Pandemic. Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2021, 6, 28. [Google Scholar]
  12. Brata, A.M.; Chereji, A.I.; Brata, V.D.; Morna, A.A.; Tirpe, O.P.; Popa, A.; Arion, F.H.; Banszki, L.I.; Chereji, I.; Popa, D.; et al. Consumers’ Perception towards Organic Products before and after the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study in Bihor County, Romania. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Malissiova, E.; Tsokana, K.; Soultani, G.; Alexandraki, M.; Katsioulis, A.; Manouras, A. Organic food: A Study of consumer perception and preferences in Greece. Appl. Food Res. 2022, 2, 100129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Al-Madhagy, S.; Ashmawy, N.S.; Mamdouh, A.; Eldahshan, O.A.; Farag, M.A. A comprehensive review of the health benefits of flaxseed oil in relation to its chemical composition and comparison with other omega-3-rich oils. Eur. J. Med. Res. 2023, 28, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Popović-Vranješ, A.; Savić, M.; Pejanović, R.; Jovanović, S.; Krajinović, G. The effect of organic milk production on certain milk quality parameters. Acta Vet.-Beogr. 2011, 61, 415–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Benbrook, C.M.; Butler, G.; Latif, M.A.; Leifert, C.; Davis, D.R. Organic production enhances milk nutritional quality by shifting fatty acid composition: A United States-wide, 18-month study. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e82429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Manzi, P.; Durazzo, A. Organic vs. Conventional Milk: Some Considerations on Fat-Soluble Vitamins and Iodine Content. Beverages 2017, 3, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Alcorta, A.; Porta, A.; Tárrega, A.; Alvarez, M.D.; Vaquero, M.P. Foods for Plant-Based Diets: Challenges and Innovations. Foods 2021, 10, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Rahman, S.M.E.; Mele, M.A.; Lee, Y.T.; Islam, M.Z. Consumer Preference, Quality, and Safety of Organic and Conventional Fresh Fruits, Vegetables, and Cereals. Foods 2021, 10, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ranjbar Shamsi, H.; Omidi Najafabadi, M.; Hosseini, S.J.F. Designing a three-phase pattern of organic product consumption behaviour. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 79, 103743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, C.; Zheng, Y.; Cao, D. Similarity Effect and Purchase Behavior of Organic Food under the Mediating Role of Perceived Values in the Context of COVID-19. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 628342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kushwah, S.; Dhir, A.; Sagar, M. Ethical consumption intentions and choice behavior towards organic food. Moderation role of buying and environmental concerns. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 236, 117519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mohammed, A.A. What motivates consumers to purchase organic food in an emerging market? An empirical study from Saudi Arabia. Br. Food J. 2020, 123, 1758–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rizzo, G.; Borrello, M.; Dara Guccione, G.; Schifani, G.; Cembalo, L. Organic Food Consumption: The Relevance of the Health Attribute. Sustainability 2020, 12, 595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sohn, S.; Seegebarth, B.; Woisetschläger, D.M. The same only different? How a pandemic shapes consumer organic food purchasing. J. Consum. Behav. 2022, 21, 1121–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Hetharie, J.A.; Hussein, A.S.; Puspaningrum, A. SOR (Stimulus-Organism-Response) Model Application in Observing the Influence of Impulsive Buying on Consumer’s Post-Purchase Regret. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 2019, 8, 2829–2841. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jacoby, J. Stimulus-Organism-Response Reconsidered: An Evolutionary Step in Modeling (Consumer) Behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 2002, 12, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mehrabian, A.; Russell, J.A. An Approach to Environmental Psychology; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gao, H.; Chen, X.; Gao, H.; Yu, B. Understanding Chinese Consumers’ Livestreaming Impulsive Buying: An Stimulus-Organism-Response Perspective and the Mediating Role of Emotions and Zhong Yong Tendency. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 881294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Fu, S.; Yan, Q.; Feng, G.C. Who will attract you? Similarity effect among users on online purchase intention of movie tickets in the social shopping context. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 40, 88–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mie, A.; Andersen, H.R.; Gunnarsson, S.; Kahl, J.; Kesse-Guyot, E.; Rembiałkowska, E.; Quaglio, G.; Grandjean, P. Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: A comprehensive review. Environ. Health 2017, 16, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Boccaletti, S.; Nardella, M. Consumer willingness to pay for pesticide-free fresh fruit and vegetables in Italy. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2000, 3, 297–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Luo, B.; Li, L.; Sun, Y. Understanding the Influence of Consumers’ Perceived Value on Energy-Saving Products Purchase Intention. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 640376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, Y.; Xiao, C.; Zhou, G. Willingness to pay a price premium for energy-saving appliances: Role of perceived value and energy efficiency labeling. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Raza, M.; Kolmakov, V.; Aziz, A.; Alshebami, A. The Impact of Consumer Perceived Value on Purchase Behaviour in a Developing Country: The Case of Green Products. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2020, 13, 80–99. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ureña, F.; Bernabéu, R.; Olmeda, M. Women, men and organic food: Differences in their attitudes and willingness to pay. A Spanish case study. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2008, 32, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fatha, L.; Ayoubi, R. A revisit to the role of gender, age, subjective and objective knowledge in consumers’ attitudes towards organic food. J. Strateg. Mark. 2021, 31, 499–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Eti-İçli, G.; Anil, N.K.; Kiliç, B. Organic Food Consumption Scale (OFC): Development and Validation. Pac. Bus. Rev. Int. 2019, 11, 16–30. [Google Scholar]
  39. Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Hair, J.F. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. In Handbook of Market Research; Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., Vomberg, A.E., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–47. [Google Scholar]
  40. Maziriri, E.T.; Madinga, N.W. Data to model the prognosticators of luxury consumption: A partial least squares-structural equation modelling approach (PLS-SEM). Data Brief 2018, 21, 753–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kumar, R.; Kumar, R. Impact of Various Demographic Factors on Consumer Behaviour—An Empirical Study of Electronic Products In Rural Himachal (INDIA). Indian J. Econ. Bus. 2019, 19, 109–127. [Google Scholar]
  43. Maria, F.F.; Gholampour, A.; Bouzari, P.; Jarghooiyan, H.; Ebrahimi, P. How gender and age can affect consumer purchase behavior? Evidence from A microeconomic perspective from Hungary. AD-Minist. 2021, 25–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tsakiridou, E.; Boutsouki, C.; Zotos, Y.; Mattas, K. Attitudes and behaviour towards organic products: An exploratory study. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2008, 36, 158–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gundala, R.R.; Nawaz, N.; M, H.R.; Boobalan, K.; Gajenderan, V.K. Does gender moderate the purchase intention of organic foods? Theory of reasoned action. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Irianto, H. Consumers’ Attitude and Intention towards Organic Food Purchase: An Extension of Theory of Planned Behavior in Gender Perspective. Int. J. Manag. Econ. Soc. Sci. 2015, 4, 17–31. [Google Scholar]
  47. Gundala, R.R.; Singh, A. What motivates consumers to buy organic foods? Results of an empirical study in the United States. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0257288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Ayaviri-Nina, V.D.; Jaramillo-Quinzo, N.S.; Quispe-Fernández, G.M.; Mahmud, I.; Alasqah, I.; Alharbi, T.A.F.; Alqarawi, N.; Carrascosa, C.; Saraiva, A.; Alfheeaid, H.A.; et al. Consumer Behaviour and Attitude towards the Purchase of Organic Products in Riobamba, Ecuador. Foods 2022, 11, 2849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Basha, M.B.; Lal, D. Indian consumers’ attitudes towards purchasing organically produced foods: An empirical study. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yeon Kim, H.; Chung, J.E. Consumer purchase intention for organic personal care products. J. Consum. Mark. 2011, 28, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Soroka, A.; Wojciechowska-Solis, J. Consumer Motivation to Buy Organic Food Depends on Lifestyle. Foods 2019, 8, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kataria, A.; Mukherjee, J.; Biswas, S.; Garg, R. An Exploration of Consumers’ Perceived Value of Sustainable Brands in India. Asian J. Bus. Res. 2016, 6, 53–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Iqbal, M. Consumer behaviour of organic food: A developing country perspective. Int. J. Mark. Bus. Commun. 2015, 4, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Botreau, R.; Veissier, I.; Butterworth, A.; Bracke, M.B.M.; Keeling, L. Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2007, 16, 225–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. OIE; World Organisation for Animal Health. Article 7.1.1. of the terrestrial animal health code. In Terrestrial Animal Health Code; World Organisation for Animal Health: Paris, France; Available online: https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/2018/en_chapitre_aw_introduction.htm (accessed on 25 October 2022).
  56. Hyland, J.J.; Regan, Á.; Sweeney, S.; McKernan, C.; Benson, T.; Dean, M. Consumers attitudes toward animal welfare friendly produce: An island of Ireland study. Front. Anim. Sci. 2022, 3, 930930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Byrnes, B.H.; Bumb, B.L. Population Growth, Food Production and Nutrient Requirements. J. Crop Prod. 1998, 1, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mozumder, P.; Berrens, R. Inorganic fertilizer use and biodiversity risk: An empirical investigation. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62, 538–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ma, C.C.; Chang, H.P. The Effect of Novel and Environmentally Friendly Foods on Consumer Attitude and Behavior: A Value-Attitude-Behavioral Model. Foods 2022, 11, 2423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Ruiz-Molina, M.-E.; Gil-Saura, I. Perceived value, customer attitude and loyalty in retailing. J. Retail. Leis. Prop. 2008, 7, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Le-Anh, T.; Nguyen-To, T. Consumer purchasing behaviour of organic food in an emerging market. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2020, 44, 563–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhang, N.; Liu, R.; Zhang, X.-Y.; Pang, Z.-L. The impact of consumer perceived value on repeat purchase intention based on online reviews: By the method of text mining. Data Sci. Manag. 2021, 3, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liu, C.; Zheng, Y. The Predictors of Consumer Behavior in Relation to Organic Food in the Context of Food Safety Incidents: Advancing Hyper Attention Theory Within an Stimulus-Organism-Response Model. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. You, J.J.; Jong, D.; Wiangin, U. Consumers’ Purchase Intention of Organic Food via Social Media: The Perspectives of Task-Technology Fit and Post-acceptance Model. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 579274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hasan, M.M.; Al Amin, M.; Arefin, M.S.; Mostafa, T. Green consumers’ behavioral intention and loyalty to use mobile organic food delivery applications: The role of social supports, sustainability perceptions, and religious consciousness. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Rödiger, M.; Hamm, U. How are organic food prices affecting consumer behaviour? A review. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 43, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Blazquez-Resino, J.J.; Gutierrez-Broncano, S.; Jimenez-Estevez, P.; Perez-Jimenez, I.R. The Effect of Ethnocentrism on Product Evaluation and Purchase Intention: The Case of Extra Virgin Olive Oil (EVOO). Sustainability 2021, 13, 4744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 14895 g001
Figure 1. The theoretical model for consumer buying behaviours.
Figure 1. The theoretical model for consumer buying behaviours.
Sustainability 15 14895 g001
Sustainability 15 14895 g002
Figure 2. The theoretical model of the study.
Figure 2. The theoretical model of the study.
Sustainability 15 14895 g002
Sustainability 15 14895 g003
Figure 3. The tested model. Bold arrows show significant relationship.
Figure 3. The tested model. Bold arrows show significant relationship.
Sustainability 15 14895 g003
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants.
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants.
Variables n%
Age (years)
( X ¯ ± SS, 26.54 ± 9.34)		18–209127.6
21–238325.2
24–265215.8
Above 2710431.4
Gender Male8224.8
Female24875.2
Marital statusMarried18857.0
Single 14243.0
Employment statusFull-time employees21464.8
Unemployed 11635.2
EducationHigh school 5817.6
Graduate 23972.4
Undergraduate 3310.0
Chronic diseaseYes 5215.8
No 27884.2
Organic foods are healthier than non-organic foodsYes 30492.1
No 267.9
Monthly income TRY 0–1000 10933.0
TRY1001–2000 206.1
TRY 2001–3000 216.4
TRY 3001–4000 123.6
TRY 4001–5000 144.2
TRY 5001–6000 3510.6
TRY 6001–7000 72.1
TRY 7001–8000 185.5
TRY 8001–9000 164.8
TRY 9001–10,000 175.2
Above TRY 10,000 6118.5
TRY: Turkish lira.
Table 2. Factor loadings, concordance validity values and reliability results of the variables related to the research model.
Table 2. Factor loadings, concordance validity values and reliability results of the variables related to the research model.
ScalesDefinitionFactor Loading Cronbach’s Alpharho_AComposite ReliabilityAverage Variance Extracted
Animal welfareI buy organic because it has a positive effect on animal health/welfare.1.0001.0001.0001.0001.000
Benefits consuming organicFor me, consuming organic food would be beneficial.0.8650.8930.8980.8950.682
For me, consuming organic food would be tasteful.0.742
For me, consuming organic food would be good.0.829
For me, consuming organic food would be valuable.0.861
Environment valueI buy organic because they are environmentally friendly.0.7740.8900.8910.8890.573
I buy organic because the production method is less harmful to the environment.0.723
I buy organic because production is sensitive to the environment and animals.0.779
I buy organic to support local farmers.0.717
I buy organic to support the sustainability of organic industry.0.813
I buy organic because they are grown in an environmentally friendly way.0.732
Food safetyI buy organic because I think they are safe.0.7560.8510.8550.8530.537
I buy organic because I do not trust the mass-produced food.0.660
I buy organic because it does not contain genetically modified organisms.0.772
I buy organic because pesticides and fertilizers are not used in its production.0.764
I buy organic because they do not contain chemical residues, drugs and hormones.0.706
Health consciousnessI am usually aware of my health.0.7450.8620.8690.8630.679
I am alert to changes in my health.0.886
I reflect about my health a lot.0.835
Health valueI buy organic foods because they are healthier than non-organic ones.0.7430.8620.8730.8640.419
I buy organic foods because they are more nutritious.0.772
I buy organic foods because they taste better.0.571
I buy organic products because they remind me of past tastes.0.441
I buy organic products because they are more beneficial to my health.0.731
I buy organic foods because they reduce the risk of disease.0.645
Information seekingI know how to cook organic food at home. 0.9900.9400.9470.9430.892
I know how to store organic food at home.0.896
NormsMost people I know buy organic food.0.8630.9340.9390.9350.828
My friends buy organic foods.0.885
People whose opinions I value think that I should buy organic food foods.0.978
Positive moral attitudeBuying organic foods instead of conventional ones gives me the feeling that I am contributing to something better.0.9150.8890.8900.8900.801
Buying organic foods instead of conventional ones gives me the feeling that I am taking better care of my family.0.875
Self-identityI worry about whether what I eat is environmentally friendly.0.8770.8620.8660.8610.674
I worry about the health consequences of what I eat.0.843
I worry about the safety of what I eat.0.738
Sustainable consumption attitudesFood I eat daily is obtained in an environmentally friendly way.0.7400.9500.9540.9480.608
Food I eat daily is produced locally to support local farmers.0.816
Food I eat daily is produced by respecting human rights.0.756
Food I eat daily is sold at a fair price.0.587
Food I eat daily is produced in a way that respects biodiversity.0.801
Food I eat daily is produced without ignoring the rights of women and children.0.635
Food I eat daily is grown using sustainable farming practices.0.727
Food I eat daily is produced with respect to animal rights.0.768
Food I eat daily is produced without using pesticides.0.766
Food I eat daily is packed in an environmentally friendly way.0.950
Food I eat daily is produced by reducing the amount of food waste.0.807
Food I eat daily is produced with low carbon emission.0.932
Table 3. Results of model analysis.
Table 3. Results of model analysis.
The Path of Hypothesis R 2 Q 2 ΒTp
Norms→Health value0.5500.2140.0851.7870.075
Health consciousness→Health value0.0730.7780.437
Benefits of consuming organic→Health Value0.4022.7080.007 *
Information-seeking→Health value0.0811.1110.267
Positive moral attitude→Health value0.2461.8180.040 *
Self-identity→Health value−0.0790.7950.427
Sustainable consumption attitudes→Health value0.1292.4660.014 *
Norms→Environment value0.5200.2740.0631.2140.225
Health consciousness→Environment value−0.0400.3470.729
Benefits of consuming organic→Environment Value0.2681.3860.166
Information-seeking→Environment value−0.0290.4270.669
Positive moral attitude→Environment value0.3191.5950.111
Self-identity→Environment value0.2031.8620.063
Sustainable consumption attitudes→Environment value0.1092.2040.028 *
Norms→Animal welfare0.3210.2550.0470.8290.407
Health consciousness →Animal welfare−0.0750.6540.513
Benefits of consuming organic→Animal welfare0.1620.9360.350
Information-seeking→Animal welfare−0.0100.1530.879
Positive moral attitude→Animal welfare0.3121.7820.075
Self-identity→Animal welfare0.1411.1850.236
Sustainable consumption attitudes→Animal welfare0.1352.7830.006 *
Norms→Food safety0.5170.2530.0350.6460.519
Health consciousness→Food safety0.0390.3760.707
Benefits of Consuming Organic→Food safety0.4792.8900.004 *
Information-seeking→Food safety−0.0711.1000.272
Positive moral attitude→Food safety0.2141.3480.178
Self-identity→Food safety0.0510.4640.643
Sustainable consumption attitudes→Food safety0.0741.3210.187
Health value→Consumer buying behaviour0.1570.0501.0170.1170.907
Environment value→Consumer buying behaviour−0.0890.0470.963
Animal welfare→Consumer buying behaviour0.1990.1380.890
Food safety→Consumer buying behaviour−0.8180.0750.940
* p < 0.05, β = coefficient, R 2 = coefficient of determination, Q 2   = predictive relevance.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yilmaz, B. Factors Influencing Consumers’ Behaviour towards Purchasing Organic Foods: A Theoretical Model. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014895

AMA Style

Yilmaz B. Factors Influencing Consumers’ Behaviour towards Purchasing Organic Foods: A Theoretical Model. Sustainability. 2023; 15(20):14895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014895

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yilmaz, Birsen. 2023. "Factors Influencing Consumers’ Behaviour towards Purchasing Organic Foods: A Theoretical Model" Sustainability 15, no. 20: 14895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014895

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop