Next Article in Journal
Ecological Product Value Realization in Agricultural Heritage System Sites: A Case Study of Wannian Rice Culture System in China
Previous Article in Journal
An Analysis of the Relationship Between ESG Activities and the Financial Performance of Japanese Companies Toward Sustainable Development
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Italian Consumer Willingness to Pay for Agri-Food Sustainable Certification Labels: The Role of Sociodemographic Factors

1
Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
2
Department of Business and Law, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
3
Santa Chiara Lab, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 6792; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156792
Submission received: 12 June 2025 / Revised: 17 July 2025 / Accepted: 21 July 2025 / Published: 25 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability of Local Agri-Food Systems)

Abstract

Studying consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for sustainable certification labels and preferences in consumption is a relevant issue for policymakers. Several studies have revealed a positive WTP a premium price for many certified products. The aim of this paper is to assess an overview of Italian consumers’ WTP for eight different sustainable certification labels and to collect information about their consumption preferences and perceptions in consumption. Participants were selected by stratified simple random sampling, using regional distribution, gender, and age as stratification criteria, to obtain a representative sample of n = 3600. Eight ordered logit models were estimated to understand how consumer sociodemographic characteristics influence the price premium. The results show important differences in WTP among different certification labels; a higher WTP emerged for ethical certifications than for environmentally focused labels. Younger individuals; women; and those with higher education, income and life satisfaction, as well as consumers in southern regions, were significantly more willing to pay premiums for certified products. However, a key finding for policymakers is that the stated price premium consumers are willing to pay falls significantly short of the actual higher costs of these products in supermarkets. Furthermore, insights into consumer perceptions and preferences revealed that quality and origin are perceived as key price drivers, while method of production holds less importance. It also emerged that consumers primarily seek a balance between quality and price, with only a small segment prioritizing certified products.

1. Introduction

Understanding consumer behavior in response to sustainable attributes of agri-food products has become increasingly critical in promoting environmentally responsible and socially equitable food systems. As global awareness of environmental degradation and ethical concerns about food production intensify, sustainability certifications have emerged as key tools for guiding consumer choices and incentivizing responsible practices throughout the supply chain [1]. However, a challenge remains; sustainable products are often perceived as more expensive [2], which raises essential questions about consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for certified attributes.
Willingness to pay, defined as the maximum price premium an individual is prepared to pay for a specific product characteristic, is a valuable indicator of consumer preferences and market demand. Exploring WTP in relation to sustainability certifications allows a deeper understanding of how ethical, environmental and quality considerations are combined in purchasing decisions [3,4]. Moreover, analyzing how sociodemographic variables influence WTP provides insight into the heterogeneity of consumer behavior [5,6,7], offering strategic guidance for policymakers and industry stakeholders.
This study addresses these issues by empirically investigating Italian consumers’ WTP for a diverse set of eight sustainability-related certifications. The literature has explored WTP for individual certification types [8,9,10,11,12], whereas comprehensive assessments across multiple certifications in a nationally representative sample remain scarce. Our contribution is threefold. First, we quantify the declared WTP premium for a range of certifications encompassing environmental, ethical and local attributes. Second, we assess how sociodemographic traits, such as age, gender, education, income, and regional residence, affect WTP. Third, we examine how economic hardship, life satisfaction and purchasing perceptions further condition these behaviors.
Using an ordered logit modelling approach, a method also used by ref. [6,13,14], on a robust dataset collected from over 2900 Italian consumers, we not only provide granular insights into how sustainable food attributes are valued but also uncover major socioeconomic disparities in sustainable consumption. The findings are of practical relevance for promoting equitable access to sustainable food and for designing targeted communication and policy interventions that align consumer values with sustainability goals.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 reviews the state of the art. Section 3 provides a description of the questionnaire, the sample and the statistical method. Section 4 presents and discusses all the results. Section 5 draws conclusions.

2. Review of the Literature

Ref. [15] review methods for measuring WTP. The methods developed for this purpose can be divided into those based on revealed preferences (market data and experiments) and others based on stated preferences (direct and indirect consumer surveys). For revealed preferences, the most common type of experiments are auctions; for example, ref. [16] investigated the use of multi-unit auctions for measuring WTP food products. For stated preferences, ref. [17] estimated consumer preferences and consumer WTP by indirect survey, whereas ref. [18] investigated consumer WTP for environmentally friendly products by direct survey. Many studies indicate that consumers are generally willing to pay a premium for products with sustainable attributes. For instance, ref. [19] conducted a meta-analysis of 80 worldwide studies and found that consumers show a positive WTP for various sustainable food attributes, including organic production, animal welfare and fair trade practices. They also found that hypothetical methods (choice experiments and contingent valuation) produced higher WTP estimates than non-hypothetical ones. In Italy, ref. [20] conducted several studies that examined and demonstrated consumer WTP a premium for products with quality and sustainability certifications. Ref. [21] explored consumer attitudes to local and organic products, highlighting the influence of personality traits on purchasing preferences. Their findings indicate that while consumers are willing to pay more for organic and local products, the former attribute tends to command a higher premium than the latter. Other studies have focused on environmental certifications. Ref. [22] examined Italian consumers’ WTP for carbon footprint certifications, exploring the way these labels impact purchasing decisions and perceived product value. They indicate that consumers who perceive low-carbon-footprint (CF) products as an effective way to mitigate climate change were more inclined to pay a premium. Conversely, price-sensitive consumers demonstrated a lower WTP for CF-labelled products, suggesting that cost remains a significant barrier to adoption. The relationship between consumer WTP and corporate social responsibility (CSR) certifications has also been widely studied in the literature. For example, ref. [23,24] explored how consumers value CSR certifications in their purchasing choices. The former demonstrated the willingness of consumers to reward ethical companies and the latter the capacity of certifications to contribute to value creation. Ref. [25] investigated fair trade certification and found that consumers perceived it positively, demonstrating WTP a premium for certified products. This premium increased when consumers received additional information about the fair trade system. The topic of fair trade purchases has also been addressed by ref. [26,27,28]. Ref. [29] analyzed the correlation between potential WTP a premium price for products made in Italy and consumer sample characteristics. They found that higher education levels among consumers were positively correlated with WTP for these products, indicating that more educated individuals tend to make sustainable food choices aligned with a sustainable lifestyle.
Further research has analyzed WTP in specific sectors. In the seafood sector, studies by ref. [30,31,32,33] explored consumer valuations of certifications. The dairy industry has also been examined, with research by ref. [34,35,36,37] assessing consumer readiness to pay a premium for certified products. Similarly, studies by ref. [38,39,40,41] have focused on the wine sector, and finally ref. [42] focused on the olive oil sector. According to ref. [43], in the beef industry, consumer WTP and preferences are significantly greater when information about animal welfare is provided. Studies have also explored the impact of labelling on consumer WTP. Research by ref. [44] on Italian consumer preferences for the Quality Agricultural Work (QAW) label in the fruit sector indicated a positive WTP for socially sustainable products.
To explore the drivers of consumers’ inclination to spend more for food products with sustainable certifications, researchers have used ordered logistic regression models. Several studies have specifically employed ordered logit or ordered probit models to estimate WTP for sustainable and high-quality food products. For instance, ref. [45] used an ordered probit model to examine whether millennials were willing to pay more for sustainable wines, finding a positive WTP among this consumer group. Similarly, ref. [13] used an ordered logit model to estimate WTP for natural wine and found a significant WTP a premium. In another study, ref. [14] estimated WTP for low-fat salami using an ordered logit model, identifying key sociodemographic factors influencing WTP. Their results indicate that men, individuals with higher monthly incomes and those who engage in regular sporting activity were more willing to pay a premium for this product. Ref. [46] used an ordered logit model to assess WTP for environmental protection, finding that WTP for environmental sustainability increased in Italian regions with high production in polluting sectors. This suggests that exposure to pollution may heighten consumer awareness and concern for environmental issues. Ref. [6] used an ordinal logit model to assess the WTP for organic wine, finding that consumers who consume wine less frequently and young people (under 50 years) had a higher propensity to pay for sustainable and organic wines. Conversely, consumers who place a greater emphasis on price showed reduced WTP. Finally, ref. [47] employed an ordered logit model and found that consumers particularly sensitive to environmental and quality issues were willing to pay a premium for organic wines without sulphite additives. All of these studies highlight the importance of consumers’ sociodemographic traits and their environmental and quality considerations in determining WTP.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. The Questionnaire

We used a direct sample survey focused on a hypothetical experiment in order to investigate the sociodemographic traits influencing consumer WTP a premium price for food products and to measure the magnitude of WTP. The survey questionnaire (see Table A1 in Appendix A) consisted of several sections but in the present work we only focused on sociodemographic characteristics, economic hardship, life satisfaction, declared WTP for sustainable certifications and consumer purchasing perceptions. The sociodemographic section collected information on respondents’ gender, age, region of residence, education level, household size, income level and occupation. We also explored whether financial difficulties in the preceding year had forced respondents’ families to reduce food consumption or to opt for a less healthy and varied diet. To evaluate consumer WTP for sustainability-related certifications, respondents were asked to indicate the additional amount they would pay for food products featuring specific certifications. Since the concept of sustainability covers different attributes, we based our selection on the validated framework of ref. [48], which considers the following sustainability dimensions: animal welfare, environmental welfare, ethical concerns, local production and seasonal attributes. Accordingly, we assessed the WTP of consumers for eight common food certifications, each reflecting a different aspect of sustainability: organic certification, representing consumer preference for products grown without synthetic inputs, pesticides or chemical fertilizers, thereby reducing environmental pollution and promoting biodiversity; zero impact certification, focusing on carbon-neutral or environmentally neutral production processes that aim to mitigate climate change by minimizing CO2 emissions; KM0 certification, indicating locally produced food that reduces transport emissions and supports local economies, thereby decreasing the environmental footprint of food distribution; declared agriculture 4.0 certification, emphasizing advanced technologies and traceability in agricultural practices, improving efficiency while reducing waste of resources and environmental degradation; animal rights certification, addressing ethical concerns related to humane treatment and living conditions of animals, in line with increasing consumer awareness of ethical food production; labor law compliance certification, ensuring that workers involved in the food supply chain are treated fairly, paid appropriately and work under safe conditions, reinforcing social sustainability; 100% recyclable packaging certification, reflecting consumer interest in minimizing waste by promoting sustainable packaging and reducing the use of plastic; sustainable product certification, representing broad commitment to environmental and social responsibility, and incorporating different sustainability aspects into one label.
To further understand purchasing behavior, we investigated consumer perceptions of price differences in food products, asking them to score which of the following factors most affected prices: product origin, store type, promotions, quality and production methods. Since health and environmental concerns often drive consumer choices, we were particularly interested in whether respondents perceived product origin and quality as key determinants of price variation. Finally, we investigated participants’ purchasing priorities by examining whether they placed greater emphasis on food safety (health), official certification, a balance between quality and price or cheap bulk buying. The questionnaire was developed and tested in a preliminary pilot study [49], an initial non-probabilistic survey that provided valuable insights into response rates, question relevance and necessary modifications, ensuring that the final version was clear, effective and aligned with the research objectives.

3.2. Sample

Cross-sectional data were collected from a representative sample of 3600 consumers in Italy in 2024 using a CATI (computer-assisted telephone interviewing) survey. The CATI approach was chosen because it guaranteed us stronger control on sample distribution and a higher response rate compared to other approaches such as web surveys. Participants were selected by stratified simple random sampling, using regional distribution, gender and age as stratification criteria. As in all surveys, responses are influenced by human factors and non-responses are not missing-at-random. In order to consider these aspects and to compensate for bias introduced in the estimates by non-response, we constructed sample weights that post-stratify and calibrate the distribution of the sample to the original population distribution. All data analyses used these weights.
As it can be seen in Table 1, the final sample comprised 51.8% females and 48.2% males, categorized in three age groups representative of the Italian population: 33% aged 18–44 years, 38% aged 45–64 and 29% aged 65 and over. All 21 Italian regions were represented, and the regional distributions reflected national population statistics. The final results were weighted so that the sample distribution reflected national ones. For analytical purposes, we divided the sample into three Italian macro-regions—south and islands, center and north, with 33%, 19.9% and 46.4% of the population, respectively. The median household size was two members. Household composition may influence purchasing behavior, as larger households often have different consumption patterns and budget constraints than smaller ones. Regarding household income, 42% of respondents reported an annual income below €25,000, 38.8% between €25,000 and €44,000, 13.8% between €44,001 and €69,000 and 5.4% above €69,000. Regarding occupation, 54.5% of respondents were working, 12.1% self-employed and 39.4% salaried, while the remaining 48.5% were either students at 3.4%, retirees at 29.4%, job seekers at 3.6% and housewives or househusbands at 11.3%. These are the key sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. The next section deals with the descriptive statistics of the survey variables.

3.3. Statistical Model

We developed an econometric model that estimates an order logit model to determine whether consumers are willing to pay a premium for certain sustainable attributes, according to the research cited in Section 2. We used the order logit model to detect social characteristics that positively or negatively influence consumer WTP more for a specific attribute.
The general model estimated the WTP in relation to sociodemographic traits, life satisfaction and economic hardship. Eight different models were estimated, one for each of the specific certification labels described in the previous section. The response variable yi, where i is a single respondent, is discrete and has five categories (j = 0, …, 4). A response indicating that a consumer is not going to pay more for a product with that certification label is coded 0, a response indicating intention to pay 5–10% more is coded 1, 10–20% more is coded 2, 20–50% more is coded 3 and up to 100% more is coded 4. The ordinal logistic regression model was parametrized as a cumulative logit model with proportional odds logit(P(Yj)) = l o g P ( Y j ) 1 P ( Y < j ) = β0 + β1x1 + … + βkxk [50,51].
In ordinal logit models, besides the coefficients of the explanatory variables, a set of parameters known as cut-points (or thresholds), denoted CUTj, are also estimated. These cut-points define the boundaries between the categories of the observed response variable (yi), under the assumption of an underlying continuous latent variable. The logistic function connects this latent variable with the cumulative probabilities of the observed categories. In practice, the cut-points are the parameters of the model that determine the intervals of the latent variable that correspond to the observed categories. For example, if the latent variable is less than CUT1, the response falls in the first category; if it lies between CUT1 and CUT2, it falls in the second category, and so on. In our models, CUT1 separated category 0% from 5–10%, CUT2 category 5–10% from 10–20%, CUT3 category 10–20% from 20–50% and CUT4 category 20–50% from 100%. Although cut-points are essential for estimating the model, they are generally considered nuisance parameters, as they do not carry a direct substantive interpretation of the phenomenon under study [52].
The coefficient vector β was estimated with R software, version 4.1.3, which exploits maximum likelihood techniques. The coefficient αj is the intercept for ordinal category j and coefficient βk can be interpreted as the change in the conditional mean of y given a change in regressor xk, except for log income, which is an estimated unit change in the dependent variable for a percentage change in log income variable. Odds ratios (ORs) were also calculated by assessing how the probability of the dependent variable shifts with a one unit change in the explanatory variable. An OR of 1 indicates no impact on the dependent variable. When all other explanatory variables remain constant, the further the OR deviates from 1, the stronger its influence on the dependent variable.
The predicted probabilities were also computed in R. The predicted probability is a value between 0 and 1 that represents the likelihood of a specific outcome occurring, based on the model’s predictions. In an ordinal logit model, it is assumed that the observed categories of the response variable are driven by an underlying continuous latent variable that cannot be observed directly. Each category corresponds to a specific range of this latent variable. For each observation, the probability of belonging to a given category is determined by taking the difference between the values of the cumulative distribution function (CDF) at the upper and lower cut-points. To facilitate interpretation, all predictor variables are fixed at their mean values. This provides a baseline scenario representing an average observation in the dataset, which is particularly useful for continuous predictors. According to ref. [53], standardizing predictions in this way enhances clarity and comparability. It also reduces the influence of extreme or atypical observations, offering a clearer representation of the relationship between predictors and outcomes. However, as ref. [54] cautioned in his foundational work on ordinal regression models, the choice of predictor values, such as the mean, must be made carefully, particularly when dealing with skewed distributions or categorical variables, where the mean may not represent a meaningful scenario. If these well-established practices for ordinal regression are followed, the method provides a robust framework for interpreting model relationships and presenting them in a clear, standardized manner.

4. Results and Discussion

All results were weighted using weights designed specifically to reflect the Italian population at regional level and across age groups. The initial sample consisted of 3605 observations; after data cleaning, a final sample of 2978 observations was used to construct the models.

4.1. Descriptive Results

From Table 2, approximately 20% of Italian respondents reported that they had to reduce their food consumption or opt for a less healthy and balanced diet due to financial constraints in the previous year. Regional disparities emerged; in the south and islands, this percentage rose to 26%, while in the north, it was about 18%. These findings are consistent with existing socioeconomic disparities across Italy, where the southern regions tend to experience higher levels of economic hardship. Considering age differences, respondents under 45 reported slightly lower food insecurity rates, with fewer than 20% experiencing such difficulties, possibly reflecting the fact that younger Italians depend more on family support.
Reducing food consumption and opting for a less healthy and balanced diet were highly correlated (r = 0.67, Spearman correlation, see Table 6), as expected, indicating that families facing one of these issues are likely to experience the other as well. Of course, this does not mean that all affected families face both difficulties simultaneously. Households may prioritize maintaining food quantity or quality, based on their preferences and needs. Some may choose to reduce portion sizes while maintaining a diverse and nutritious diet, while others may prioritize sufficient food intake at the expense of variety and nutritional value. This distinction could be influenced by cultural food preferences, health considerations or household composition, including for children or elderly members.
Life satisfaction was generally high, with a median score of 8 out of 10 and a mean score of 7.5. The coefficient of variation was 0.24, indicating low variability with respect to the mean. However, 5.1% of respondents reported low life satisfaction (i.e., below 5) and 14.8% of respondents scored only 5 or 6. Age played a crucial role in perceived life satisfaction. Among those under 45 years of age, 61% rated their satisfaction as 7 or 8, compared to 50% of those over 65 years of age. Conversely, 29% of those over 65 years rated their life satisfaction as 9 or 10, compared to 21% of younger respondents. Respondents in the 45–64 years group scored intermediate values. This trend indicates that life satisfaction increases with age, possibly due to factors such as greater economic stability, lower stress levels and different life priorities among older individuals.
Table 3 shows the distribution of respondents’ WTP premiums for various sustainability-related product attributes and certifications. The data are segmented into six WTP more categories: 0%, 5–10%, 10–20%, 20–50%, up to 100% and “do not know/NA.” The cut-off points of the previous categories were selected to reflect realistic consumer behavior and to maximize the discriminatory power of the data. Lower increments (5–10%, 10–20%) capture the most common and acceptable price premiums for everyday food items, while broader ranges (20–50%, up to 100%) allow for the identification of consumers with significantly higher WTP. This range structure encompasses thresholds both below and above the average WTP premium of 29.5% reported by ref. [19]) in their meta-analysis of sustainability labels, ensuring that the full distribution of consumer willingness to pay is well represented. Moreover, ref. [55,56] used the same scale as us, with finer segmentation between 0% and 5%, in two cross-country studies on sustainable pork production.
Overall, the majority of respondents indicated moderate willingness to pay more, with the 5–10% range being the most frequently selected category across most certifications. For instance, the KM0 certification and sustainable products attributes showed the highest share in this range (36.9%), indicating consumer preference for locally sourced and environmentally responsible products. Conversely, certifications such as Declared Agriculture 4.0 had a significantly higher share of respondents indicating no willingness to pay more (32.6%) and a notably high rate of uncertainty or lack of awareness (23.5% checked do not know/NA), suggesting limited public understanding of the item or its perceived value. Certifications related to ethical considerations, such as animal rights and labor law compliance, also showed a relatively even distribution across the 5–10%, 10–20% and 20–50% categories, indicating a subset of consumers willing to pay moderately higher premiums for ethical assurance. Conversely, the 100% Recyclable Packaging certification showed weak support, with 33.0% of respondents being unwilling to pay more and a substantial 35.9% willing to pay only up to 5–10% more.
These findings underscore that while many consumers were open to paying a premium for sustainability-related product features, the level of that premium varied with each attribute, presumably influenced by perceived value, trust and awareness. Attributes with less consumer familiarity, such as Agriculture 4.0, may benefit from targeted information campaigns to raise awareness and justify a rise in price.
These results highlight a significant gap between consumer WTP and the actual price premiums associated with sustainable food products. This discrepancy suggests that price sensitivity remains a major barrier to purchasing sustainably certified goods. Big regional and age-related differences also emerged. WTP was highest in the south, lower in the center and lowest in the north. One possible explanation is that food prices tend to be lower in the south, making price premiums for sustainability more acceptable. However, further investigation is needed to verify this hypothesis. Age was also an influential factor, with younger respondents reporting a higher WTP than older age groups. This trend may reflect greater environmental awareness among younger generations and more concern about the future. Such insights emphasize the need for stronger consumer education and targeted awareness campaigns, particularly aimed at older consumers, to promote sustainable consumption more effectively.
Understanding how consumers perceive food prices and make purchasing decisions provides valuable insight into their WTP for sustainability certifications. The results showed that price sensitivity remains a strong factor in consumer choices, with differences emerging across age groups and geographical regions.
When asked the reasons for food price differences (Table 4), a majority of respondents (44.1%) identified quality as the most important factor. This association stems from the common belief that higher prices reflect superior taste, nutritional value and food safety. Younger consumers tend to emphasize quality more than older ones, presumably due to greater exposure to premium food branding and health-oriented product marketing. The second most cited factor was product origin at 30.6%, although it was considered significantly less important by those aged over 65 years, at 24.9%. This suggests that older consumers are less concerned about supporting local producers or mitigating the cost implications of imported goods. Promotions were identified as relevant by 25.4% of respondents, with older consumers (30.2%) being more likely than younger (21.7%) to consider them important. This may reflect greater price sensitivity among the elderly, many of whom live on fixed pensions and have more time to search for specials. As such, they tend to prioritize cost savings over sustainability-oriented attributes, indicating a generational divergence in purchasing motivations. Regional differences were also detected. For instance, the type of retail outlet was more frequently cited as a price determinant in the north (26.1%) than in the south (20.4%). This may reflect the broader presence of large supermarket chains in the north, in contrast to more stable, localized pricing in southern retail formats.
Production method was another influential factor, particularly among younger consumers (26.4%), supporting the notion that this demographic group has a higher WTP for products with sustainability certifications. Older respondents appeared less concerned with how food is produced, possibly due to long-standing trust in traditional farming and food production techniques.
Finally, a small proportion (3.4%) cited other factors, while 4.4% of all respondents were unable to specify any reason; this figure rose to 6.9% among those ages over 65 years, indicating slightly lower engagement in price reasoning in this group.
While production method emerged as an influential factor, particularly among younger consumers, its perceived role as a price determinant appears secondary to the more familiar and directly experienced attributes of quality and origin. This suggests that for the majority of consumers, the immediate and tangible benefits associated with quality (e.g., superior taste, nutritional value) and the trust and authenticity signaled by origin remain the most salient price drivers. These factors may implicitly encompass, or even outweigh, the more abstract and less directly observable benefits of specific production practices. The observed hierarchy of value attribution highlights a nuanced consumer decision-making process in the food sector, where sensorial and cultural familiarity take precedence over ethical or technical characteristics. This highlights the importance for policy makers and producers to communicate production-related sustainability in ways that resonate more directly with consumers’ existing value frameworks, such as linking production methods to taste, health and territorial identity.
The data on purchasing behavior (Table 5) confirmed that balancing quality and price was the primary concern for Italian consumers, with more than half of the sample selecting this option. This reflects a nuanced consumer mindset; price matters but not at the expense of perceived quality. This trend was accentuated among older consumers (57.3%) and in Northern Italy (54.2%), where higher living costs may drive a more pragmatic approach to food purchasing.
Only 11.4% of the sample reported being willing to pay more for certified products, reinforcing the idea that certification alone is not a strong motivational factor. In contrast, nearly 29% indicated a willingness to pay more for safe and healthy products, a behavior particularly evident among younger consumers (33.4%) and residents of the central regions (32.3%). This may reflect greater health awareness and higher purchasing power in these groups. Despite evident price sensitivity, few consumers (6.2%) favored bulk buying to save money. This suggests a cultural preference for freshness and quality, consistent with Italy’s culinary traditions and frequent shopping habits centered on fresh ingredients. Slightly higher levels of non-response (3.4%) among older consumers pointed to marginally lower levels of conscious decision-making, although overall engagement across all demographics remained high. These findings indicate that sustainability certifications alone do not significantly drive consumer purchasing behavior. Instead, attributes such as quality, health benefits and price are much more influential. Generational differences are evident, with younger consumers demonstrating greater openness to health and sustainability, while older consumers remained more influenced by price promotions and familiar shopping environments. Regional differences further discriminated purchasing priorities. In the northern regions, consumers focused more on balancing quality and affordability, while in the central regions, there was a stronger WTP for health-related benefits. These variations underscore the need for targeted communication strategies. To make certified sustainable products more appealing, marketing and policy interventions should strengthen the connection between sustainability, health and food quality. Emphasizing how sustainable choices contribute to personal wellbeing could bridge the current communication gap and expand consumer engagement across age and regional groups.

4.2. Econometric Model Results

Eight ordered logit models were applied, using the WTP for each of the eight certifications as dependent variables. This approach allowed us to assess the influence and significance of sociodemographic characteristics, attitudes, behaviors and consumption preferences on respondents’ WTP. It also showed differences in the relative importance of specific variables across various sustainability attributes. Regarding the variables included in the model, in order to avoid the dummy variables trap, we excluded the reference categories middle-age and center, as they represented the central values of their respective categorical variables. Gender was coded 1 for females and 0 for males. Education was measured in years of schooling. Nrelatives was the number of household members. Life satisfaction was coded from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest). Occupation was coded 1 for employed and self-employed individuals and 0 for students, retirees, the unemployed and housewives and househusbands. Less healthy diet was coded 1 if the respondent reported reducing consumption of healthy food “often” or “sometimes” and 0 if “never”. Logincome was the logarithm of the average of the midpoint of each income class. For the open-ended top category (income above 69,000), the average value of 85,000 was used, and the logarithm was taken accordingly.
Multicollinearity was not a significant issue, with the Spearman correlation coefficients between variables generally being low (Table 6). However, the variables less healthy diet and less food showed a high correlation. To mitigate multicollinearity, we excluded less food from the models. We further assessed multicollinearity using the variance inflation factor (VIF) for each model. VIF is a measure used to detect multicollinearity among explanatory variables. It is calculated as VIF = 1 1 R 2 for each independent variable in a model. A VIF below 10 is typically considered acceptable [57], while a VIF of 1 indicates orthogonality with other variables [58]. In all eight models, VIF values ranged between 1 and 2, confirming the absence of serious multicollinearity concerns.
Table 6. Spearman pairwise correlations.
Table 6. Spearman pairwise correlations.
VariablesYngEldEducGenNRelSthNrthLifeSatLgIncOccLHDLF
Yng1.00
Eld−0.451.00
Educ0.23−0.271.00
Gen0.02−0.01−0.061.00
NRel0.15−0.320.090.031.00
Sth0.07−0.070.020.050.131.00
Nrth−0.070.07−0.04−0.04−0.10−0.651.00
LifeSat0.010.030.060.000.07−0.020.011.00
LgInc0.10−0.170.42−0.170.21−0.130.080.181.00
Occ0.36−0.630.37−0.140.190.00−0.010.040.291.00
LHD−0.030.00−0.210.040.010.05−0.07−0.24−0.25−0.101.00
LF−0.030.01−0.180.080.010.08−0.07−0.20−0.24−0.110.671.00
Note: See Table A2 in Appendix A for abbreviations.
Table 7 shows the results of the model, significance levels and goodness-of-fit values for each of the eleven independent variables. The four threshold parameters (cut-points) used in the ordered logit specification are also reported.
Due to missing values (NAs), the numbers of observations differed slightly across models. The results (Table 7) revealed consistent and statistically significant patterns.
First, it emerged that age was a strong determinant of WTP. Younger individuals showed significantly higher WTP across all eight certifications, as shown by positive and highly significant coefficients. In contrast, older individuals were generally less willing to pay. Notably, the elders coefficient was not statistically significant for ecofriendly packaging and zero CO2 certifications, suggesting that environmental concerns may be more uniformly shared among older age groups for these specific attributes. Education had a consistently positive and significant effect on WTP across nearly all models, reinforcing the link between educational attainment and pro-sustainability attitudes. The only exception was the labor law compliance certification, where the effect was marginally significant (p < 0.1), suggesting that education may play a more limited role in this specific domain. Gender was also a significant factor for nearly all attributes, with females showing a higher WTP than males for most certifications, with coefficients significant at 1% level. Exceptions were organic and KM0 certifications, for which the gender effect was not significant, suggesting uniform appeal across genders. The number of household members variable did not show a consistent effect on WTP, as the coefficients were mostly not significant across all models. This may reflect the complexity of financial dynamics in Italian households, where young adults often live at home longer and may contribute to household income, offsetting the cost burden typically associated with larger households. Regional differences also emerged. Consumers from the south showed a significantly higher WTP than those from the centre, while differences between the north and centre were generally not significant. A strong and statistically significant positive association was observed between greater life satisfaction and WTP across all models. This suggests a link between personal well-being and concern for sustainability, possibly reflecting broader life attitudes. Income was positively and significantly associated with WTP in all models. This was expected, as individuals with higher incomes are more likely to afford and prioritize sustainable product choices. Workers showed consistently lower WTP across several certifications, particularly zero CO2, animal welfare, ecofriendly packaging and labor compliance. This may reflect time constraints or differing priorities among people who work. Finally, individuals who reduced their consumption of healthy food for economic reasons tended to show significantly lower WTP. These findings underscore the way economic limitations can constrain sustainable consumption, even among individuals who may otherwise be inclined to such choices.
In summary, the results indicate that being young, female, educated and well-off are all factors positively associated with WTP for sustainability certifications. Conversely, economic constraints, expressed as lower income or reduced food quality, significantly limit WTP. These findings underscore the importance of demographic, socioeconomic and behavioral factors in shaping consumer demand for sustainable products.
Table 8 shows the predicted probabilities of WTP across five expenditure categories for each sustainability certification. These probabilities are derived from the estimated coefficients and threshold parameters of the ordered logit models and represent the expected distribution of responses in the population.
Although the predicted probabilities are very similar to the observed relative frequencies, their inclusion is justified, as they are derived from the model’s estimated coefficients and thresholds. This ensures that the results reflect the relationships between predictors and outcomes, rather than merely describing the sample. Additionally, predicted probabilities allow generalization beyond the observed data and validate the model’s ability to accurately represent the underlying distribution.

5. Conclusions, Implications, Limitations and Future Research

This study examined Italian consumer WTP for sustainability certification labels on generic food products, contributing to the literature on ethical consumption and sustainable food economics. By ordered logit models on survey data, we explored the determinants of WTP and the relative appeal of various certification types.
The findings indicate that ethical certifications, particularly those focused on labor law compliance and animal welfare, were associated with higher WTP than environmentally focused labels. KM0 certifications also showed strong consumer support, presumably due to deep-rooted cultural preferences for local food. Our findings align with recent Italian studies comparing WTP across different certification attributes. Ref. [44] showed that ethical labels linked to labor conditions (QAW) double Italian consumers’ WTP after information treatment, surpassing organic premiums. Similarly, a factorial experiment of ref. [59] found that fair labor certification elicited the highest WTP (€4.36), compared to country-of-origin (€2.87) and organic (€2.24) labels. Finally, ref. [60] findings in the context of extra-virgin olive oil that organic and PDO/PGI labels (origin labels) generated higher premiums than carbon footprint labels in the Italian sample. Together, these results corroborate our conclusion that ethical certifications and origin-related certifications (i.e., KM0) are perceived as more valuable than purely environmental labels in the Italian consumer market. Demographic factors played a central role. Younger consumers, women, persons with higher education and those with a higher income and life satisfaction were significantly more likely to pay premiums for certified products. Regional disparities were also notable, with southern consumers expressing higher WTP than their central and northern counterparts, possibly reflecting regional cultural or economic factors. Our results regarding demographic and regional disparities align with previous studies. For instance, ref. [61] found that age and wine knowledge significantly influence WTP for sustainable wine in Italy, with younger, more informed consumers shown a higher WTP. ref. [6] also found that young people (under 50 years) had a higher propensity to pay for sustainable and organic wines. Ref. [62] study on eco-labeled seafood across Northern and Southern Italy showed that women consistently exhibited higher WTP than men. In addition, ref. [63]) found that Italian consumers with higher education and income levels exhibited a significantly greater willingness to pay for animal-welfare-labelled meat, reinforcing our findings that ethical certifications attract higher premiums and that education and income positively influence WTP.
The different north–south pattern warrants a deeper exploration of contributing factors, encompassing both economic considerations and deeply ingrained cultural traditions. Economically, our initial hypothesis suggested that potentially lower food prices in the south might render price premiums for sustainability more acceptable. Supporting this, ref. [64] indicated that average food expenditure is about 20% lower in Southern Italy compared to the north. This aligns with the idea that consumers in regions with lower overall living costs may perceive a given price premium as less burdensome on their household budget. However, beyond economic factors, the distinctive cultural traditions surrounding food in Italy likely play a significant role. Although studies specifically addressing these traditions are limited, our research reveals a disparity in sustainability attitudes between Northern and Southern Italy. The analysis of our data indicates that consumers in the south are more inclined to shop at local stores and neighborhood markets and less inclined to shop at hypermarkets and supermarkets, as compared to consumers in the center and north. These findings suggest that cultural differences may indeed influence such consumer behaviors.
These insights suggest several policy implications. To enhance the adoption of sustainable certifications, communication strategies should go beyond environmental framing and highlight ethical, social and health benefits. Given the financial barriers some consumers face, especially those with lower income or who restrict their diet to save money, policies such as subsidies, tiered pricing or financial incentives could help improve access and equity in sustainable food markets. For instance, regionally differentiated subsidies could be introduced, with higher support levels in Northern Italy, where products tend to be more expensive and consumers declared the lowest WTP. Similarly, targeted awareness policies for elderly consumers, who exhibit lower WTP and lower interest for certified products, may help address generational gaps in sustainable food engagement. These targeted approaches would allow public resources to be allocated more efficiently while supporting the broader transition toward sustainable consumption.
The limitations of the study include the fact that our WTP estimates were derived from a hypothetical contingent valuation approach, which is prone to biases such as social desirability and hypothetical market effects ref. [65]. While this method allowed us to explore preferences in a controlled setting, it may have overstated true WTP, as also noted in some meta-analyses (e.g., [19]). Despite this, our estimated WTP remained below actual market premiums for certified goods, reinforcing the need for affordability-enhancing policies. Furthermore, although these biases may affect absolute values, the relative differences across sociodemographic groups are presumably robust.
Future research is essential to assess the implementation and effectiveness of sustainability policies. We plan to conduct follow-up surveys and develop a rotating panel survey to track changes in WTP and consumer perceptions over time. We shall also incorporate advanced econometric models, such as structural equation models (SEMs), which are often used in WTP studies. In the present preliminary study, we constructed an ordered logit model to examine differences in the Italian population.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.B. and F.G.; methodology, L.B. and F.G.; software, L.B.; validation, F.G.; formal analysis, A.R.; writing—original draft preparation, L.B. and F.G.; writing—review and editing, G.B., F.G. and L.B.; supervision, A.R.; funding acquisition, A.R. and C.T.; project administration, C.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

European Union Next-GenerationEU (PIANO NAZIONALE DI RIPRESA E RESILIENZA (PNRR)—MISSIONE 4 COMPONENTE 2, INVESTIMENTO 1.4—D.D. 1032 17/06/2022, CN00000022). This study was conducted in the Agritech National Research Center and received funding from the European Union Next-GenerationEU (PIANO NAZIONALE DI RIPRESA E RESILIENZA (PNRR)—MISSIONE 4 COMPONENTE 2, INVESTIMENTO 1.4—D.D. 1032 17/06/2022, CN00000022). This manuscript reflects solely the authors’ views and opinions, not the positions of the European Union or the European Commission.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. The questionnaire.
Table A1. The questionnaire.
Section 1 Sociodemographic Traits
GenderWoman
Man
I identify as non-binary
Prefer not to answer
Age_____________
Region______ (Select an Italian region)
Education levelLower secondary school
Upper secondary school
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Postgraduate
How many people belong permanently to your household, including yourself?______
Indicate your family’s annual net income bracket.Less than 25,000
25,000–44,000
45,000–64,000
Over 65,000
What is your profession?Student
Employee
Self-employed
Retired
Job seeker
Housewife/househusband
Other
In the last 12 months, has your family had to reduce the amount of food served at meals for economic reasons?Never
Sometimes
Often
Not applicable, someone else covers the expenses
In the last 12 months, has your family had to give up a healthy and varied diet for economic reasons?Never
Sometimes
Often
Not applicable, someone else covers the expenses
Overall, how satisfied are you with your life?From 0—not at all satisfied to 10—completely satisfied
Section 2 WTP for certifications
How much more would you be willing to pay, compared to other similar items, for food that is certified organic?I am not willing to pay more
5–10% more
10–20% more
20–50% more
Up to 100% more (double the price)
How much more would you be willing to pay, compared to other similar items, for food that is certified zero impact, i.e., zero CO2 emissions?I am not willing to pay more
5–10% more
10–20% more
20–50% more
Up to 100% more (double the price)
How much more would you be willing to pay, compared to other similar items, for food that is certified local (KM0)?I am not willing to pay more
5–10% more
10–20% more
20–50% more
Up to 100% more (double the price)
How much more would you be willing to pay, compared to other similar items, for food that is declared by the producer to be a 4.0 agriculture product?I am not willing to pay more
5–10% more
10–20% more
20–50% more
Up to 100% more (double the price)
How much more would you be willing to pay, compared to other similar items, for food that is certified as being produced without causing suffering to animals?I am not willing to pay more
5–10% more
10–20% more
20–50% more
Up to 100% more (double the price)
How much more would you be willing to pay, compared to other similar items, for food that is certified as being made in compliance with current labor regulations?I am not willing to pay more
5–10% more
10–20% more
20–50% more
Up to 100% more (double the price)
How much more would you be willing to pay, compared to other similar items, for food that is sold in 100% recyclable packaging?I am not willing to pay more
5–10% more
10–20% more
20–50% more
Up to 100% more (double the price)
How much more would you be willing to pay, compared to other similar items, for food that has a sustainability certificate?I am not willing to pay more
5–10% more
10–20% more
20–50% more
Up to 100% more (double the price)
Section 3 Perceptions
In your personal experience, which of the following factors most influence price differences for the same food product? (Multiple answers)Product origin
Type of store
Promotions (Advertising, flyers, etc.)
Product quality
Production method
Other: _________________________
Which phrase best describes your purchasing behavior?I am willing to pay a higher price if the product is safe (healthy).
I am willing to pay a higher price if the product is certified.
I prefer the right balance of quality and price.
I am willing to buy a larger quantity of the product if the price is low.
Table A2. Labels.
Table A2. Labels.
Section 1 Sociodemographic Traits
YoungYng
EldersEld
EducationEduc
GenderGen
Number of relativesNRel
SouthSth
NorthNrth
Life SatisfactionLifeSat
Log IncomeLgInc
OccupationOcc
Less Healthy DietLHD
Less FoodLF

References

  1. Potts, J.; Lynch, M.; Wilkings, A.; Huppé, G.A.; Cunningham, M.; Voora, V.A. The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review 2014: Standards and the Green Economy; International Institute for Sustainable Development: Winnipeg, MB, USA, 2014; pp. 14–45. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gomes, S.; Lopes, J.M.; Nogueira, S. WTP more for green products: A critical challenge for Gen Z. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 390, 136092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Biswas, A.; Roy, M. A study of consumers’ willingness to pay for green products. J. Adv. Manag. Sci. 2016, 4, 211–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 25, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Knaggs, J.; Pruitt, J.R.; Anderson, L.; Palma, M. Influence of social status, physical activity, and socio-demographics on willingness to pay for a basket of organic foods. Agric. Food Econ. 2022, 10, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mauracher, C.; Procidano, I.; Valentini, M. How product attributes and consumer characteristics influence the WTP, resulting in a higher price premium for organic wine. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wei, S.; Ang, T.; Jancenelle, V.E. Willingness to pay more for green products: The interplay of consumer characteristics and customer participation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 45, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Xhakollari, V.; Ahmadi Kaliji, S.; Cerjak, M.; Kovačić, D.; Mulazzani, L.; Camanzi, L. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for clams with sustainability certification in Mediterranean countries. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nam, K.; Qiao, Y.; Ahn, B.I. Analysis of consumer preference for green tea with eco-friendly certification in China. Sustainability 2021, 14, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, C.C.; Chen, C.W.; Chen, H.S. Measuring consumer preferences and willingness to pay for coffee certification labels in Taiwan. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, J.; Ge, J.; Ma, Y. Urban Chinese consumers’ willingness to pay for pork with certified labels: A discrete choice experiment. Sustainability 2018, 10, 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Anastasiou, C.N.; Keramitsoglou, K.M.; Kalogeras, N.; Tsagkaraki, M.I.; Kalatzi, I.; Tsagarakis, K.P. Can the “Euro-leaf” logo affect consumers’ willingness-to-buy and willingness-to-pay for organic food and attract consumers’ preferences? An empirical study in Greece. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Galati, A.; Schifani, G.; Crescimanno, M.; Migliore, G. “Natural wine” consumers and interest in label information: An analysis of WTP in a new Italian wine market segment. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Di Vita, G.; Zanchini, R.; Spina, D.; Maesano, G.; La Via, G.; D’Amico, M. Exploring purchasing determinants for a low fat content salami: Are consumers willing to pay for an additional premium? Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 794533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Breidert, C.; Hahsler, M.; Reutterer, T. A review of methods for measuring willingness-to-pay. Innov. Mark. 2006, 2, 8–32. [Google Scholar]
  16. Akaichi, F.; Nayg, R.M.; Gil, J.M. On the use of Multi-Unit Auctions in Measuring Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Food Products. Adv. Consum. Res. 2011, 39, 311–317. [Google Scholar]
  17. Akaichi, F.; Nayga, R.M.; Gil, J.M. Are Results from Non-hypothetical Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis and Non-hypothetical Recoded-Ranking Conjoint Analysis Similar? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2013, 95, 949–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gregory-Smith, D.; Manika, D.; Demirel, P. Green intentions under the blue flag: Exploring differences in EU consumers’ willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2017, 26, 205–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Li, S.; Kallas, Z. Meta-analysis of consumers’ WTP for sustainable food products. Appetite 2021, 163, 105239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Betti, G.; Evangelista, D.; Gagliardi, F.; Giordano, E.; Riccaboni, A. Towards Integrating Information Systems of Statistical Indicators on Traceability, Quality and Safety of Italian Agrifood Systems for Citizens, Institutions and Policy-Makers. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bazzani, C.; Caputo, V.; Nayga, R.M.; Canavari, M. Revisiting consumers’ valuation for local versus organic food using a non-hypothetical choice experiment: Does personality matter? Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 62, 144–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Canavari, M.; Coderoni, S. Consumer stated preferences for dairy products with carbon footprint labels in Italy. Agric. Food Econ. 2020, 8, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lerro, M.; Caracciolo, F.; Vecchio, R.; Cembalo, L. Consumer’s Side of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Nonhypothetical Study. J. Consum. Aff. 2018, 52, 689–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. De Magistris, T.; Del Giudice, T.; Verneau, F. The Effect of Information on WTP for Canned Tuna Fish with Different Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Certification: A Pilot Study. J. Consum. Aff. 2015, 49, 457–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ruggeri, G.; Corsi, S.; Nayga, R.M. Eliciting WTP for fairtrade products with information. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 87, 104066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. De Devitiis, B.; D’Alessio, M.; Maietta, O.W. A comparative analysis of the purchase motivations of Fair-Trade products: The impact of social capital. In Proceedings of the 12th Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists, Ghent, Belgium, 26–29 August 2008; Defra, Ed.; The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food, Defra Publication: London, UK, 2008; p. 14. [Google Scholar]
  27. Besnard, F.; Maietta, O.W.; D’Alessio, M. Le motivazioni all’acquisto dei prodotti del Commercio Equo e Solidale: Un’analisi comparata sui consumatori delle botteghe del mondo in Emilia Romagna e in Campania. Econ. Agro-Aliment. Fasc. 2 2006, 2006, 1000–1040. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rotaris, L.; Danielis, R. WTP for fair trade coffee: A conjoint analysis experiment with Italian consumers. J. Agric. Food Ind. Organ. 2011, 9, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cappelli, L.; D’Ascenzo, F.; Arezzo, M.F.; Ruggieri, R.; Gorelova, I. The WTP in the Food Sector. Testing the Hypothesis of Consumer Preferences for Some Made in Italy Products. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Carlucci, D.; De Devitiis, B.; Nardone, G.; Santeramo, F.G. Certification labels versus convenience formats: What drives the market in aquaculture products? Mar. Resour. Econ. 2017, 32, 295–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Disegna, M.; Mauracher, C.; Procidano, I.; Trevisan, G. Characteristics of production and consumption of organic trout in Italy. New Medit. 2009, 8 (Suppl. 3), 17–26. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mauracher, C.; Tempesta, T.; Vecchiato, D. Consumer preferences regarding the introduction of new organic products. The case of the Mediterranean sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in Italy. Appetite 2013, 63, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Menozzi, D.; Nguyen, T.T.; Sogari, G.; Taskov, D.; Lucas, S.; Castro-Rial, J.L.S.; Mora, C. Consumers’ preferences and WTP for fish products with health and environmental labels: Evidence from five European countries. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Scozzafava, G.; Gerini, F.; Boncinelli, F.; Contini, C.; Marone, E.; Casini, L. Organic milk preference: Is it a matter of information? Appetite 2020, 144, 104477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Moro, D.; Veneziani, M.; Sckokai, P.; Castellari, E. Consumer WTP for catechin-enriched yogurt: Evidence from a stated choice experiment. Agribusiness 2015, 31, 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tempesta, T.; Vecchiato, D. An analysis of the territorial factors affecting milk purchase in Italy. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 27, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vecchio, R.; Van Loo, E.J.; Annunziata, A. Consumers’ WTP for conventional, organic and functional yogurt: Evidence from experimental auctions. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2016, 40, 368–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mazzocchi, C.; Ruggeri, G.; Corsi, S. Consumers’ preferences for biodiversity in vineyards: A choice experiment on wine. Wine Econ. Policy 2019, 8, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Palmieri, N.; Perito, M.A. Consumers’willingness to consume sustainable and local wine in Italy. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2020, 32, 222–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Piracci, G.; Boncinelli, F.; Casini, L. Wine consumers’ demand for social sustainability labeling: Evidence for the fair labor claim. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2022, 44, 1742–1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pomarici, E.; Asioli, D.; Vecchio, R.; Næs, T. Young consumers’ preferences for water-saving wines: An experimental study. Wine Econ. Policy 2018, 7, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Aprile, M.C.; Caputo, V.; Nayga, R.M., Jr. Consumers’ valuation of food quality labels: The case of the European geographic indication and organic farming labels. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012, 36, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Napolitano, F.; Braghieri, A.; Piasentier, E.; Favotto, S.; Naspetti, S.; Zanoli, R. Effect of information about organic production on beef liking and consumer WTP. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 207–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rossi, E.S.; Cacchiarelli, L.; Severini, S.; Sorrentino, A. Consumers preferences and social sustainability: A discrete choice experiment on ‘Quality Agricultural Work’ethical label in the Italian fruit sector. Agric. Food Econ. 2024, 12, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pomarici, E.; Vecchio, R. Millennial generation attitudes to sustainable wine: An exploratory study on Italian consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 66, 537–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cicatiello, L.; Ercolano, S.; Gaeta, G.L.; Pinto, M. WTP for environmental protection and the importance of pollutant industries in the regional economy. Evidence from Italy. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 177, 106774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. D’amico, M.; Di Vita, G.; Monaco, L. Exploring environmental consciousness and consumer preferences for organic wines without sulfites. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 120, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Verain, M.C.; Snoek, H.M.; Onwezen, M.C.; Reinders, M.J.; Bouwman, E.P. Sustainable food choice motives: The development and cross-country validation of the Sustainable Food Choice Questionnaire (SUS-FCQ). Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 93, 104267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Brogi, L.; Betti, G.; Gagliardi, F. The Agri-Food Chain Sustainability: A Pilot Study on Consumers’ WTP, Perception and Preferences; No. 917; Department of Economics, University of Siena: Siena, Italy, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  50. Agresti, A. Categorical Data, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pujol-Rigol, S.; Fernández, D.; Casals, M. A Systematic Review and Comparative Study of R Packages for Ordinal Response Regression Models. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 2025, 17, e70025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Greene, W.H.; Hensher, D.A. Modeling Ordered Choices: A Primer; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hanmer, M.J.; Kalkan, K.O. Behind the curve: Clarifying the best approach to calculating predicted probabilities and marginal effects from limited dependent variable models. Am. J. Political Sci. 2013, 57, 263–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. McCullagh, P. Regression models for ordinal data. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 1980, 42, 109–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Denver, S.; Christensen, T.; Nordström, J.; Lund, T.B.; Sandøe, P. Is there a potential international market for Danish welfare pork?–A consumer survey from Denmark, Sweden, and Germany. Meat Sci. 2022, 183, 108616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Denver, S.; Christensen, T.; Lund, T.B.; Olsen, J.V.; Sandøe, P. Willingness-to-pay for reduced carbon footprint and other sustainability concerns relating to pork production—A comparison of consumers in China, Denmark, Germany and the UK. Livest. Sci. 2023, 276, 105337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Belsley, D.A.; Kuh, E.; Welsch, R.E. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity; John Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  58. Robinson, C.; Schumacker, R.E. Interaction effects: Centering, variance inflation factor, and interpretation issues. Mult. Linear Regres. Viewp. 2009, 35, 6–11. [Google Scholar]
  59. Mirabella, C.; Borsellino, V.; Galati, A.; Schimmenti, E.; Caracciolo, F. Enhancing ethical food consumption: The impact of information framing on consumer preferences. Agric. Food Econ. 2025, 13, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Paffarini, C.; Torquati, B.; Cecchini, L. The impact of multiple labeling on consumer choices for extra virgin olive oil: A cross-country study. Agric. Food Econ. 2025, 13, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gow, J.; Moscovici, D.; Rana, R.; Rinaldi, A.; Ugaglia, A.A.; Valenzuela, L.; Mihailescu, R.; Haque, R. Determinants of Purchasing Sustainably Produced Wines by Italian Wine Consumers. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Vitale, S.; Biondo, F.; Giosuè, C.; Bono, G.; Okpala, C.O.R.; Piazza, I.; Sprovieri, M.; Pipitone, V. Consumers’ perception and willingness to pay for eco-labeled seafood in Italian hypermarkets. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bozzo, G.; Barrasso, R.; Grimaldi, C.A.; Tantillo, G.; Roma, R. Consumer attitudes towards animal welfare and their willingness to pay. Vet. Ital. 2019, 55, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  64. Menon, M.; Perali, F.; Ray, R.; Tommasi, N. Heterogeneity in prices and cost of living within a country: New evidence on the north-south divide in Italy. Econ. Model. 2023, 126, 106401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bateman, I. ; Department of Transport Großbritannien. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2002; Volume 50, p. 480. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Description of sample (weighted frequencies).
Table 1. Description of sample (weighted frequencies).
VariableCategory%
GENDERFemale51.8
Male48.2
AGE18–4433.0
45–6438.0
65+29.0
REGIONSNorthern regions46.4
Center regions19.9
Southern regions and islands33.7
EDUCATIONMiddle school17.8
High school47.3
Bachelor’s degree6.5
Master’s degree24.5
Postgraduate3.8
N FAM MEMBERS118.4
234.7
321.1
419.3
54.6
More than 51.9
INCOME<25,000 €42.2
25,000–44,000 €38.9
44,001–69,000 €13.8
>69,000 €5.4
OCCUPATIONEmployee39.4
Self employed12.1
Retired29.5
Housewife/househusband11.3
Job seeker3.6
Student3.4
Other0.7
Table 2. Consumption, economic hardship and life satisfaction.
Table 2. Consumption, economic hardship and life satisfaction.
VARIABLECategory%
Due to economic hardship: less foodFrequently5.2
Sometimes16.4
Never78.4
Due to economic hardship: less healthy dietFrequently5.5
Sometimes15.0
Never79.5
LIFE SATISFACTION
MEDIAN80–45.1
MEAN7.55–614.8
CV0.247–1080.1
Table 3. WTP for different certification labels.
Table 3. WTP for different certification labels.
VariableLabelWTP More
0%5–10%10–20%20–50%Up to 100%Do Not Know/NA
Organic CertificationOrg30.235.218.97.72.35.7
Zero Impact CertificationZeroI31.533.617.17.62.28.1
KM0 CertificationKM025.336.920.19.73.44.7
Declared Agriculture 4.0Agr4032.625.711.35.21.723.5
Animal Rights CertificationAnimR23.335.120.711.04.25.8
Labor Law Compliance CertificationLabor26.829.519.011.84.98.1
100% recyclable Packaging CertificationEpack33.035.914.27.22.67.1
Sustainable ProductsSust28.036.915.77.82.69.0
Table 4. Factors perceived as most affecting price differences (multiple choices were allowed).
Table 4. Factors perceived as most affecting price differences (multiple choices were allowed).
Italy18–4445–6465+CenterNorthSouth and Islands
Quality44.147.543.840.646.742.644.7
Origin30.632.733.024.930.732.627.6
Promotions25.421.730.223.324.925.325.9
Retail type23.325.625.218.221.826.120.4
Production method21.426.421.715.321.822.320.0
Other3.43.43.43.363.23.13.9
Do not know/no response4.42.54.16.93.94.54.4
Table 5. Self-declared purchasing behavior.
Table 5. Self-declared purchasing behavior.
Italy18–4445–6465+CenterNorthSouth and Islands
I prefer the right balance between quality and price51.7145.6352.6957.3446.354.1951.49
I am willing to pay a higher price if the product is certified11.4413.0712.77.9312.6211.0311.29
I am willing to pay a higher price if the product is safe (healthy)28.6833.3727.0525.4832.3426.928.96
I am willing to purchase a larger quantity of the product if the price is low6.196.795.965.815.995.627.09
Do not know/no response1.991.141.613.442.752.251.17
Table 7. Order logit model (odds ratio, standard error).
Table 7. Order logit model (odds ratio, standard error).
- Odds RatioDependent variable
- Standard ErrorOrgZeroIKm0Agr40AnimRLaborEPackSust
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)
Yng1.38 ***1.46 ***1.71 ***1.57 ***1.53 ***1.30 ***1.35 ***1.48 ***
(0.084)(0.086)(0.084)(0.095)(0.084)(0.084)(0.086)(0.086)
Eld0.70 ***0.870.80 **0.82 *0.75 ***0.79 **0.910.83 *
(0.11)(0.11)(0.10)(0.12)(0.11)(0.11)(0.11)(0.11)
Educ1.06 ***1.04 ***1.04 ***1.04 ***1.04 ***1.02 *1.02 **1.03 **
(0.01)(0.01)(0.01)(0.01)(0.01)(0.01)(0.01)(0.01)
Gen1.081.45 ***1.061.41 ***1.32 ***1.22 ***1.40 ***1.44 ***
(0.07)(0.07)(0.01)(0.08)(0.07)(0.07)(0.07)(0.07)
NRel1.000.980.95 *0.990.95 *0.961.020.98
(0.03)(0.03)(0.03)(0.04)(0.03)(0.03)(0.03)(0.03)
Sth1.22 **1.27 **1.19 *1.37 ***1.18 *1.20 *1.30 ***1.22 **
(0.10)(0.10)(0.10)(0.11)(0.10)(0.10)(0.10)(0.10)
Nrth0.880.950.890.940.930.980.990.90
(0.09)(0.09)(0.09)(0.10)(0.09)(0.09)(0.09)(0.09)
LifeSat1.09 ***1.11 ***1.09 ***1.09 ***1.08 ***1.09 ***1.10 ***1.09 ***
(0.02)(0.02)(0.02)(0.02)(0.02)(0.02)(0.02)(0.02)
LgInc1.35 ***1.56 ***1.29 ***1.54 ***1.63 ***1.67 ***1.40 ***1.51 ***
(0.06)(0.07)(0.06)(0.07)(0.06)(0.07)(0.07)(0.07)
Occ0.870.74 ***0.950.69 ***0.910.79 **0.77 ***0.79 **
(0.09)(0.10)(0.09)(0.11)(0.09)(0.10)(0.10)(0.10)
LHD0.72 ***0.79 ***0.76 ***0.78 ***0.930.930.75 ***0.70 ***
(0.07)(0.07)(0.07)(0.08)(0.70)(0.70)(0.07)(0.07)
Cut 13.54 ***5.29 ***2.57 ***5.25 ***5.04 ***5.10 ***4.02 ***4.35 ***
(0.63)(0.64)(0.62)(0.71)(0.63)(0.63)(0.64)(0.64)
Cut 25.20 ***6.90 ***4.34 ***6.82 ***6.73 ***6.53 ***5.75 ***6.18 ***
(0.64)(0.65)(0.62)(0.72)(0.64)(0.64)(0.65)(0.65)
Cut 36.63 ***8.22 ***5.65 ***8.03 ***7.95 ***7.63 ***6.91 ***7.38 ***
(0.64)(0.65)(0.63)(0.73)(0.64)(0.64)(0.65)(0.65)
Cut 48.24 ***9.86 ***7.10 ***9.64 ***9.41 ***9.02 ***8.40 ***8.88 ***
(0.65)(0.66)(0.63)(0.74)(0.65)(0.65)(0.66)(0.66)
Log-Likelihood−3667.8−3547.4−3848.0−2823.3−3903.2−3923.1−3559.6−3527.4
AIC7365.57124.87726.05676.77836.47876.37149.17084.8
BIC7454.77213.67815.35762.87925.67965.17238.17173.5
Observations28272758285222962825274427782732
Note: * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01. See Table A2 in Appendix A and Table 3 for abbreviations.
Table 8. Predicted probabilities.
Table 8. Predicted probabilities.
Dependent VariablesWTP
No
More
5–10%
More
10–20% More20–50%
More
100%
More
OrganicC0.3270.3690.2040.0780.022
ZeroCO2C0.3620.3560.1830.0780.021
Km0C0.2680.3910.2120.0950.034
Agric4.0D0.4280.3380.1480.0680.019
AnimC0.2630.3730.2110.1110.042
LaborC0.2960.3260.2040.1230.051
EcoPackC0.3600.3850.1550.0750.025
SustC0.3210.4040.1690.0800.026
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

Gagliardi, F.; Brogi, L.; Betti, G.; Riccaboni, A.; Tozzi, C. Italian Consumer Willingness to Pay for Agri-Food Sustainable Certification Labels: The Role of Sociodemographic Factors. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6792. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156792

AMA Style

Gagliardi F, Brogi L, Betti G, Riccaboni A, Tozzi C. Italian Consumer Willingness to Pay for Agri-Food Sustainable Certification Labels: The Role of Sociodemographic Factors. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):6792. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156792

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gagliardi, Francesca, Leonardo Brogi, Gianni Betti, Angelo Riccaboni, and Cristiana Tozzi. 2025. "Italian Consumer Willingness to Pay for Agri-Food Sustainable Certification Labels: The Role of Sociodemographic Factors" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 6792. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156792

APA Style

Gagliardi, F., Brogi, L., Betti, G., Riccaboni, A., & Tozzi, C. (2025). Italian Consumer Willingness to Pay for Agri-Food Sustainable Certification Labels: The Role of Sociodemographic Factors. Sustainability, 17(15), 6792. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156792

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