Italian Consumer Willingness to Pay for Agri-Food Sustainable Certification Labels: The Role of Sociodemographic Factors
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Review of the Literature
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. The Questionnaire
3.2. Sample
3.3. Statistical Model
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Descriptive Results
4.2. Econometric Model Results
Variables | Yng | Eld | Educ | Gen | NRel | Sth | Nrth | LifeSat | LgInc | Occ | LHD | LF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yng | 1.00 | |||||||||||
Eld | −0.45 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
Educ | 0.23 | −0.27 | 1.00 | |||||||||
Gen | 0.02 | −0.01 | −0.06 | 1.00 | ||||||||
NRel | 0.15 | −0.32 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 1.00 | |||||||
Sth | 0.07 | −0.07 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 1.00 | ||||||
Nrth | −0.07 | 0.07 | −0.04 | −0.04 | −0.10 | −0.65 | 1.00 | |||||
LifeSat | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.07 | −0.02 | 0.01 | 1.00 | ||||
LgInc | 0.10 | −0.17 | 0.42 | −0.17 | 0.21 | −0.13 | 0.08 | 0.18 | 1.00 | |||
Occ | 0.36 | −0.63 | 0.37 | −0.14 | 0.19 | 0.00 | −0.01 | 0.04 | 0.29 | 1.00 | ||
LHD | −0.03 | 0.00 | −0.21 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.05 | −0.07 | −0.24 | −0.25 | −0.10 | 1.00 | |
LF | −0.03 | 0.01 | −0.18 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.08 | −0.07 | −0.20 | −0.24 | −0.11 | 0.67 | 1.00 |
5. Conclusions, Implications, Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Section 1 Sociodemographic Traits | |
Gender | Woman Man I identify as non-binary Prefer not to answer |
Age | _____________ |
Region | ______ (Select an Italian region) |
Education level | Lower 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. |
Section 1 Sociodemographic Traits | |
---|---|
Young | Yng |
Elders | Eld |
Education | Educ |
Gender | Gen |
Number of relatives | NRel |
South | Sth |
North | Nrth |
Life Satisfaction | LifeSat |
Log Income | LgInc |
Occupation | Occ |
Less Healthy Diet | LHD |
Less Food | LF |
References
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Breidert, C.; Hahsler, M.; Reutterer, T. A review of methods for measuring willingness-to-pay. Innov. Mark. 2006, 2, 8–32. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Li, S.; Kallas, Z. Meta-analysis of consumers’ WTP for sustainable food products. Appetite 2021, 163, 105239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Ruggeri, G.; Corsi, S.; Nayga, R.M. Eliciting WTP for fairtrade products with information. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 87, 104066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Agresti, A. Categorical Data, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Greene, W.H.; Hensher, D.A. Modeling Ordered Choices: A Primer; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- McCullagh, P. Regression models for ordinal data. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 1980, 42, 109–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Robinson, C.; Schumacker, R.E. Interaction effects: Centering, variance inflation factor, and interpretation issues. Mult. Linear Regres. Viewp. 2009, 35, 6–11. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
Variable | Category | % |
---|---|---|
GENDER | Female | 51.8 |
Male | 48.2 | |
AGE | 18–44 | 33.0 |
45–64 | 38.0 | |
65+ | 29.0 | |
REGIONS | Northern regions | 46.4 |
Center regions | 19.9 | |
Southern regions and islands | 33.7 | |
EDUCATION | Middle school | 17.8 |
High school | 47.3 | |
Bachelor’s degree | 6.5 | |
Master’s degree | 24.5 | |
Postgraduate | 3.8 | |
N FAM MEMBERS | 1 | 18.4 |
2 | 34.7 | |
3 | 21.1 | |
4 | 19.3 | |
5 | 4.6 | |
More than 5 | 1.9 | |
INCOME | <25,000 € | 42.2 |
25,000–44,000 € | 38.9 | |
44,001–69,000 € | 13.8 | |
>69,000 € | 5.4 | |
OCCUPATION | Employee | 39.4 |
Self employed | 12.1 | |
Retired | 29.5 | |
Housewife/househusband | 11.3 | |
Job seeker | 3.6 | |
Student | 3.4 | |
Other | 0.7 |
VARIABLE | Category | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Due to economic hardship: less food | Frequently | 5.2 | |
Sometimes | 16.4 | ||
Never | 78.4 | ||
Due to economic hardship: less healthy diet | Frequently | 5.5 | |
Sometimes | 15.0 | ||
Never | 79.5 | ||
LIFE SATISFACTION | |||
MEDIAN | 8 | 0–4 | 5.1 |
MEAN | 7.5 | 5–6 | 14.8 |
CV | 0.24 | 7–10 | 80.1 |
Variable | Label | WTP More | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 5–10% | 10–20% | 20–50% | Up to 100% | Do Not Know/NA | ||
Organic Certification | Org | 30.2 | 35.2 | 18.9 | 7.7 | 2.3 | 5.7 |
Zero Impact Certification | ZeroI | 31.5 | 33.6 | 17.1 | 7.6 | 2.2 | 8.1 |
KM0 Certification | KM0 | 25.3 | 36.9 | 20.1 | 9.7 | 3.4 | 4.7 |
Declared Agriculture 4.0 | Agr40 | 32.6 | 25.7 | 11.3 | 5.2 | 1.7 | 23.5 |
Animal Rights Certification | AnimR | 23.3 | 35.1 | 20.7 | 11.0 | 4.2 | 5.8 |
Labor Law Compliance Certification | Labor | 26.8 | 29.5 | 19.0 | 11.8 | 4.9 | 8.1 |
100% recyclable Packaging Certification | Epack | 33.0 | 35.9 | 14.2 | 7.2 | 2.6 | 7.1 |
Sustainable Products | Sust | 28.0 | 36.9 | 15.7 | 7.8 | 2.6 | 9.0 |
Italy | 18–44 | 45–64 | 65+ | Center | North | South and Islands | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | 44.1 | 47.5 | 43.8 | 40.6 | 46.7 | 42.6 | 44.7 |
Origin | 30.6 | 32.7 | 33.0 | 24.9 | 30.7 | 32.6 | 27.6 |
Promotions | 25.4 | 21.7 | 30.2 | 23.3 | 24.9 | 25.3 | 25.9 |
Retail type | 23.3 | 25.6 | 25.2 | 18.2 | 21.8 | 26.1 | 20.4 |
Production method | 21.4 | 26.4 | 21.7 | 15.3 | 21.8 | 22.3 | 20.0 |
Other | 3.4 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 3.36 | 3.2 | 3.1 | 3.9 |
Do not know/no response | 4.4 | 2.5 | 4.1 | 6.9 | 3.9 | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Italy | 18–44 | 45–64 | 65+ | Center | North | South and Islands | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I prefer the right balance between quality and price | 51.71 | 45.63 | 52.69 | 57.34 | 46.3 | 54.19 | 51.49 |
I am willing to pay a higher price if the product is certified | 11.44 | 13.07 | 12.7 | 7.93 | 12.62 | 11.03 | 11.29 |
I am willing to pay a higher price if the product is safe (healthy) | 28.68 | 33.37 | 27.05 | 25.48 | 32.34 | 26.9 | 28.96 |
I am willing to purchase a larger quantity of the product if the price is low | 6.19 | 6.79 | 5.96 | 5.81 | 5.99 | 5.62 | 7.09 |
Do not know/no response | 1.99 | 1.14 | 1.61 | 3.44 | 2.75 | 2.25 | 1.17 |
- Odds Ratio | Dependent variable | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
- Standard Error | Org | ZeroI | Km0 | Agr40 | AnimR | Labor | EPack | Sust |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
Yng | 1.38 *** | 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) | |
Eld | 0.70 *** | 0.87 | 0.80 ** | 0.82 * | 0.75 *** | 0.79 ** | 0.91 | 0.83 * |
(0.11) | (0.11) | (0.10) | (0.12) | (0.11) | (0.11) | (0.11) | (0.11) | |
Educ | 1.06 *** | 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) | |
Gen | 1.08 | 1.45 *** | 1.06 | 1.41 *** | 1.32 *** | 1.22 *** | 1.40 *** | 1.44 *** |
(0.07) | (0.07) | (0.01) | (0.08) | (0.07) | (0.07) | (0.07) | (0.07) | |
NRel | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.95 * | 0.99 | 0.95 * | 0.96 | 1.02 | 0.98 |
(0.03) | (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.04) | (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.03) | |
Sth | 1.22 ** | 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) | |
Nrth | 0.88 | 0.95 | 0.89 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.90 |
(0.09) | (0.09) | (0.09) | (0.10) | (0.09) | (0.09) | (0.09) | (0.09) | |
LifeSat | 1.09 *** | 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) | |
LgInc | 1.35 *** | 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) | |
Occ | 0.87 | 0.74 *** | 0.95 | 0.69 *** | 0.91 | 0.79 ** | 0.77 *** | 0.79 ** |
(0.09) | (0.10) | (0.09) | (0.11) | (0.09) | (0.10) | (0.10) | (0.10) | |
LHD | 0.72 *** | 0.79 *** | 0.76 *** | 0.78 *** | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.75 *** | 0.70 *** |
(0.07) | (0.07) | (0.07) | (0.08) | (0.70) | (0.70) | (0.07) | (0.07) | |
Cut 1 | 3.54 *** | 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 2 | 5.20 *** | 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 3 | 6.63 *** | 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 4 | 8.24 *** | 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 |
AIC | 7365.5 | 7124.8 | 7726.0 | 5676.7 | 7836.4 | 7876.3 | 7149.1 | 7084.8 |
BIC | 7454.7 | 7213.6 | 7815.3 | 5762.8 | 7925.6 | 7965.1 | 7238.1 | 7173.5 |
Observations | 2827 | 2758 | 2852 | 2296 | 2825 | 2744 | 2778 | 2732 |
Dependent Variables | WTP | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
No More | 5–10% More | 10–20% More | 20–50% More | 100% More | |
OrganicC | 0.327 | 0.369 | 0.204 | 0.078 | 0.022 |
ZeroCO2C | 0.362 | 0.356 | 0.183 | 0.078 | 0.021 |
Km0C | 0.268 | 0.391 | 0.212 | 0.095 | 0.034 |
Agric4.0D | 0.428 | 0.338 | 0.148 | 0.068 | 0.019 |
AnimC | 0.263 | 0.373 | 0.211 | 0.111 | 0.042 |
LaborC | 0.296 | 0.326 | 0.204 | 0.123 | 0.051 |
EcoPackC | 0.360 | 0.385 | 0.155 | 0.075 | 0.025 |
SustC | 0.321 | 0.404 | 0.169 | 0.080 | 0.026 |
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. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
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
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 StyleGagliardi, 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 StyleGagliardi, 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