Ethical Perceptions and Trust in Green Dining: A Qualitative Case Study of Consumers in Missouri, USA

Abstract

This qualitative case study explores Missouri-based consumers’ ethical beliefs regarding restaurant sourcing from minority farmers. Guided by the Hunt–Vitell theory of ethics (H-V model), it applies the model in a new context: culturally inclusive restaurant sourcing. Based on 15 semi-structured interviews conducted between September 2024 and October 2024, the study explores how ethical beliefs shape dining intentions. Participants generally viewed support for minority farmers as ethically appropriate. Thematic analysis revealed six key themes: (1) community-oriented social values (e.g., social responsibility toward local businesses); (2) cultural identity (e.g., traditional farming methods); (3) consumer values—food-oriented (e.g., quality); (4) consumer values—people-oriented (e.g., financial support for ethical sourcing); (5) trust-building mechanisms (e.g., sourcing transparency); and (6) barriers (e.g., lack of awareness). These findings highlight limited consumer awareness of minority farmers and the need for transparent communication and cultural education. The study contributes theoretically by extending the H-V model to the intersection of ethics, culture, and restaurant sourcing. Practically, it offers guidance for restaurant managers, marketers, and policymakers to support minority farmers, build trust, and promote inclusive and socially responsible dining. One key limitation of this study is its reliance on a small, Missouri-based consumer sample, which limits generalizability and excludes perspectives from other stakeholders. However, as a regional case study, it provides important depth and contextual insight into an underexplored aspect of sustainable sourcing. This study also highlights the need for multi-stakeholder engagement to advance equity in the food system.

1. Introduction

Food ethics refers to the moral principles and values that govern practices related to the production, distribution, and consumption of food; in essence, it concerns what is considered right and wrong in food production and consumption [1,2]. As consumers increasingly recognize the social and environmental impacts of their dining choices [3,4], ethical considerations within the foodservice industry have gained growing prominence. Several contemporary urgencies related to food ethics include the disappearance of small- and medium-sized farming communities [5], the growing disconnect between production and consumption, which raises concerns about transparency and traceability [1], and the importance of ethical sourcing [6]. With the growing popularity of dining in foodservice environments, the foodservice system has become increasingly important, highlighting the need to examine the role of moral principles in this context [7].

Meanwhile, consumer perspectives on ethical dining are also evolving and play a crucial role in shaping restaurant sourcing practices. While much research has examined consumer ethics in relation to environmental concerns [4,8,9,10], there is a growing need to highlight social dimensions such as fairness, support for minority communities, and cultural preservation in consumer decision-making. For example, consumers are more likely to trust and support restaurants they perceive as socially responsible and committed to creating a positive societal impact [11].

As food ethics continues to gain attention, restaurants are increasingly adopting ethical sourcing practices to fulfill their social and environmental responsibilities [12,13]. However, the implementation of such practices that specifically support minority farmers remains limited. Minority farmers, often defined by their racial or ethnic backgrounds, typically operate small-scale farms with limited resources [14]. For example, Hmong farmers, who began migrating from Laos, Thailand, and China to the United States in the 1970s, continue to use traditional farming methods, relying on hand tools and manual labor, and often grow produce without pesticides [15,16,17,18]. Despite their contributions to local food systems, these farmers still face significant barriers to accessing land, financing, and markets, which hinder their efforts to build sustainable family businesses [17]. These challenges highlight the importance of ethical sourcing to improve market access for minority farmers, support culturally rooted agricultural practices, and promote fairness, sustainability, and community well-being.

Regarding consumers’ perceptions of local food, several empirical studies have identified factors such as quality, freshness, eco-friendly production, sustainability, and health benefits as key drivers of support for local food [3,4,19,20]. These factors suggest that consumers not only prioritize personal health and environmental protection but also seek authenticity and trustworthiness in their dining experiences. Therefore, understanding these value-based motivations is essential for restaurants aiming to strengthen consumer engagement and foster long-term loyalty through ethical sourcing practices.

Despite increasing consumer concern for ethical sourcing and sustainability, little is known about how ethical decision-making shapes consumer support for restaurants sourcing from minority farmers, a critically underrepresented group in local food systems [21]. Existing hospitality research has primarily focused on environmental sustainability or generalized notions of local food sourcing [22,23], often neglecting cultural identity, inclusion, social justice, and community dimensions, which require further investigation [24,25,26]. This study addresses this important gap by applying the Hunt–Vitell theory of ethics (H-V model) [27,28,29] to examine consumers’ moral evaluations and anticipated consequences in dining decisions involving minority food producers (see Figure 1). The H-V model integrates both deontological and teleological evaluations in the ethical decision-making process. It posits that individuals consider their personal ethical standards, the perceived consequences of actions for various stakeholders, and the probability of those consequences occurring when faced with moral dilemmas. This study expands the theoretical application of the H-V model beyond traditional environmental contexts into the realm of cultural and community-based ethical consumption. The findings provide practical guidance for restaurant marketers to build consumer trust, strengthen community ties, and support culturally inclusive local food systems.

Specifically, this study addresses the pressing need for equity and inclusion in the food system by examining how consumers perceive and respond to restaurants that source from minority farmers. Although consumers’ interest in ethical foods is well established, often framed around organic or health attributes [30,31], consumers’ specific motivations for supporting culturally inclusive sourcing remain underexplored. By identifying both the drivers and the barriers to such choices, our research shows how inclusive supply chains can foster a more culturally diverse food system while simultaneously strengthening local economies and social cohesion. Socially, this promotes awareness and inclusion of minority farmers, and economically, it can boost local economies by improving market access for underrepresented producers and encouraging sustainable sourcing.

Based on the theoretical framework and the identified research gap, this study seeks to address the following research questions:

RQ1: How do consumers’ deontological evaluations influence their dining intentions regarding restaurants that source from minority farmers?

RQ2: How do consumers’ teleological evaluations influence their dining intentions regarding restaurants that source from minority farmers?

RQ3: What trust-building mechanisms and barriers affect consumers’ dining intentions regarding restaurants that source from minority farmers?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Approach

The Hunt–Vitell theory of ethics (H-V model) [27] provides the theoretical foundation for the conceptual framework of this study. The H-V model identifies two central components of ethical decision-making: deontological and teleological evaluations. Deontological evaluation is grounded in personal moral values and emphasizes the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of a behavior, based on general ethical principles and context-specific beliefs. In contrast, teleological evaluation focuses on the anticipated consequences of an action, assessing the perceived desirability or undesirability of those outcomes [29,32]. In this study, constructs such as community-oriented social values and cultural identity reflect participants’ deontological evaluations, as they are grounded in perceived moral obligations. Conversely, constructs related to consumer values, trust-building mechanisms, and barriers reflect teleological evaluations, as they involve expected outcomes or consequences associated with dining at ethically sourced restaurants.

This model has been widely applied to examine consumer ethical decision-making in sustainable consumption contexts. For example, Nimri et al. (2021) employed it to explore consumers’ ethical considerations when dining at green restaurants [4]. Haq et al. (2023) investigated the role of deontological and teleological evaluations in shaping tourists’ intentions and behaviors toward visiting green hotels [33]. More recently, Nguyen (2025) applied the model to examine how emotional self-regulation and ethical evaluations influence consumer food waste reduction behaviors in restaurants [34].

Accordingly, the H-V model offers a valuable framework for understanding ethical decision-making related to dining at restaurants that source food from minority farmers. A core tenet of the model is that ethical judgments are formed through a combination of deontological and teleological evaluations [35]. Deontological evaluation involves assessing the inherent rightness or wrongness of an action based on personal moral convictions. For example, this includes viewing green dining as a moral obligation to protect the environment [4]. On the other hand, teleological evaluation requires individuals to estimate the potential outcomes of each behavioral alternative. For instance, a consumer may anticipate that dining at a green restaurant will lead to health benefits and support for local farmers. These expected outcomes may shape the consumer’s decision in favor of green dining.

Therefore, this study adopts the H-V model to examine how both deontological and teleological evaluations contribute to explaining consumers’ ethical consumption behavior, particularly in decisions involving restaurants that emphasize sustainability and support for minority food producers.

2.2. Minority Farmers and Consumers’ Moral Obligations

In recent years, increasing attention has been given to the role of ethical sourcing in shaping consumer behavior within the restaurant industry [6,36]. Ethical sourcing refers to the procurement of products in a manner that upholds ethical standards, ensures fair treatment of workers, and promotes environmental sustainability [37]. As consumers become more aware of companies’ sourcing practices, their sense of moral alignment with brands is increasingly influenced by perceived ethical responsibility [38]. Batat (2022) highlights that consumers in luxury dining contexts value ethical dimensions such as sustainability, well-being, and cultural heritage [39]. Similarly, Teng et al. (2014) found that personal values and environmental concern significantly shape consumer attitudes and intentions toward green restaurants [40]. Related research further emphasizes that consumers’ ethical beliefs often reflect broader commitments to environmental preservation, social responsibility, and the enjoyment of eco-friendly products [4,41,42].

Despite increasing consumer concern for ethical sourcing and eco-friendly practices [4,9,39], research has yet to explore how ethical decision-making shapes consumer support for restaurants that source specifically from minority farmers. Minority farmers are typically individuals who operate small-scale farms, preserve traditional agricultural practices, and often belong to socially disadvantaged groups [17,43,44]. These farmers frequently face political, economic, and racial inequalities that create significant barriers to their participation in mainstream food systems, including limited market access and the growing concentration of control over the agrifood system by large agribusiness firms [14,45]. Yet, little is known about how consumers’ awareness of these structural barriers activates a sense of moral obligation to support restaurants that prioritize sourcing from minority farmers.

Minority farmers’ sustainable agricultural practices, including the use of hand tools and manual labor, often result in produce grown without pesticides [15,16,17,18]. These methods align closely with the core principles of sustainability. When restaurants choose to source from minority farmers, consumers not only support environmental goals but also contribute to social justice. However, how consumer awareness of these practices influences their ethical decision-making and perceived moral responsibility remains underexplored. This study aims to address this gap by examining how consumers understand and respond to the ethical significance of minority farmer inclusion within sustainable restaurant sourcing strategies, with particular attention to how such awareness affects their dining intentions.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sampling and Recruitment of Participants

The study was approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board. To recruit participants, a snowball sampling technique was employed as part of a purposive sampling strategy. Purposive sampling was used to deliberately recruit individuals who met specific criteria aligned with the study’s objectives [46], while snowball sampling enabled access to a wider network of relevant participants who may not have been directly reachable through purposive methods alone [47]. Combining these approaches allowed us to efficiently identify and engage qualified participants within the available timeframe. Specifically, this approach allowed the researchers to begin with participants selected based on predefined inclusion criteria, specifically local consumers and farmers market shoppers in Missouri, United States, and then expand the sample through participant referrals. To ensure diversity and reduce the risk of homogeneity bias, recruitment was initiated through multiple entry points, including various farmers market locations. Interviews were scheduled according to participants’ availability and preferences. A total of 15 participants completed individual interviews, aligning with the sample size guidance recommended by Bertaux (1981) [48]. Furthermore, Ando et al. (2014) demonstrated that 12 interviews were sufficient to capture all key themes, suggesting that data collection may be concluded once adequate information has been gathered and thematic saturation has been reached [49].

3.2. Development of Interview Questions

To better understand consumers’ ethical consumption behaviors, interview questions were developed based on the Hunt–Vitell (H-V) model [27,28,29]. Three questions were designed to reflect a deontological evaluation, which considers participants’ inherited beliefs and personal values. These addressed consumers’ perceptions of restaurants’ responsibility to support minority farmers, the importance of recognizing minority farmers as stakeholders in sourcing decisions, and the value of restaurants communicating the benefits of such support to customers.

For the teleological evaluation, seven questions were asked, focusing on consumers’ trust in restaurants with transparent relationships with minority farmers, the influence of community involvement on dining choices, confidence in food safety resulting from long-term farmer partnerships, the impact of learning about farmers’ cultural practices, the role of ethical support in restaurant selection, and how consumers reconcile cultural appreciation with expectations for food safety and quality (interview questions, see

Table 1. Interview question guide to assess participants’ ethical beliefs about dining at restaurants that source produce from minority farmers.

Constructs	Questions
Deontological evaluation	Do you feel that restaurants have a responsibility to support minority farmers as part of their broader social and ethical commitments?
	How important is it to you that restaurants think about all their stakeholders, like minority farmers, when deciding where to source their food?
	How important is it to you that restaurants share the benefits of supporting minority farmers with their customers?
Teleological evaluation- Personal consequences	Does your trust in a restaurant increase when you know they have strong, transparent relationships with local minority farmers?
	How does a restaurant’s involvement in its community and social networks influence where you choose to dine?
	Does knowing that a restaurant has long-term, trust-based relationships with minority farmers make you more confident about the safety and quality of the food?
	Would learning more about a minority farmer’s cultural practices and farming methods through the restaurant make you more likely to eat there?
	How does the idea of supporting minority farmers influence your dining choices?
Teleological evaluation- Social consequences	How does a restaurant’s involvement in its community and social networks influence where you choose to dine?
	How do you balance your appreciation for cultural diversity with your expectations for food safety and quality at restaurants?

).

3.3. Data Collection

Participants were recruited both in person and via email and invited to participate in a semi-structured, 30 min interview. The questions were developed based on relevant theories and prior literature [50,51,52] and cross-checked by three professionals with expertise in qualitative research and sustainable food systems. All participation was voluntary. Prior to the interviews, two trained researchers who were familiar with the study’s objectives provided participants with an informed consent form outlining the voluntary and confidential nature of the study. Additionally, these two researchers met in advance to discuss the interview objectives, question wording, and appropriate probing techniques to ensure a consistent approach. Participants were also informed that they would receive a USD 10 Target gift card as a token of appreciation; no participants reported that the incentive influenced their decision to participate. At the beginning of each interview, the concept of “minority farmers” was clearly explained to ensure consistent understanding. Interviewers emphasized that there were no right or wrong answers and that the study sought only to capture participants’ personal views and experiences. All interviews were conducted in English, face-to-face, one-on-one, and held in public locations at local farmers markets. The interviews were conducted between September 2024 and October 2024. To ensure anonymity, each participant was assigned a coded identifier (e.g., Participant 1 as P1, Participant 2 as P2). To ensure a diverse participant base, we visited multiple farmers’ markets on different days and during both peak and off-peak hours, employing purposive sampling to capture broad demographic and behavioral variation among shoppers. A total of 15 in-person interviews were conducted to explore consumers’ ethical consumption behaviors. Interview recordings were automatically transcribed and subsequently reviewed and manually corrected for accuracy by trained researchers.

3.4. Data Analysis

In this study, a total of 15 in-depth interviews were conducted. By the 13th interview, recurring patterns began to emerge, and no new meaningful themes were identified. To ensure the consistency and reliability of these findings, we conducted two additional interviews, which confirmed that thematic saturation had been reached. The transcripts were independently coded by one trained research assistant and one researcher, with the results cross-checked by two project investigators to ensure consistency and reliability. Coding consistency was maintained through this process of independent coding and cross-validation. Thematic analysis followed the approach outlined by Miles and Huberman (1984), involving the identification of emerging themes through the grouping and categorization of meaningful text segments [53]. An open coding process was initially conducted to extract key concepts, followed by axial coding to refine and structure the data [54]. Codes with similar meanings were consolidated into broader thematic categories. Thematic saturation was achieved when no new major themes emerged during the later stages of data analysis. As a result, six common themes were identified: community-oriented social values, cultural identity, consumer values–food-oriented, consumer values–people-oriented, trust-building mechanisms, and barriers (see the table in Section 4.2).

4. Results

4.1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Among the 15 participants in the study, the majority were female (n = 9; 60%) and most were between the ages of 30–44 (n = 6; 40%), followed by those aged 45–60 (n = 4; 26.7%) and 61 or older (n = 4; 26.7%). Most participants held at least a bachelor’s degree (n = 9; 66.7%), and the majority identified as Caucasian (n = 12; 80%). Annual household income was predominantly at or above USD 100,000 (n = 9; 60%).

In terms of dining behaviors, nearly half of the participants reported dining out frequently (three or more times per week) (n = 7; 46.7%). Purchases from farmers markets were most commonly made occasionally (1–3 times per month) (n = 6; 40%), while a minority reported never doing so (n = 2; 13.3%). When it came to purchasing from minority farmers, responses were more evenly distributed; however, one-third of the participants (n = 5; 33.3%) indicated they never made such purchases (see

Table 2. Participants demographic profile (n = 15).

	Frequency (n)	%
Gender
Male	6	40
Female	9	60
Age
19–29	1	6.7
30–44	6	40
45–60	4	26.7
61 or older	4	26.7
Education level
Bachelor’s degree	9	66.7
Master’s degree	4	26.7
Doctoral degree	1	6.7
Ethnicity
Caucasian	12	80
Asian	3	20
Household income (annually)
≤USD 50,000	2	13.3
USD 50,001–USD 80,000	3	20
≥USD 100,000	9	60
Prefer not to disclose	1	6.7
Frequency of dining out at a restaurant
Frequently (3 or more times per week)	7	46.7
Occasionally (1–2 times per month)	6	40
Monthly (1–4 times per month)	2	13.3
Frequency of making purchases from farmers markets
Frequently (1–3 times per week)	4	26.7
Occasionally (1–3 times per month)	6	40
Infrequently (1–3 times per year)	2	13.3
Rarely (more than 3 times per year but not monthly)	1	6.7
Never	2	13.3
Frequency of making purchases from minority farmers
Frequently (1–3 times per week)	3	20
Occasionally (1–3 times per month)	4	26.7
Infrequently (1–3 times per year)	2	13.3
Rarely (more than 3 times per year but not monthly)	1	6.7
Never	5	33.3

).

4.2. RQ1-Results for Consumers’ Deontological Evaluations: Social and Cultural Factors Influencing Consumers’ Ethical Judgment

The qualitative findings offer a deeper insight into how consumers’ social identities, lived experiences, and values shape their dining decisions, particularly in relation to restaurants that source from minority and local farmers. These insights were examined through the lens of ethical decision-making, using the deontological and teleological frameworks to structure emergent themes.

The deontological evaluation reflects participants’ intrinsic beliefs and value systems, which were organized into two main categories: community-oriented social values and cultural identity. In contrast, the teleological evaluation revealed three major antecedents influencing participants’ behavioral intentions: (1) consumer values related to food and people, (2) trust-building mechanisms that reinforce perceptions of safety and transparency, and (3) perceived barriers such as price, location, and access, which may impede consumer engagement with restaurants sourcing from minority farmers (see

Table 3. Table of six common themes. Major themes of beliefs (n = 15) (P = Participant).

Beliefs	Example Quotation
Deontological Evaluations
Community-Oriented Social Values
Social responsibility (n = 15)	“I think the restaurant has the responsibility to support the minority farmers because it’s showing that they care about the community. (P1)”
Community support (n =13)	“I think it makes the restaurant more appealing that they are supporting the local people. (P7)”
Community connection (n = 9)	“The restaurant should be supporting the local farmers…I just think it’s important because of the community and keeping out community together and close. (P7)”
Reciprocity (n = 4)	“I know that I’m helping the restaurant local owner. I’m helping the local farmers. I’m also giving back to my local area, so I think it’s very important. (P4)”
Cultural Identity
Cultural practices and farming methods (n = 12)	“I’m always interested in learning different cultures and different ways of doing things. (P4)”
Diversity and inclusion (n = 11)	“So for me, I appreciate the cultural diversity that a restaurant incorporates or is involved in. (P1)”
Perception of minority farmers (n = 11)	“I think it’s important for all businesses to do what they can to support, certainly, you know their neighbors…but especially those people (minority farmers) who, for various reasons, have been historically disadvantaged. (P9)”
Ethical concerns (n = 2)	“What is the real benefit for those minority farmers? Do they really get fair treatment from the restaurant? (P1)”
Teleological Evaluations
Consumer Values−Food-Oriented
Quality (n = 15), Taste (n = 7), Health (n = 6), Product specification (n = 4), Authenticity (n = 1)	“Well, I mean… I’m still, you know, I want fresh food. Yeah, I don’t want stuff that’s been prepared and just sitting over here. (P10)”
Sustainability (n =12)	“I’ve seen their farms… their farm is pristine… it’s beautiful, and you know it’s organic. (P7)”
Consumer Values−People-Oriented
Preference, Appreciation (n = 10)	“Again, any local farm or anything sourced locally—like, it would pretty dramatically persuade me to choose them. (P3)”
Financial support (n = 9)	“Because I know that I’m supporting the local economy. (P4)”
Trust-Building Mechanisms
Labels and regulation (n = 5), Food safety (n =14), Transparency (n = 15)	“Things like health department inspections and licenses, things like that… there’s always that assumption that the farmers put a lot of time and effort into producing safe products, then the restaurant can use production practices and deliver me a meal that’s safe. (P9)”
Advertising (n = 13), Storytelling (n = 4)	“Social media has been a big thing. So it is kind of information getting… out there to the younger generation… that a lot of restaurants cater to. This younger generation getting that kind of information to them would really help. (P15)”
Barriers
Awareness (n = 14)	“I don’t really, we have to think. What restaurants in the Joplin area actually qualify (restaurants sourcing minority farmers’ produce). I don’t know. (P11)”
Price, Location, Distance (n =10)	“I know that they (restaurants) have to consider price, distance, and location, and stuff like that. (P6)”

).

4.2.1. Community-Oriented Social Values

The most prominent ethical behavior participants emphasized was social responsibility, defined as business actions motivated by ethical considerations beyond economic and technical self-interest [55]. Over half of the participants believed that restaurants should support minority farmers as part of broader community commitments, viewing such efforts as an important way to contribute to social well-being. As Participant 7 explained: “Restaurants should be supporting the local farmers, and especially the minority farmers…because of community and keeping our community together and close”. However, not all participants shared this view. Four participants (26.7%) emphasized that restaurants should prioritize financial sustainability over ethical obligations. For instance, Participant 15 noted, “I don’t know if it’s a responsibility for that…. As a restaurant owner (if I were one), I would be trying to find what is cost-saving that can help them save money and have a higher, like a …be able to have a profitable business”. Three participants (20%) expressed a neutral position, suggesting that restaurants are free to support whomever they choose, as illustrated by Participant 2: “I don’t really think they have a responsibility to support anyone in particular”. These findings suggest that while social responsibility is valued by many consumers, considerations of business profitability and autonomy also shape ethical evaluations in restaurant choices.

The second most frequently discussed category was community support, which is defined as being closely tied to community psychology, where social support is viewed as central, encompassing “helping transactions” among people in shared community settings [56] (p. 215). Nearly all participants expressed positive attitudes toward restaurants that engaged in such efforts, emphasizing the importance of contributing to the strength of local communities and businesses. This was demonstrated by Participant 8: “I see it really strengthening the local community. Those chefs buy locally, and I see a lot of growers. I know growers who are selling to their local farmers’ markets or restaurants. That’s how they support themselves. It’s a good thing”. Similarly, Participant 14 stated: “I think it’s a nice gesture and to support like the local farmers and to have small businesses”. These expressions highlight most consumers’ belief in the importance of restaurants supporting local communities and reinforcing shared social values.

The next category was community connection, which reflects the sense of belonging and identification, including one’s feeling of acceptance, belief in fitting in, and willingness to contribute to the group [57]. Nine participants (60%) recognized the positive value of emotional or relational ties that are formed when restaurants source local food from minority farmers. This sense of community connection was reflected in the interviews, as stated by Participant 7, “I just think that a restaurant that’s aware and that is paying attention to the local community-that interests me”, and Participant 4, “I like to support restaurants who do support the local farmers, including the minority ones. I like to support them because I know my money is going back into my community”. These findings show that consumers believed it was the right thing for restaurants to connect with and support minority farmers.

Reciprocity was the final category under community-oriented social values. It is defined as the mutual exchange of transactional benefits, which, together with partner development, is recognized as essential to collaboration [58]. This idea of reciprocity was reflected in the interviews, as stated by Participant 14: “I’m thinking you’re probably talking about, like, restaurants that are also small businesses…in order for their small businesses to survive, they should probably be thinking about other small businesses as well. And everybody just kind of scratching each other’s backs”. Four participants (26.7%) emphasized that when restaurants source food from minority farmers, it generates mutual advantages for both parties. These findings underscore consumers’ views on ethical sourcing in restaurants as shaped by an awareness of mutual support and economic interdependence within the local food system.

4.2.2. Cultural Identity

Regarding cultural practices and farming methods, minority farmers continue to handle and prepare food in their traditional ways [16], such as through labor-intensive techniques and the use of fewer chemicals. These reflect cultural heritage and raise consumer awareness of restaurants’ ethical responsibilities. The majority of participants (n = 9; 60%) emphasized that restaurants have an ethical responsibility to recognize and share the cultural farming practices of minority farmers. They believed that transparency in sourcing and food preparation is not only beneficial but also highlights the importance of cultural sharing. For example, Participant 1 said “Yeah, that will definitely…because that increased the information (cultural practices and farming methods) as a customer that increased the information I know about this restaurant about their food about how they prepare their food”, and Participant 6 stated “I think it’s nice to see people being willing to share about their culture, especially maybe in like an area we don’t have a ton of diversity, it might be kind of an incentive for some people to kind of see that happen yeah”. In contrast, three participants (20%) expressed disinterest, such as Participant 2, who stated: “I mean…I probably wouldn’t give it much thought in terms of how they’re practices are. I’d just be more interested in what the product is, not so much how it comes to be”. These findings suggest that most participants view ethical restaurant practices as involving the honoring of cultural knowledge, ensuring customer awareness, and promoting transparency.

Diversity and inclusion, along with perceptions of minority farmers, emerged as the second most significant category under cultural identity. In this context, diversity refers to group-level demographic differences, while inclusion concerns individuals’ sense of belonging within key organizational processes [59,60]. Six participants (40%) believed that restaurants reflect cultural diversity in their practices as a form of respect and inclusion. As stated by Participant 1, “The restaurant…support the minority farmers…it’s showing that they care about the community and then they care about the diversity either in their employment or in their customers”. However, most participants mentioned that they had never considered this perspective, as illustrated by Participant 3: “Um I’ve never really considered it, honestly…so I really don’t know how to answer that”. These responses indicate that while diversity and inclusion are valued, they are not yet a fully integrated consideration in many consumers’ ethical evaluations.

In relation to perceptions of minority farmers, these farmers are typically defined as individuals who manage small-scale farming operations, preserve traditional farming techniques, and often belong to socially disadvantaged groups [17,43]. Eleven participants shared their perspectives on minority farmers, with two noting that it is appropriate for restaurants to support them due to their historical marginalization. This sentiment was reflected in the view of Participant 9: “I think that we all have…to support our neighbors, especially if our neighbors, again, have been disadvantaged by some historical aspect”. However, the majority of participants acknowledged their lack of familiarity with minority farmers, as illustrated by Participant 1: “I’m not familiar at all with any minority farmers”. These findings suggest that although minority farmers are supported in principle, limited awareness may hinder deeper consumer engagement.

The final category under cultural identity was ethical concerns. Crane et al. (2019) defined ethical concerns as involving the evaluation of decisions and behaviors in terms of their alignment with accepted moral principles and societal values [61]. Two participants (13.3%) expressed that they care about whether minority farmers receive fair treatment from restaurants. This is reflected in the statement by Participant 3, “Been staff by a couple of restaurants. Vegetables and they (restaurants) don’t pay (to minority farmers)”, and by Participant 1, “What is the real benefit for those minority farmers? Do they really get fair treatment from the restaurant?” These findings show that some consumers view ethical sourcing as including the fair and respectful treatment of producers.

4.3. RQ2-Results for Consumers’ Teleological Evaluations: Consumer Values Influencing Dining at Restaurants That Source Local Food

4.3.1. Consumer Values-Food-Oriented

The most dominant ethical belief related to consumer values regarding food is quality, followed by taste, health, product specification, and authenticity. All participants (100%) emphasized that quality is an important factor influencing their decision to dine at restaurants sourcing food from minority farmers. This emphasis on quality was evident across individual interviews, as reflected in the statement by Participant 14: “Well, like I said. If there was a place around here that did the home cooking and was more down-to-earth recipes and used fresh products, then I would most likely pick that place”. In the same vein, Participant 9 noted “Well, when I think about choosing a place to eat, obviously, the food should be good, the price should be reasonable, and the portions should be fair”.

Furthermore, several other factors were mentioned, including taste (n = 7; 46.7%), as shown in comments from Participant 13, “It’s gonna taste better”, and Participant 1, “I would say the first thing would be how it tastes”. Health was also noted (n = 6; 40%), as expressed by Participant 7: “That makes me feel like maybe the food was more nutritious… that they care more about the food going in my body”. Product specification was highlighted by four participants (26.7%), as expressed by Participant 1: “It also provides the food that I don’t usually get in the US… I would be very willing to try the restaurant that supported minority farmers and, at the same time, provided the new menu for the community”. Additionally, one participant identified authenticity as a factor influencing dining choices. Participant 15 stated “Yeah, the quality, taste, yep, and the authenticity”.

The next dominant belief identified was sustainability. Sustainability involves the integration of environmental, social, and economic factors, with the goal of meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs [62]. Twelve participants (80%) expressed that they were more willing to dine at restaurants that source organic food. As stated by Participant 2, “Fewer chemicals is better, growing food more naturally…I like that”, and Participant 9, “You know, for example, if a restaurant is sharing with me that, you know…the ingredients and where it’s sourced from-a farm…or organic production practices in place-whatever it is, something that I can understand, then I think the answer is yes”. These findings indicate that perceived product value is central to consumers’ ethical dining choices, with the top three aspects being quality, sustainability, and taste.

4.3.2. Consumer Values—People-Oriented

Consumer values—people-oriented—refer to consumers’ beliefs and motivations that prioritize human well-being when making consumption choices. Ten participants mentioned their preferences and appreciation for food. Regarding preference, Participant 3 stated “I mean, it (supporting local) is important to me. It would persuade me to choose one place over another”. In terms of appreciation, Participant 6 explained “Maybe just like…enjoying the food, but expressing gratitude really and you know understanding that preparation and things like that aren’t always easy”. In addition, nine participants expressed their willingness to spend money to support businesses that engage in ethical sourcing. For example, Participant 7 stated “Just if I know that they (restaurants) are supporting a local, I am more likely to go to that restaurant”. These findings suggest that consumer preferences, emotional appreciation, and financial support are interconnected expressions of people-oriented values that shape ethical dining choices.

4.4. RQ3-Results for Consumers’ Trust-Building Mechanisms and Barriers Influencing Dining at Restaurants That Source Local Food

4.4.1. Trust-Building Mechanisms

Trust-building mechanisms are strategies used to establish and sustain trust, depending on the service type and the maturity of the client–provider relationship [63]. All participants emphasized that transparency is their top concern, expressing a strong desire for restaurants to clearly disclose sourcing information. As noted by Participant 6, “We typically don’t think about where our food comes from if we don’t see some sort of messaging or something like that, you know. I think it’s great”, and Participant 5, “If they (restaurants) can be transparent about that (sourcing food) and show that to their customers, yeah, my trust will increase”.

Fourteen participants mentioned concerns about food safety. For instance, Participant 11 stated “If that could be the case in restaurants, then we would be more inclined to eat there, absolutely, if we knew it was safe, not contaminated…”. Additionally, five participants noted that if restaurants provide labels and regulation, their trust would increase. As stated by Participant 8, “A certain amount of it is just trust, um, you know…hope that a restaurant would have best practices in place…their license is on the wall, their history of inspections should be available if someone wants to see that”

Additionally, advertising and storytelling function as strategic communication tools that help restaurants build consumer trust. Thirteen participants emphasized that restaurants should use advertising (e.g., signage, social media, menus) to convey their values and promote transparency. As Participant 12 stated, “I think if they just, you know, have a sign or something like that saying that, you know, we get our produce or whatever we use from local farmers and it’s sourced in the area… it would make a big difference between more popular and less popular”, and Participant 7 remarked, “They (restaurants) should say something. It should be on the menu… they (customers) walk in the restaurant. Yes, I think that’s important”. Storytelling was also mentioned by four participants as an effective trust-building strategy. For instance, Participant 15 noted “I think it’s just a story behind it if it is able to tell a story, I think it will sell any potential customers”. These findings demonstrate that consumers’ ethical dining choices are deeply shaped by trust, which is fostered through sourcing transparency, food safety assurance, and effective strategic communication tools.

4.4.2. Barriers

Awareness refers to the ability to maintain some knowledge about the situation and activities of others [64]. Fourteen participants indicated a lack of awareness regarding the cultural values of minority farmers and the food sourcing practices of restaurants, such as Participant 15: “I’m not familiar with that, just because I don’t know specifically that restaurants that support or get produce from farmers”.

Although consumers expressed ethical dining intentions, the practical barriers that restaurants face such as price, location, and distance often outweighed these ethical considerations in actual decision-making and hindered consumers’ engagement. A total of 10 participants (66.7%) mentioned factors such as price, location, and distance as key challenges. Participant 6 stated, “I know that they (restaurants) have to consider price, distance, and location, and stuff like that”, and Participant 15 explained, “I know that even if I were the position as a restaurant owner. I were trying to find what is cost saving…be able to profitable business”. These findings reveal a disconnect between ethical intentions and informed action, highlighting how limited awareness and logistical barriers jointly constrain consumers’ ability to act on their values in practice.

5. Discussion and Implications

This study offers a nuanced understanding of how deontological and teleological evaluations shape consumer attitudes toward dining at restaurants that source from minority farmers, based on a qualitative approach (Figure 2). Applying the Hunt–Vitell (H-V) model, the findings reveal that consumer decisions are driven not only by moral convictions such as the belief in doing the right thing by supporting ethically sourced food but also by the anticipated consequences of their choices, including health benefits, personal preferences, community impact, and trust.

To address the study’s purpose, three research questions were examined. RQ1 investigated how consumers’ deontological evaluations influence their dining intentions toward restaurants that source from minority farmers. The findings revealed that consumers’ ethical judgments were strongly shaped by community-oriented social values and cultural identity, demonstrating the importance of intrinsic moral beliefs in dining decisions, which supports previous research [3,11,65]. These studies identified social values as key drivers of local food choices and highlighted restaurants as socially responsible entities mindful of environmental and societal impacts. RQ2 explored how consumers’ teleological evaluations, or assessments of anticipated outcomes, impact their dining behaviors. Results indicated that food-oriented values (e.g., quality, sustainability, taste) and people-oriented motivations (e.g., consumer preferences and appreciation for food) were key factors influencing ethical dining intentions, which aligns with previous studies [3,4,19,20,66]. RQ3 examined trust-building mechanisms (e.g., sourcing transparency and food safety), which align with prior research [67,68], and barriers affecting consumers’ dining intentions, which partially align with findings from restaurant managers’ perspectives [22]. Although many participants expressed ethical motivations, barriers such as lack of awareness, concerns over price, and geographic distance emerged as significant inhibitors to supporting restaurants that source from minority farmers. Collectively, these findings provide a comprehensive understanding of the cognitive evaluations underpinning consumers’ ethical dining behaviors, framed through the Hunt–Vitell model.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

This study offers key theoretical contributions. First, although previous research has applied the H-V model to understand consumers’ decision-making regarding dining at green restaurants and engaging in green behaviors [4,8,9,10], this study further addresses a gap by examining consumers’ ethical consumption decision-making specifically in the context of dining at restaurants that source from minority farmers. Therefore, it advances the theoretical understanding of social justice and consumer ethics by highlighting support for restaurants sourcing from minority farmers as an important ethical decision factor. This work extends the H-V model by incorporating cultural representation and social inclusion of minority farmers into consumers’ ethical food consumption decisions. In contrast to models such as the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [69], which emphasize behavioral intentions through attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control, the H-V model [27] allows for a richer investigation of moral evaluations, capturing both deontological (duty-based) and teleological (consequence-based) reasoning. Our findings support this dual-process structure. Specifically, in the realm of deontology, participants revealed motivations grounded in community values and cultural identity, perceiving support for restaurants that engage minority farmers as morally appropriate and socially just. These judgments reflect internalized ethical commitments rather than instrumental cost–benefit calculations, suggesting that TPB alone may be insufficient for fully explaining these value-driven decisions.

Second, our results show that consumers’ ethical decision-making is shaped by deontological and teleological evaluations. Under deontological evaluations, two key themes emerged: community-oriented social values and cultural identity. Consumers view support for restaurants sourcing from minority farmers as contributing to community well-being and reflecting moral rightness. This aligns with Frash et al. (2015), who found social values to be major motivators for choosing local food [3]. Other studies also portray restaurants as socially responsible entities attentive to environmental and societal impacts [11,65]. Our findings deepen this line of work by demonstrating that consumers frame sourcing from minority farmers not only as a socially responsible choice but also as a visible act of cultural recognition and justice. Cultural identity therefore moves beyond a peripheral sentiment to become a critical dimension of deontological reasoning in food ethics. Notably, this study expands existing knowledge by showing that consumers see sourcing from minority farmers as both socially responsible and morally appropriate. This study highlights cultural identity as a critical dimension of consumers’ ethical decision-making within deontological evaluations. Specifically, consumers view their support for restaurants that source from minority farmers as a way to affirm and preserve cultural heritage. While prior research on ethical consumption has largely centered on environmental sustainability and social responsibility [3,65], the influence of cultural identity in shaping ethical dining choices remains underexamined. Some studies have addressed issues of social justice and cultural representation in relation to immigrant farmers. For example, Minkoff-Zern (2018) found that Latino immigrant farmworkers face significant social, economic, and institutional barriers, underscoring the need for a more inclusive food system [70]. By linking these structural inequities to consumer decision-making, our study shows that cultural identity intersects with social justice, and figures out diners use their purchasing power to support visibility, equity, and voice for marginalized producers. However, no existing research has integrated consumers’ cultural identity and their support for minority farmers within the framework of ethical consumption. Our study contributes a novel perspective by incorporating cultural identity into this framework and addressing an important theoretical gap. It demonstrates that ethical dining decisions in restaurant settings are informed not only by environmental and social considerations but also by a commitment to cultural preservation.

Third, the results show that consumer values, trust-building mechanisms, and barriers fall under teleological evaluations, positioning these factors as key antecedents of consumers’ intention to dine at restaurants that source from minority farmers. Regarding consumer values, the findings are consistent with previous studies identifying food attributes such as quality, freshness, health benefits, taste, environmental friendliness, and uniqueness as major drivers of local food choices [3,4,19,20]. They also align with research emphasizing the role of personal preferences and motivations, including consumers’ willingness to financially support local food systems [66].

In terms of trust-building mechanisms, many participants expressed concerns about food safety, sourcing transparency, and the credibility of labeling and regulations when dining at restaurants that source from minority farmers. These concerns echo findings by Kaczorowska et al. (2021), who showed that certification labels shape consumer perceptions of food quality and trust, and Eldesouky et al. (2020), who highlighted the importance of transparent communication and credible labeling in fostering consumer confidence in sustainable food products [67,68]. Building on these insights, our study further reveals that consumers were more inclined to support restaurants sourcing from minority farmers when provided with clearer information about food origins through advertising and storytelling.

Conversely, our findings reveal several barriers that influence consumers’ intentions to support restaurants sourcing from minority farmers. Consumers’ intentions are shaped by personal values, ethical beliefs, and a sense of social responsibility; however, they often differ from actual behaviors, which refer to the choices consumers make when purchasing food [71]. Consistent with Roy (2024), who reported that restaurant managers view price, location, and distance as major challenges to local sourcing, our study adds a consumer-side perspective by identifying a key obstacle: limited awareness of minority farmers [22]. This lack of information may prevent consumers from turning their intentions into action, ultimately lowering their willingness to support such restaurants. These findings underscore the need to improve the visibility of and communication about minority farming communities in order to bridge the gap between consumer values and behaviors.

5.2. Practical Implications

This study offers practical implications for restaurant marketers seeking to enhance consumer engagement through ethical sourcing from minority farmers. First, marketers should incorporate social responsibility messaging into promotional campaigns by emphasizing values such as community support and ethical sourcing [3]. Practical strategies include sharing minority farmers’ stories on social media, featuring a “local flavors” menu, and displaying sourcing information on table cards. These actions create emotional resonance, reinforce the restaurant’s mission, and engage ethically minded consumers. Embedding such narratives within brand communication strengthens the restaurant’s ethical positioning and moral credibility.

Second, restaurants should promote cultural education by integrating farmers’ cultural heritage and traditional practices into brand storytelling. This includes highlighting the origins of ingredients, farming methods, and food preparation rituals. Platforms such as menus, websites, and social media can be used to tell compelling stories that honor minority farmers’ identities. As noted by Fusté-Forné (2020) and Kim et al. (2018), storytelling is a powerful tool for emotional engagement [72,73]. By communicating the cultural significance behind food, restaurants can shift beyond transactional messaging, cultivating deeper appreciation, long-term consumer loyalty, and respect for diversity. These communicative strategies also contribute to the preservation of intangible cultural heritage, foster intergenerational knowledge transfer, and counter the homogenization of food cultures in a globalized marketplace.

Third, this study highlights the role of cross-sector collaboration in supporting inclusive sourcing. Policymakers and nonprofit organizations can incentivize restaurants to source from minority farmers through grants, tax credits, or subsidies. Additionally, training programs can help farmers meet commercial standards, while nonprofits can launch public awareness campaigns that celebrate cultural farming traditions. Certification labels such as “Culturally Sourced” or “Inclusive Farm” could signal ethical alignment and help consumers make informed dining choices. The development of regional food hubs or digital platforms could also streamline supply chains, reduce barriers, and expand access to culturally significant produce. These operational strategies support broader system-level change toward equity and inclusion in food sourcing.

Fourth, restaurants can reinforce consumer trust by highlighting sustainably and ethically sourced menu items, such as locally grown produce [74,75]. Clear labeling, transparency in sourcing, and visible trust signals (e.g., logos, certifications, supplier stories) enhance brand credibility and influence dining decisions. These communicative practices demonstrate a commitment to ethical values and serve as persuasive cues that positively shape consumer perceptions and behavior.

Finally, to address barriers to ethical sourcing, particularly the informational gap surrounding minority farmers, marketers should prioritize educational outreach. Although operational challenges such as pricing or logistics are well-documented [22], this study finds that limited public awareness is a key obstacle. Restaurants can bridge this gap through in-store educational displays, social media campaigns, and partnerships with farmers for public events or storytelling sessions. These efforts enhance consumer familiarity with and empathy for minority farming communities, ultimately fostering greater engagement and support for culturally inclusive sourcing.

6. Limitation and Future Studies

This study has several important limitations that inform the interpretation of its findings and suggest directions for future research. First, the study is framed as a qualitative case study focused specifically on Missouri-based consumers. While this localized focus provides valuable contextual depth on an underexplored topic, it significantly limits the generalizability of results beyond this region. The sample consisted of 15 participants recruited exclusively from local farmers’ markets, an approach suitable for exploratory qualitative research. However, the small sample size and single recruitment channel may have introduced selection bias by attracting individuals already predisposed toward ethical or sustainable food choices. As such, the perspectives captured here may not reflect the broader spectrum of consumer attitudes, either within Missouri or nationally.

Second, the study does not include other key stakeholders such as restaurant operators or minority farmers. By focusing solely on consumer perceptions, the research presents a one-sided understanding of the trust dynamics and ethical considerations at play in sustainable restaurant sourcing. A more comprehensive, multi-stakeholder approach could offer richer insights into the supply chain relationships, communication challenges, and operational constraints that shape sourcing practices.

Third, the study’s regional and cultural context should be recognized as a constraint. Consumer attitudes toward green dining and equity-based sourcing may vary significantly across geographic, economic, or policy contexts. The Missouri setting provides cultural relevance and depth, but limits transferability to areas with different demographic or socio-political characteristics. Comparative studies across diverse U.S. regions, or even internationally, would help identify whether the themes identified here are broadly applicable or regionally specific.

Finally, this research is methodologically limited by its exclusive reliance on qualitative data. While in-depth interviews allow for nuanced exploration of beliefs and motivations, the absence of a quantitative component restricts the ability to test relationships between variables or to generalize findings statistically. A mixed-methods design in future research would allow for triangulation of qualitative insights with survey-based or experimental data, providing both depth and breadth in understanding consumer trust and perceptions of ethical sourcing in the hospitality context.