External Drivers of Dominant Green Positioning for Organic Food Brands: Evidence from an Emerging Market

Abstract

Growing consumer interest in personal health and environmental sustainability has driven a significant number of companies to enter the organic food market. While this offers valuable opportunities, companies face substantial challenges in making marketing decisions which are aligned with the specific characteristics of this sector. This paper studies the impact of three external drivers—environmental customer pressure, environmental competitive intensity, and environmental regulatory pressure—on companies’ decision to adopt a dominant green positioning strategy within the Romanian organic food market. To this end, an online survey was conducted among 77 companies, including producers, processors, distributors, and retailers, all of which own an organic food brand. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) was applied to assess the measurement model and test the hypothesised structural relationships. Our findings confirm that customer pressure plays a significant role in shaping green brand positioning decisions. Accordingly, companies must be responsive to consumer expectations, even in the absence of strict regulations in Romania’s organic food sector guiding organisational behaviour. Furthermore, competitive dynamics were also found to be vital, as evidenced by the positive and direct relationship between environmental competitive intensity and the strategic green positioning decision examined.

1. Introduction

Globally, the organic food market has experienced steady annual growth, driven by rising concerns related to ecological balance, personal health, and food safety [1,2,3]. However, significant disparities can be observed in the level of development of national markets, as some countries have supported organic agriculture and the growth of this sector earlier, more consistently, and through a more diverse range of measures than others [4,5]. Recent empirical evidence from 21 European Union (EU) Member States confirms this variation, showing that per capita organic consumption is shaped by structural factors such as GDP, organic agricultural area, and retail sales [6]. In emerging organic food markets, such disparities may hinder the adoption of environmentally responsible consumption practices.

In Romania, efforts to develop the organic food sector were largely absent prior to the implementation of key measures required for EU accession. Subsequently, alignment with European policies facilitated both the adoption of organic certification and the expansion of the domestic organic food market [7,8,9]. In this context, both organic farming and organic food consumption have been on the rise, although they are still below the EU average [3,10,11]. Consumption is mainly concentrated in urban areas, particularly among younger, educated consumers. However, high prices and doubts about certification remain major barriers [12,13,14]. Currently, demand in many food categories is met through imports [13], while most organic raw materials are exported [3]. In addition, processing capacity remains limited—with one processor per 62 producers in Romania compared to one per 4.9 in the EU [3]. This constrains the supply of locally produced, high value-added products and, by extension, the potential to build strongly differentiated organic food brands. Despite these challenges, the entry of major players, particularly dairy producers and general retailers, has increased the visibility of organic food brands and helped raise awareness about green consumption [15,16].

The competitive landscape has become increasingly complex, which determined companies to position themselves not only against conventional alternatives but also against imported organic products, whether they are marketed under producer or retailer brands [17]. In this context, local companies continue to face significant challenges in brand differentiation. Many remain primarily focused on production and achieving superior product quality rather than on delivering and communicating value that is aligned with consumer expectations. Consequently, their strategic efforts should be directed towards identifying the most effective positioning alternatives that can secure a favourable place in the minds of consumers [18].

Accordingly, brand positioning should be regarded as a fundamental strategic tool, especially because it remains underutilised in the context of green marketing [19]. The first step for companies is to clearly define their intended market position, which is done by selecting a specific strategic alternative [20]. This decision should be based on the brand’s identity, which is anchored in the organisation’s vision, mission, and values, as well as its organisational culture and unique capabilities [21,22,23,24]. Beyond a brand-oriented perspective, companies should also adopt a market-oriented approach which positions the brand in relation to customer value requirements and to their perceptions of competing brands [21,25,26]. It should also be noted that recent studies show that green food purchasing behaviour is increasingly influenced by green values and social context of the purchase, marketers being encouraged to take these factors into account in strategic positioning decisions [27,28]. In this process, brands can develop a positioning strategy that portrays them as adaptable and responsive to shifting market trends, which in turn positively influences consumer perceptions [29,30]. Consequently, the choice of positioning is shaped by the priorities and commitments of various stakeholders and is therefore guided by both internal and external drivers [31,32,33].

Along these lines, Rivera-Camino [34] emphasises the role of managerial perceptions in assessing stakeholder influence and states that companies often conform to environmental influences to gain support and legitimacy. As social and environmental pressures increase, companies are driven to adopt pro-environmental behaviours to meet stakeholder demands [35,36]. This has led to a reorientation of marketing communications, branding, and positioning to address sustainability-driven stakeholder demands [37]. Given that company decisions and actions are shaped by the pressures they receive and perceive [38], understanding these pressures is essential. Gaining insight into brand positioning decisions at a managerial level is particularly important, as goal orientation is a key driver of managerial behaviour [39,40].

However, the intended positioning—one of the two dimensions that reflect a company’s perspective on the positioning process—has not been a major research topic so far [20,21,33]. The existing literature has primarily focused on consumer perception and on classifying strategic alternatives by identifying associations specific to a brand’s position [33]. This gap is even more pronounced in green marketing, where concepts such as green brand positioning, though increasingly cited, are often treated only briefly, with theoretical coherence still in development and limited empirical support [30,37]. Moreover, studies which examine how internal and external drivers influence green brand positioning decisions, particularly in the food sector, remain relatively scarce and do not address the topic substantively [41,42,43]. Along these lines, Taherdangkoo et al. (2019) [43] argue that the understanding of the forces that help firms adopt and plan marketing strategies remains limited. This research gap is especially visible in emerging and developing markets, where the implementation of green branding and sustainability practices is still at an early stage [44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. Romania is no exception, with research on green brand positioning being poorly represented and existing initiatives still in their infancy [51,52,53].

Considering the existing gaps in the literature, this paper aims to explore the topic of brand positioning from a company perspective. Our research focuses on investigating a strategic alternative, namely dominant green positioning, as environmental concerns are considered a source of differentiation for gaining a competitive advantage [42,54,55]. To develop the conceptual model, the study considered pressures exerted by consumers and competitors, which are key entities in the brand positioning process. Since the study investigates a highly regulated market governed by clear rules, regulatory pressures were also included as a key external factor. The analysis was conducted using PLS-SEM on survey data collected from professionals in companies operating in the organic food sector. This approach allowed us to assess the impact of these three key external drivers on a company’s decision to select a strategic alternative specific to organic food brands. Accordingly, the study addresses proprietary food brands held by manufacturers, processors, retailers, and distributors, including manufacturer-owned brands and retailer/distributor private labels, and excludes third-party distributed brands. Stakeholder influence is analysed from the perspective of company professionals, who are responsible for evaluating the impact of these external forces and for determining how to adapt their strategies based on the level of perceived pressure.

The rest of this article is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical foundations that underpin the research hypotheses; Section 3 details the research methodology; Section 4 presents the data analysis and main results; Section 5 discusses the key findings and their relevance, including connections to prior studies; and Section 6 concludes the article by summarising the main contributions, addressing both theoretical and practical implications, acknowledging limitations, and proposing directions for future research.

2. Research Background and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Dominant Green Positioning

Positioning is a process that ultimately aims to influence potential consumers’ perceptions of a brand. This process can be viewed as iterative, requiring deliberate and proactive actions, and involving conceptual, strategic, and operational decisions that should reflect the company’s vision while also considering its consumers and competitors [56]. A distinction is therefore commonly made between intended (desired) positioning, actual (delivered) positioning, and perceived positioning [57,58,59,60,61,62].

The intended positioning is how a company wants/intends to have the brand perceived by the target consumers [58]. From this perspective, intended positioning can be seen as an outcome of the internal development process, shaped by the interests and commitments of individuals and/or by the influence of the structural context in which decisions are made. At this point, the outcomes should not be understood as changes to the brand position, but rather as micro-results achieved during defining the intended positioning, which may take place at multiple organisational levels [33]. The choice of intended positioning is realised by selecting a specific strategic alternative [63]. This decision is then translated into the messages actually presented to consumers, which constitutes the actual positioning (the execution of the intended positioning) [58,62]. It is typically operationalised through marketing communication instruments such as advertising, sales promotion, public relations, and packaging, as well as through the other elements of the marketing mix. Both intended positioning and actual positioning reflect the company’s perspective on brand positioning [59].

Based on formal and informal messages conveyed by the company, as well as those received from other stakeholder groups (competitors, suppliers, other consumers, among others), individuals form their perceptions of the brand. As a result, they assign the brand a position within their own perceptual space relative to competing brands (i.e., perceived positioning). Thus, perceived positioning is not limited to perceptions shaped by actual positioning strategies (the marketing mix); it also reflects consumers’ prior experiences and word of mouth. It represents a combination of perceptions that encompass consumers’ individual values, beliefs, impressions, thoughts, and feelings (i.e., previous schemata) [24,57,64]. Accordingly, the success of a positioning depends both on selecting an appropriate strategy (intended positioning) and on the quality of its implementation (actual positioning), so that the gap relative to the perceived positioning is minimised [59,62,65]. In practice, it is essential to select those positioning dimensions that consumers perceive as relevant and important and/or that sufficiently differentiate the brand from rival brands [58].

In the ecological domain, brands inherently convey a degree of environmentalism [66,67] through their association with environmentally friendly practices, products, and values [68,69]. This distinct framework has laid the foundation for the development of the concept of green brand positioning in academic literature [68,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77]. At the same time, there is growing attention on integrating concerns related to reducing environmental impact and promoting human health within brand positioning strategies [78]. The extent to which these dimensions are integrated depends on the importance the company intends to assign to the green dimension. Accordingly, a company chooses how to position the brand based on a combination of green and general (traditional) dimensions.

This categorisation is based on the arguments put forward by Fuchs [59] in favour of using several positioning bases (hybrid positioning), in this case dimensions, to define the positioning strategy. In the environmental sector, some of the identified views [41,42,55,79] originate from the strategic options formulated by Meffert & Kirchgeorg [80] and Crane [54]. Although the proposed alternatives are not conceptualised in a unified way, we identify three main strategic directions: dominant positioning, balanced (/equal) positioning and shallow (/flanking) positioning.

Dominant green positioning is a strategic approach in which a company emphasises distinctive brand characteristics, such as attributes, benefits, and values aligned with environmental concerns, rather than focusing on attributes and benefits related to overall quality, cost or convenience [42]. This strategic alternative leverages the company’s efforts to go beyond the minimum standards set by legislation on organic farming and production [81], thereby fostering stronger brand differentiation.

Adopting a dominant green positioning strategy enables a company to position its brand not only as “organic” but even as “more than organic” [81]. In this case, brand differentiation is achieved by emphasising “organic-plus” characteristics [82,83]. These are features which consumers expect to find in organic products but are not strictly covered by current organic certification standards. They include nutritional value, such as high nutritional content; sensory attributes, including taste, smell, or colour; ethical aspects, such as fair working conditions and adequate compensation for farmers; and the origin of the product, for instance, local production [84].

To effectively build and sustain this intended position, a brand must be supported by clear and consistent communication that explicitly conveys its green attributes and benefits [71,85]. By employing specific claims, readily verifiable evidence, and widely recognised third-party certifications, firms can distinguish their green messaging from greenwashing, thereby mitigating consumer scepticism towards green alternatives [86,87,88,89,90]. For example, sustainability-emphasising packaging, using clear on-pack demarcations and information, can sharpen key perceptions (e.g., perceived healthiness and credibility) and, in turn, raise purchase intentions [91].

2.2. Environmental Customer Pressure

Stakeholder theory [31] emphasises that consumers needs and concerns have a strong influence on corporate decision-making. Accordingly, when consumers express significant pressure regarding environmental issues, it suggests that they prioritize companies with enhanced environmental performance [92].

From this perspective, customer pressure can be viewed as a key driver of organisational behaviour change. This influence has been evidenced on investment in green R&D and creativity [38,93,94,95], green procurement and production practices [96,97], and ethical standards in sustainability [94].

Along these lines, it is essential, at the outset, that companies know their target market, since a better understanding of green market segments can assist corporate decision-makers in formulating appropriate green marketing strategies [98]. Consequently, companies should segment the market on the basis of specific criteria that capture the intensity of consumers’ environmental concerns, in order to determine the relative share of “true greens” consumers compared with those who are sceptical or indifferent [99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107].

In target markets with a high concentration of active/“true” green consumers, experts recommend adopting “extreme green” strategies, which correspond to a dominant green positioning [99]. Moreover, several studies indicate that this strategic option is particularly suitable for companies operating within the green niche [41,42]. Thus, when consumers view a company’s “greening” as a motivator rather than merely a hygiene factor, managers have an economic justification for building greener brands. Accordingly, at the strategic level, the firm must calibrate the degree to which it highlights “greening” as a differentiating attribute, so that the intended positioning is aligned with target-audience expectations [36,99].

H1. 

The greater the perceived environmental pressure from consumers, the more likely a company is to adopt a dominant green positioning for its brand.

2.3. Environmental Competitive Intensity

Competitive intensity is a starting point for establishing a brand’s market position [108]. O’Cass and Weerawardena [109] argue that the perceived intensity of competition plays a key role in enhancing a firm’s learning capacity and developing its marketing capabilities. In highly challenging environments, managers are compelled to allocate resources towards a better understanding of both consumers and competitors, which in turn enables them to use marketing tools more effectively.

Several studies [43,110,111,112] have identified competitive intensity as a significant factor influencing the adoption of green marketing strategies. Moreover, markets characterised by intense competitive pressure require companies to seek differentiation strategies and, as a result, to offer more options to consumers. Conversely, when competitive pressure is low, consumers have fewer alternatives, and firms may lack sufficient incentives to change existing practices or adopt more environmentally friendly approaches [43,113,114].

The organic food market is characterised by high competitive intensity, which is assessed and perceived differently depending on each firm’s position along the supply chain [115]. The entry of general retailers and the expansion of organic private-label ranges have effectively addressed rising consumer concerns, yet they have also increased pressure on producers, processors, and distributors. More recently, manufacturers’ brands have been challenged by organic private labels positioned in the premium segment [116,117]. In parallel, organic brands also face competition from other “green” alternatives, such as fair trade, local and natural products. Taken together, these developments heighten competitive intensity at the category level and prompt firms to identify and signal distinctive environmental attributes or benefits as the basis for brand differentiation.

H2. 

The greater the perceived environmental competitive intensity, the more likely a company is to adopt a dominant green positioning strategy for its brand.

2.4. Environmental Regulatory Pressure

Regulatory pressure refers to the perceived influences of corporate decision-makers, manifested through legislation, standards, and rules set by national governments and international bodies regarding environmental initiatives and practices [118]. In the food sector, companies must comply with both general environmental regulations and specific regulations related to farming, production, and packaging of organic products.

Alignment with environmental regulations makes the brand a legitimate and credible player in the market, which can materialise in the form of parity points [25]. This alignment may also motivate companies to take a more proactive stance towards environmental responsibility [119], thereby leading to the creation of points of differentiation.

Although not specifically focused on the organic food market, previous studies have demonstrated the influence of regulatory pressures on the development of green manufacturing [97] and the adoption of green innovation strategies [93,120]. When companies feel pressure from national governments or international institutions, they are driven to comply with environmental regulations. If these efforts are perceived as relevant by consumers, they should also be reflected in brand positioning strategies.

H3. 

The greater the perceived pressure from environmental regulations, the more likely a company is to adopt a dominant green positioning strategy for its brand.

2.5. Conceptual Model

This study aims to explore the environmental pressures, both those exerted by customers and those stemming from specific regulations, on the selection of a dominant green positioning for organic food brands. The proposed model also suggests the possibility of a direct, positive relationship between environmental competitive intensity and the strategic alternative investigated. To assess the potential impact on these structural relationships, the research includes five control variables: number of employees, turnover, length of operation in the organic food market, product portfolio structure, and the company’s position within the supply chain. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed hypotheses and the conceptual model.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Sampling Method and Data Collection

Data were collected through an online survey using a self-administered questionnaire distributed via email.

The target population included only Romanian companies certified in organic agriculture that own a registered brand or sub-brand with OSIM (State Office for Inventions and Trademarks) and have a portfolio of packaged organic food products. The brand or sub-brand must explicitly represent the company’s organic food offering.

To ensure this selection, filter questions were placed at the beginning of the questionnaire. Based on these criteria, distributors of international organic food brands were excluded, as there is evidence indicating their limited involvement in brand positioning strategy development [121]. Also excluded were companies certified in organic agriculture that: (i) produce other types of products such as fertilisers or feed; (ii) sell unpackaged products such as fruits and vegetables; or (iii) operate exclusively in raw material exports. These categories are not relevant for the purpose of this study, as their products are not marketed under a proprietary brand recognisable to the consumer, and such companies typically do not develop positioning strategies.

Furthermore, the selection considered the companies’ involvement in marketing activities targeting end consumers, taking into account the structure of the target population (producers, processors, distributors, and retailers). In this regard, it is important to note that in the Romanian organic food market, a significant number of producers, processors, and distributors are often required to establish direct connections with consumers [15], as part of a strategy to ensure financial sustainability.

The key informant technique [122] was used to identify respondents, considering both their hierarchical position and area of responsibility. Only those directly involved (fully or partially) in marketing, communication, brand management, or market strategy decisions related to organic products were invited to continue the questionnaire.

In the absence of a formal sampling frame, a non-probability judgmental sampling method was employed. This approach is supported by academic literature, which notes that probability sampling is often impractical in business-to-business (B2B) research, particularly when the target population is relatively small or difficult to access [123,124].

Although official registries of certified organic operators exist (e.g., Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development), they do not provide sufficient information to identify companies that meet all the inclusion criteria. Moreover, a lack of contact details and data protection constraints hindered the possibility of a random selection [125,126].

The sample size was determined using a sequential process [127]. Starting with the total number of certified economic operators [83] and the importance attributed to each category within the supply chain, a minimum reference size was set to ensure balanced representation of all relevant segments. Accordingly, the sample aimed to include at least 30 producers/processors, 10 distributors, and 5 retailers. Data collection continued through successive rounds until the sample reached an adequate level of information saturation, with relevant data for the investigated topic.

Data were collected between February and March 2023 using a pre-tested questionnaire. The invitation to participate was sent via email to companies identified through two complementary sources: (i) a proprietary database developed from previous market research initiatives; and (ii) publicly available information on certified organic operators (company name, operator type) from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MADR) website, complemented by additional online research to obtain contact details. A total of 553 email invitations were sent to potential respondents. Where direct email addresses of relevant specialists could not be found, the invitation was sent to a generic address (e.g., marketing, communications, PR, commercial, or administrative departments) with a request to forward it to the person responsible for marketing activities related to the organic food brand.

In total, 143 questionnaires were submitted (fully or partially completed), resulting in a gross response rate of 25.86%. After applying the pre-specified screening criteria, 77 responses were retained for analysis, corresponding to a net response rate of 13.92%. If a screening criterion was not met, the survey was automatically terminated, and the remaining screening questions were not administered. Only eligible respondents were able to complete the full questionnaire.

Table 1. Profile of companies included in the sample.

Category	Description	N	%
Place in the supply chain 1	Producers and/or processor	56	72.7%
	Distributor	16	20.8%
	Specialized/general retailer	5	6.5%
Years of presence on the organic food market	Less than 2 years	8	10.4%
	Between 2 and 5 years	29	37.7%
	Between 6 and 9 years	17	22.1%
	10 years and over	23	29.9%
Turnover	Less than €2,000,000	44	57.1%
	Between €2,000,000 and €9,999,999,999	22	28.6%
	Between €10,000,000 and €49,999,999	6	7.8%
	Over €50,000,000	5	6.5%
Total number of employees	Between 1 and 9 employees	37	48.1%
	Between 10 and 49 employees	23	29.9%
	Between 50 and 249 employees	11	14.3%
	250 employees and more	6	7.8%
Product portfolio structure	Exclusively organic products	32	41.6%
	Conventional and organic products	45	58.4%

¹ The main activity carried out on the organic food market, as stated in the certificate of conformity issued by control bodies approved by the MADR for the inspection and certification of organic products.

presents the characteristics of the companies included in the sample. The majority of firms (72.7%) are primarily engaged in the production and processing of organic food products, while 28.8% focus on distribution and 6.5% on retail.

Data analysis was performed using PLS-SEM, with WarpPLS 8.0 employed to assess the measurement and structural models and to validate the research hypotheses.

3.2. Measurement Model

The items in the proposed model were measured using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree”; 7 = “strongly agree”). The following subsections detail the measurement model for each latent construct and the measurement items are reported in Table 2.

3.2.1. Dominant Green Positioning (DGP)

To develop the measurement items, the scope of the investigation was extended beyond the field of organic food products to identify studies that capture the managerial perspective on brand positioning. While some studies focus on examining green marketing strategy (which also includes brand positioning strategy [41,42,43,128]), others use a distinct latent construct [68,76,129]. However, many of the existing items refer rather to actual positioning. Moreover, Kapitan et al. [86] propose a measurement scale for sustainable positioning in the B2B context.

Despite some research in these areas, none of the existing scales could be adapted for this study. Therefore, a new approach was proposed based on two perspectives on brand positioning from a company’s point of view [23,130]. Accordingly, the items were formulated in relation to the following elements: (1) Target audience needs; (2) Competitive frame of reference; (3) Importance of positioning dimensions (categories of benefits); and (4) Supporting arguments for the dominant dimension of brand positioning.

• The target audience needs to which the brand positioning responds (DGP1)

According to the perspective presented by Czerniawski and Maloney [130], brand positioning involves selecting specific needs that best satisfy the target segments. In this vein, Kapitan et al. [86] use a measurement item that refers to the needs of consumers with environmental concerns. Also, Taherdangkoo et al. [43] evaluate the adoption of green marketing strategies, and one of their items refers to the importance of consumers’ environmental concerns in shaping brand positioning.

2.

The competitive frame of reference for brand positioning competitive (DGP2)

Identifying the competitive set with which the brand should be associated and compared is a crucial step in the positioning process [86]. The decision to compete in different categories often results in distinct competitive frames of reference and, consequently, different points of parity and differentiation [131]. Moreover, the choice of a particular strategy may also be influenced by competitors’ positioning strategies and the level of “greening” they have adopted [99].

3.

The importance of dimensions in defining strategic positioning alternatives (DGP3)

Benefits can have different levels of visibility and centrality within the positioning strategy [131]. In the environmental sector, core benefits may fall under either the green or the general/traditional dimension, and the desired level of visibility for these benefits determines the type of strategic alternative adopted. Similarly, Brüggenwirth [132] investigates the topic of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its importance in brand development. The model provides a framework for deciding how explicitly or implicitly CSR should be communicated to differentiate a brand.

4.

Supporting arguments for the dominant dimension of brand positioning (DGP4–DGP9)

According to Kapferer [23], one of the key questions that brand positioning must address concerns the argument supporting the promised consumer benefit. This argument can be based on both factual and subjective elements. In this context, the subjective elements may include the degree of “greenness” associated with the chosen positioning strategy and the strategic approach that defines the brand. Conversely, factual elements refer to the extent to which green standards are fulfilled.

• The level of “greenness” associated with the brand’s strategic positioning alternative (DGP4 and DGP5). Scholars [99,133] argue that a moderate to high level of “greenness” is typical of companies that view environmentalism as an opportunity for development. These companies see “greening” as the major driving force behind them, guiding their actions from day one.
• The level of compliance with the EU organic food standards (DGP6 and DGP7). Referencing organic standards is used to describe the positioning of brands that go beyond the minimum legal requirements [81,82]. Similarly, the model proposed by Kapitan et al. [86] indicates that meeting such standards is only part of a company’s broader environmental efforts that can be associated with a brand. Clearly green-oriented brands are compelled to seek additional elements beyond regulatory requirements in order to position themselves as “green” or “deeply green”.
• Exclusive versus inclusive approach (DGP8 and DGP9). In line with the polarisation of consumer markets, green marketing strategies tend to fall into two markedly different directions. The inclusive approach involves positioning brands through value for money, convenience, and other core benefits. In contrast, the exclusive approach relies on an explicit link to environmental credentials, which can be translated through benefits such as naturalness, taste, health, or even luxury [134]. Gordon [135] proposes a similar approach, categorising brands into niche and mainstream, each supported by specific associations.

3.2.2. Environmental Customer Pressure (ECP)

The pressure exerted by customers on companies is often measured using scales proposed by Zhu et al. [136] and Lin & Ho [137]. In general, scholars [92,93,94,97] typically employ three items that capture managers’ perceptions of the pressure felt from customers, specifically regarding their awareness of, preference for, and attention to environmental protection. In addition, Chu et al. [38] introduced a supplementary item referring to the pressure generated by the need to adopt environmentally friendly packaging. This type of pressure is particularly relevant in the current market context, as regulations have yet to impose strict requirements in this area. Therefore, the present model includes the three general items [92,94], along with the two additional items used by Chu et al. [38], with the last one adapted to the specific context of the B2C market.

3.2.3. Environmental Competitive Intensity (ECI)

Leonidou et al. [110] employed a three-item scale to measure the intensity of market competition, adapted from Jaworski and Kohli [138], who originally proposed a six-item scale. Iyer et al. [112] followed this approach but retained all six items from the original measurement scale. Taherdangkoo et al. [43] used a three-item scale based on the conceptual foundations laid by Leonidou et al. [110] and Banerjee et al. [139]. For the purposes of this study, we adopt a six-item scale, drawing upon the frameworks proposed by Iyer et al. [112] and Taherdangkoo et al. [43].

3.2.4. Environmental Regulatory Pressure (ERP)

For this construct, scholars assess both the perception of current regulations and expectations for future, anticipated ones. They also examine how managers perceive the clarity, strictness and effectiveness of regulations in ensuring environmental protection, as well as their alignment with the local context or market specificity. The measurement items are based on the perspective of Bossle et al. [140] in the food sector, which builds upon insights from the Community Innovation Survey [141] and Eiadat et al. [142].

Table 2. Constructs and their measures.

Construct	Item Code	Measurement Item	References
Environmental Customer Pressure	ECP1	Increasing awareness of environmental issues among our consumers prompts the company to enhance its environmental commitment	[38,92,94]
	ECP2	Consumers’ preference for organic food products drives the company to strengthen its environmental commitment
	ECP3	Consumers’ continued attention to the company’s behaviour regarding environmental protection practices intensifies the company’s efforts in this direction
	ECP4	The company feels consumer pressure to adopt more environmentally friendly packaging for the product range in its portfolio
	ECP5	If the company does not meet consumers’ environmental requirements, they will switch to competing brands that satisfy these needs at the desired level
Environmental Regulatory Pressure	ERP1	Recently, the company has modified the attributes of its organic food product offerings in response to regulations on organic production and product labelling, as well as environmental regulations (including environmental taxes)… … currently existing	[93,140,141,142]
	ERP2	… expected to be introduced in the future
	ERP3	Organic production and labelling regulations, as well as environmental regulations: … affect the company’s business
	ERP4	… contain strict standards
	ERP5	… are adapted and suitable to the local market context
	ERP6	… are clear
	ERP7	… are effective in directly addressing issues related to environmental protection and in fostering sustainable development of organic production
Environmental Competitive Intensity	ECI1	Competition in the organic food market is fierce	[43,112]
	ECI2	There are many “promotion wars” in the organic food market
	ECI3	Any offer (product, price, etc.) launched on the market by a competitor can easily be delivered by other competitors
	ECI4	Price competition is a distinctive feature of the organic food market
	ECI5	We hear almost daily about competitors’ actions in the organic food market
	ECI6	The number of competitors in the organic food market is high
Dominant Green Positioning	DGP1	The company considers only the needs of consumers with strong concerns for environmental protection and organic food	[43,86,130]
	DGP2	The competitive set we consider in our internal decision-making consists only of companies that have exclusively certified organic food products in the product category/categories in which we are present on the market	[129,130]
	DGP3	Green attributes and benefits play a key role in differentiating the brand and attracting the company’s target consumers	[41,42,99]
	DGP4	The company views environmentalism and the practice of organic production as primary opportunities to develop innovative products capable of meeting consumer needs and generating a competitive advantage	[99,133,143]
	DGP5	Environmental and organic food concerns have been part of the company’s core business since day one
	DGP6	The company believes that exceeding EU standards in organic production is an effective way to differentiate its portfolio brand from the competition	[81,82,144,145]
	DGP7	Some of the green attributes and benefits through which the company aims to differentiate the portfolio brand result from exceeding EU standards in organic production
	DGP8	The company seeks for its organic food brand to be perceived by end consumers as exclusive, niche, or even luxury	[67,86,134,135]
	DGP9	The company seeks for its organic food brand to be known by the target audience primarily for being green

Table 2. Constructs and their measures.

Construct	Item Code	Measurement Item	References
Environmental Customer Pressure	ECP1	Increasing awareness of environmental issues among our consumers prompts the company to enhance its environmental commitment	[38,92,94]
	ECP2	Consumers’ preference for organic food products drives the company to strengthen its environmental commitment
	ECP3	Consumers’ continued attention to the company’s behaviour regarding environmental protection practices intensifies the company’s efforts in this direction
	ECP4	The company feels consumer pressure to adopt more environmentally friendly packaging for the product range in its portfolio
	ECP5	If the company does not meet consumers’ environmental requirements, they will switch to competing brands that satisfy these needs at the desired level
Environmental Regulatory Pressure	ERP1	Recently, the company has modified the attributes of its organic food product offerings in response to regulations on organic production and product labelling, as well as environmental regulations (including environmental taxes)… … currently existing	[93,140,141,142]
	ERP2	… expected to be introduced in the future
	ERP3	Organic production and labelling regulations, as well as environmental regulations: … affect the company’s business
	ERP4	… contain strict standards
	ERP5	… are adapted and suitable to the local market context
	ERP6	… are clear
	ERP7	… are effective in directly addressing issues related to environmental protection and in fostering sustainable development of organic production
Environmental Competitive Intensity	ECI1	Competition in the organic food market is fierce	[43,112]
	ECI2	There are many “promotion wars” in the organic food market
	ECI3	Any offer (product, price, etc.) launched on the market by a competitor can easily be delivered by other competitors
	ECI4	Price competition is a distinctive feature of the organic food market
	ECI5	We hear almost daily about competitors’ actions in the organic food market
	ECI6	The number of competitors in the organic food market is high
Dominant Green Positioning	DGP1	The company considers only the needs of consumers with strong concerns for environmental protection and organic food	[43,86,130]
	DGP2	The competitive set we consider in our internal decision-making consists only of companies that have exclusively certified organic food products in the product category/categories in which we are present on the market	[129,130]
	DGP3	Green attributes and benefits play a key role in differentiating the brand and attracting the company’s target consumers	[41,42,99]
	DGP4	The company views environmentalism and the practice of organic production as primary opportunities to develop innovative products capable of meeting consumer needs and generating a competitive advantage	[99,133,143]
	DGP5	Environmental and organic food concerns have been part of the company’s core business since day one
	DGP6	The company believes that exceeding EU standards in organic production is an effective way to differentiate its portfolio brand from the competition	[81,82,144,145]
	DGP7	Some of the green attributes and benefits through which the company aims to differentiate the portfolio brand result from exceeding EU standards in organic production
	DGP8	The company seeks for its organic food brand to be perceived by end consumers as exclusive, niche, or even luxury	[67,86,134,135]
	DGP9	The company seeks for its organic food brand to be known by the target audience primarily for being green

4. Results

To validate the hypotheses, both the measurement model and the structural model must be assessed, leading to the interpretation of the results.

4.1. Evaluation of the Measurement Model

The evaluation of the constructs initially involves examining the extent to which the variance of each indicator is explained by its construct, which is a measure of indicator reliability [146]. Analysis of the indicator loadings (Figure 2; Appendix A,

Table A1. Measurement model and indicator loadings.

Construct	Item Code	Indicator Loadings
Environmental Customer Pressure	ECP1	0.876
	ECP2	0.805
	ECP3	0.839
	ECP4	0.783
	ECP5	0.762
Environmental Regulatory Pressure	ERP1	0.679
	ERP2	0.613
	ERP3	0.418
	ERP4	0.356
	ERP5	0.777
	ERP6	0.708
	ERP7	0.808
Environmental Competition Intensity	ECI1	0.866
	ECI2	0.889
	ECI3	0.685
	ECI4	0.758
	ECI5	0.813
	ECI6	0.817
Dominant Green Positioning	DGP1	0.686
	DGP2	0.656
	DGP3	0.782
	DGP4	0.718
	DGP5	0.771
	DGP6	0.774
	DGP7	0.822
	DGP8	0.661
	DGP9	0.628

) highlights the need for further evaluation of the ERP construct. Removing items ERP3 (0.418) and ERP4 (0.356) ensures all reliability and validity criteria are met, thus supporting this decision. In the case of the DGP construct, eliminating one or more items with loadings below 0.708 would not lead to an increase in the α value. Regarding the ECI construct, removing item ECI3 (0.685) would increase α from 0.891 to 0.892, which does not justify such a decision. Moreover, all p-values are below 0.05, indicating statistical significance.

For reliability assessment, Hair et al. [147] emphasise the importance of considering internal consistency, measured through Cronbach’s alpha (CA) and composite reliability (CR). According to the data presented in

Table 3. Model reliability and validity ¹.

	Construct	CA	CR	AVE	1	2	3	4
1	Environmental Customer Pressure	0.872	0.907	0.662	0.814
2	Environmental Regulatory Pressure	0.783	0.853	0.539	0.336	0.734
3	Environmental Competitive Intensity	0.891	0.918	0.652	0.495	0.353	0.808
4	Dominant Green Positioning	0.886	0.908	0.526	0.501	0.330	0.426	0.725

¹ CA = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted. The square roots of the AVE are presented diagonally. The values for the ERP are computed after removing items ERP3 and ERP4.

, the CA value exceeds 0.70 for all constructs, indicating the accuracy of the measurement scales used and adequate internal consistency. The CR values are also above 0.70 for all constructs, which is acceptable for reliability purposes. Furthermore, three constructs slightly exceed the 0.90 threshold, suggesting excellent measurement accuracy.

All four latent constructs have AVE (average variance extracted) values greater than 0.50, indicating that the principle of convergent validity is met. At the construct level, discriminant validity can be assessed using the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) [148]. Based on the data, discriminant validity is supported for all constructs. Following the recommendations of Henseler et al. [149], the HTMT criterion is below 0.85 for all construct correlations (ECP–ERP: 0.417, ECP–ECI: 0.559, ECP–DGP: 0.569, ERP–ECI: 0.439, ERP–DGP: 0.396, ECI–DGP: 0.487), which supports the discriminant validity of the model.

4.2. Structural Model Evaluation and Research Hypotheses Validation

The evaluation of the structural model involves checking for collinearity among constructs, followed by an assessment of the significance and relevance of the relationships, as well as the explanatory and predictive power of the model. This stage ultimately leads to the testing and validation of the research hypotheses.

Collinearity was assessed using the variance inflation factor (VIF). The VIF values ranged from 1.236 to 1.390, all below the acceptable threshold for PLS-SEM [148].

Table 4. Hypotheses testing through path coefficients (β).

Hypothesis	Direction	Structural Relationship	β	p-Value	f2	Result	Argumentation
H1	+	ECP → DGP	0.368	<0.001	0.199	Accepted	β > 0.1; p-value < 0.05
H2	+	ECI → DGP	0.301	0.002	0.147	Accepted	β > 0.1; p-value < 0.05
H3	+	ERP → DGP	0.111	0.159	0.043	Rejected	p-value > 0.05

Notes: “+” = positive direction; β = regression coefficient (standardised); f² = effect size.

presents the information obtained through WarpPLS, based on which the hypotheses can be validated, while Figure 3 illustrates the diagram of the proposed model.

The positive relationship between ECP and DGP is direct and statistically significant (β = 0.368, p-value < 0.01), supporting the validation of H1. The positive relationship between ECI and DGP is also statistically significant (β = 0.301, p-value = 0.002), confirming H2. However, the β value for the ECP → DGP relationship indicates a stronger link compared to ECI → DGP. Although the effect of ERP on DGP is positive, it is not statistically significant; hence, H3 is not supported (β = 0.111, p-value = 0.159). In the case of this relationship, it should be noted that the effect size (f² = 0.043) is too small to be detected as statistically significant within this sample [150,151]. Moreover, the removal of two indicators (ERP3 and ERP4) to ensure the fulfilment of reliability and validity criteria resulted in a narrower measurement of the ERP latent variable [152]. This restriction may reduce its explanatory power, even if the direction of the relationship remains positive. Thus, the results indicate that, within this sample, ERP does not robustly contribute to explaining DGP.

When comparing the effects of the two significant relationships, it is observed that the influence of ECP on DGP is stronger than that of ECI. Moreover, the effect size for ECP (f² = 0.199) is higher than that for ECI (f² = 0.147), indicating that ECP contributes more to explaining the variance in DGP than ECI.

The results regarding the influence of control variables (Appendix A,

Table A2. Analysis of the effects of control variables on the structural relationships in the model.

Structural Relationship	Initial Beta Coefficients		Beta Coefficients Under Control Variable Effects
			Number of Employees		Turnover		Years in the Organic Food Market		Product Portfolio Structure		Supply Chain Position
	β	p-Value	Β	p-Value	Β	p-Value	β	p-Value	Β	p-Value	β	p-Value
ECP → DGP	0.368	<0.001	0.325	0.001	0.372	<0.001	0.367	<0.001	0.326	0.001	0.376	<0.001
ECI → DGP	0.301	0.002	0.267	0.006	0.198	0.034	0.259	0.008	0.286	0.004	0.312	0.002
ERP → DGP	0.111	0.159	0.183	0.047	0.153	0.081	0.128	0.122	0.116	0.147	0.102	0.179

) show that the ECP → DGP and ECI → DGP relationships remain stable regardless of the company’s characteristics. In contrast, the ERP → DGP relationship becomes statistically significant in the presence of the control variable Number of Employees. These findings suggest that the size of the organisation, measured by the number of employees, plays an important role in how environmental regulations influence the adoption of a dominant green positioning strategy.

The R² value of 0.389 indicates that the explanatory variables (ECP, ERP, and ECI) account for 38.9% of the variance in the DGP construct. While this value does not indicate a substantial effect, it supports the model’s relevance. The Q² value of 0.397 is positive, showing that the predictive relevance of the structural model is acceptable [146].

4.3. Validation of the Research Model Based on Model Fit Indices

In WarpPLS, the validation of the model requires meeting ten global fit and quality indices [151]. The Average Path Coefficient (APC), Average R-squared (ARS), and Average Adjusted R-squared (AARS) are all statistically significant, indicating good explanatory power. Ideal values were obtained for the Average Variance Inflation Factor (AVIF) and the Average Full Collinearity VIF (AFVIF), suggesting no collinearity issues. Moreover, the compliance conditions are also met for the other indicators (

Table 5. The model fit and quality indices of the present study.

Measures	Model Fit Indices	Recommendation	Compliance
Average Path Coefficient (APC)	0.260, p < 0.001	p < 0.05	Yes
Average R-squared (ARS)	0.389, p = 0.002	p < 0.05	Yes
Average Adjusted R-squared (AARS)	0.364, p = 0.003	p < 0.05	Yes
Average Variance of Inflation Factors (AVIF)	1.323	Acceptable: AVIF ≤ 5 Ideal: AVIF ≤ 3.3	Yes (ideal)
Average Full Collinearity (AFVIF)	1.421	Acceptable: AFVIF ≤ 5 Ideal: AFVIF ≤ 3.3	Yes (ideal)
Tenenhaus Goodness-of-Fit (GoF)	0.481	Low: GoF ≥ 0.1 Average: GoF ≥ 0.25 High: GoF ≥ 0.36	Yes (high)
Simpson’s Paradox Ratio (SPR)	1.000	Acceptable: SPR ≥ 0.7 Ideal: SPR = 1	Yes (ideal)
R-squared Contribution Ratio (RSCR)	1.000	Acceptable: RSCR ≥ 0.9 Ideal: RSCR = 1	Yes (ideal)
Statistical Suppression Ratio (SSR)	1.000	Acceptable: SSR ≥ 0.7	Yes
Nonlinear Bivariate Causality Direction Ratio (NLBCDR)	1.000	Acceptable: NLBCDR ≥ 0.7	Yes

), which supports the model’s overall fit and quality.

5. Discussions

The proposed model includes three structural relationships designed to understand how internal brand positioning decisions are influenced by external requirements specific to the organic food market. The study focuses on assessing a market-oriented perspective, which assumes that consumers and other stakeholders are essential in defining the intended brand position [21]. Accordingly, this research addresses the need to examine how companies position their brands in response to relevant external drivers that can either inhibit or facilitate brand strategies in different contexts [33].

The first finding highlights the positive and direct impact of ECP on DGP. Accordingly, the higher the level of customer pressure perceived by decision-makers, the more likely they are to shape their decisions towards a dominant green positioning. In line with this, Belz and Schmidt-Riediger [42] found that higher customer pressure is experienced by companies for which social and environmental criteria play a dominant role in brand positioning. Similarly, previous studies [34,41] have shown that customer pressure significantly influences companies’ decisions to adopt green marketing. Evidence from other industries confirms that customer pressure is a strong driver of green innovations and practices. For example, in the hospitality sector, a study revealed that the growing environmental concerns among consumers have prompted companies to adopt green approaches, with customer pressure driving hotels to develop green products, processes, and initiatives, including green CSR programmes [153]. Therefore, this study validates such a relationship in the case of brand positioning decisions for organic food products.

The second finding refers to the influence of competition within the organic market, as perceived by decision-makers. The relationship between ECI and DGP is direct, positive, and statistically significant, indicating that a high level of perceived competition leads decision-makers to adopt a dominant green positioning strategy. Although does not focus specifically on the organic food sector or brand positioning, the study by Chen and Liu [92] offers an important insight supporting these results, demonstrating that companies relying on differentiation should integrate environmentalism into product innovation, particularly under intense competition. Likewise, Leonidou et al. [110] found that financial investments in “greening” marketing programmes tend to increase in the presence of strong competition.

Thus, both ECP and ECI influence the adoption of a specific brand positioning strategy. In this regard, Papadas [154] suggests that stakeholder pressures, including those from consumers and competitors, lead to the adoption of green marketing strategies, which in turn support the achievement of competitive advantage. Similarly, Polonsky [32] confirms the positive relationship between stakeholder pressures and green marketing strategy. However, it is important to note the difference in effect size between the two relationships discussed above: ECP exerts a stronger influence on DGP than ECI. In this sense, Belz and Schmidt-Riediger [42] found that the influence of competitors is generally lower than that of consumers in driving sustainable marketing strategy adaptation.

Placing these results within the context of the Romanian market, this difference highlights the need for a strategic orientation towards the requirements of both current and potential consumers, with the overarching objective of expanding this sector beyond its present boundaries. Lakatos et al. [155] emphasise that successful product development requires stakeholders to focus closely on product attributes to ensure consumer satisfaction and introduce a new perspective on value creation. For retailers, adopting a robust green positioning strategy requires actively listening to consumers, addressing the uncertainty and anxiety associated with green consumption, and delivering a shopping experience that meets their expectations [156]. The greater attention devoted to consumer demands may also be explained by the relatively low environmental competitive intensity in certain categories of organic food products (e.g., bakery and pastry goods, biscuits and snacks, beverages, and meat products) where competition primarily comes from conventional food brands. However, relying solely on this type of competitive framework cannot provide a solid foundation for the development of a dominant green positioning; instead, it is more likely to lead to the creation of a mass-market green brand image.

In contrast, the relationship between ERP and DGP is statistically insignificant, indicating that ERP alone does not have the strength to influence the choice of a dominant green positioning. This result can be explained by the fact that these specific regulatory requirements are mandatory for all firms holding organic certification. Consequently, in a highly regulated and standardised environment such as the EU organic food market, the impact of regulatory pressure becomes essentially neutral from a brand-differentiation standpoint. In this sense, attributes and benefits that derive exclusively from compliance with mandatory standards may be considered less salient when designing the intended positioning, their role being rather to legitimise the brand within its category [25]. This interpretation is supported by consumer research [83,84,145,157,158] conducted mainly in mature organic markets, which highlights consumers’ desire for offerings that go beyond “basic” organic attributes. By contrast, in emerging markets, where consumer trust in certification systems is comparatively low [159,160,161], it becomes essential to build a positive and credible brand image associated with values such as health and sustainability [162]. In these contexts, branding plays a more consequential role than mere certification and legal compliance, serving as a key instrument for strengthening trust and educating consumers.

Interpreting the relationship between ERP and DGP requires attention to the characteristics of the study population. Firms already established in this market—that is, those holding at least the standard organic certification—are likely to perceive lower regulatory pressure. In contrast, evidence from other industries [93,97,120,163] shows that sector specific regulatory pressures often catalyse the “greening” of products and processes and in turn shape organisational strategy.

Nevertheless, the results indicate that organisational size, measured by the number of employees, plays an important role in how environmental regulations influence the adoption of a positioning strategy. Larger organisations tend to respond to coercive pressures by adopting positioning that reflects stricter environmental requirements. In this regard, Micheli et al. [164] demonstrated that company size significantly affects the relationship between internal and/or external drivers, including environmental regulations, and practices in green supply chain management. Moreover, Wallach and Popovich [165] emphasise that, to gain credibility, leading brands must make additional efforts, demonstrating not only formal compliance but also a genuine alignment between organisational values and publicly communicated behaviours. This heightened expectation from consumers demands a consistent commitment and an authentic positioning strategy, supported by transparent mechanisms such as independent certifications.

In addition, large companies may be less willing to take risks that could harm their brand image or reputation. At the same time, they have the resources to adopt a proactive orientation, enabling them to anticipate potential legislative changes and take action in that direction, including through brand positioning strategies [112].

6. Conclusions

This study explores the influence of external drivers on companies’ decisions to select a positioning strategy. The research focused on organic food brands within the portfolios of companies operating at different levels of the supply chain. Specifically, the study examined a positioning strategy characteristic of organic food brands, namely dominant green positioning.

Viewed in the context of an emerging market such as Romania, the findings highlight that the pressure perceived by decision-makers from both consumers’ environmental concerns and competitive intensity influences brand positioning strategy. In this way, the research offers valuable contributions at both the theoretical level and in terms of the practical applicability of its findings.

6.1. Theoretical Contributions

First of all, the study makes an important contribution to the understanding of brand positioning from a managerial perspective, thus helping to fill an existing gap in the literature [21,33,112]. Considering the importance and necessity of approaching the positioning process from a three-dimensional perspective, the study focuses on the internal decision regarding the intended brand positioning. In particular, an extended conceptualisation of the dominant green positioning strategy adapted to the organic food domain is proposed. Moreover, in order to analyse the data by PLS-SEM, a measurement scale with a higher performance level than those used in the identified studies [41,42] is advanced. The measurement scale has been validated for reliability and validity.

Second, the study enhances the understanding of external drivers influencing the positioning of organic food brands. This topic is discussed in a limited number of studies, which, however, focus neither on intended positioning nor on the organic food market. In the analysed context, environmental customer pressure and environmental competitive intensity can be considered strong external drivers motivating management to adopt a dominant green positioning strategy.

Third, while prior research has largely focused on integrating environmentalism into marketing activities within organisations from various industries, this study examined the proposed relationships within a population composed exclusively of companies holding organic certification and a brand representing a green offering. By validating the relationships in such a context, this research makes a valuable contribution to the literature.

6.2. Managerial Implications

This study provides valuable insights for managers of companies operating in Romania’s organic food market, an emerging market characterised by increasing competition yet still relatively low consumption levels. At present, the organic food market remains a niche market, albeit with considerable growth potential. Economic actors in this market have the option of adopting a dominant green positioning strategy both through points of parity and by identifying points of difference that highlight the specificity of their brands compared to competitors. This context requires substantial efforts towards brand differentiation, particularly in categories where consumers can choose from multiple alternatives (e.g., dairy products, honey-based products, fruits, and vegetables). The study’s findings encourage companies to invest more in research and development activities aimed at creating innovative products with green attributes that deliver consumer-relevant benefits.

Dominant green positioning entails a continuous focus on consumer requirements and heightened attention to their requests (e.g., the use of environmentally friendly packaging, the reduction in food additives beyond the limits permitted in organic food products). Exceeding EU standards for organic food production provides a robust avenue for differentiation, which implies that green attributes and benefits occupy a central place in defining the intended brand position. These positioning bases have the power to attract the target audience and to generate competitive advantage for the companies. By contrast, elements such as exclusivity should be considered peripheral, because they may narrow the customer base. Managers should therefore ensure that there is a sufficiently large group of consumers who are interested in and willing to pay for an exclusive image, especially in an emerging market.

The study confirms the primary role of consumer environmental pressure in shaping brand positioning decisions. Managers should periodically conduct market research among current and potential consumers to track changes in the salience of environmental concerns, preferences for products and green attributes (ingredients, packaging, and certifications), and receptiveness to the company’s environmental initiatives. The results also show that strong competition favours the selection of deep green elements for brand differentiation. In markets perceived as highly competitive, with elevated promotional activity, continuous monitoring of competitors and of consumer responses to marketing actions is essential. Managers should capture these market signals and assess whether strategic decisions are warranted to consolidate green brand positioning and to seize market opportunities. In this process, companies must acknowledge the critical role of managers in making strategic decisions and evaluating external drivers. This importance is heightened by the recognised gap between perception and the strategic choice made [34], as also noted in positioning research by other authors [59,65,166].

The study concludes that marketing can provide solutions for aligning the interests of various parties in the organic food market. On the one hand, the findings encourage producers to invest more in the development of new organic products that better meet consumer requirements, and encourage distributors and retailers to be more receptive to this category. On the other hand, communication campaigns can place greater emphasis on the ecological attributes of organic foods and on associated emotional benefits. By using messages that promote responsibility and sustainability, these campaigns can generate greater interest and drive demand. Therefore, by adopting a dominant green positioning strategy, companies can engage in marketing that plays an important role in developing the organic food market, with positive effects on consumer health and well-being, on corporate profitability, and societal sustainability.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

In addition to its contributions, this study has several limitations that should be acknowledged to ensure a clear understanding of the results. First, these limitations are linked to the sampling method and the relatively small sample size (77 companies). A non-probabilistic sampling approach was used, which allowed the selection of companies meeting the research criteria under the given conditions. However, this methodological framework limits the sample’s representativeness and, consequently, the extent to which the findings can be generalised to the entire population of companies. The small sample size, which is common in business-to-business research [123,167], was influenced by the size of the local organic market, the selection criteria, the inclusion of a single respondent per company, and the difficulty in reaching relevant decision-makers. The analysis was conducted using PLS-SEM, a method recommended for such contexts, and all minimum sample size requirements were met [146]. On this basis, the sample size can be regarded as adequate for the studied population, while the results are supported by reliability and predictive relevance indicators. Future research based on larger samples and probabilistic sampling methods could further strengthen and expand the findings of this study.

A second limitation is related to the heterogeneity of the sample, which includes several categories of economic operators within the supply chain. Although the selection sought to include companies with shared characteristics—particularly regarding involvement in the internal decision-making process for green brand positioning—this heterogeneity may have introduced systematic variations in perceptions of external pressures. To address this, specific control variables were integrated into the model. However, the number of respondents in each category requires caution when interpreting the results. Since the main objective was to evaluate managerial perceptions as a whole without subgroup differentiation, future studies could focus exclusively on producers and processors, who are likely to be more homogeneous in terms of their activity profile. For distributors and retailers with company-owned organic food brands, the small population size limits the possibility of a quantitative approach, making a qualitative investigation more appropriate. Expanding the research scope to a more general topic, such as the adaptation and communication of brand positioning strategies in the organic food sector, could also enlarge the target population and allow for a larger sample.

Another limitation is associated with the analytical method. While PLS-SEM is suitable for exploratory studies and small samples [168], it has recognised methodological constraints. Notably, it lacks global model fit indices comparable to those in CB-SEM (Covariance-Based SEM), which limits a holistic assessment of model validity [146]. Moreover, prior research indicates a potential risk of bias in estimating path coefficients when dealing with very small or unbalanced samples [169].

This model addresses only a subset of factors that may influence brand positioning decisions. Future research could shallow explore a wider range of drivers, including internal ones. Building on the progress achieved in this study, further investigations could focus on companies’ perspectives on green brand positioning, as well as on alternative approaches such as shallow positioning.

Overall, the findings raise awareness of how external pressures, particularly from consumers and competitors, influence strategic positioning choices. In line with stakeholder theory, companies that remain connected and responsive to their environment are more likely to make decisions aligned with stakeholder demands. This study thus reinforces the strategic role of stakeholders in shaping the intended brand positioning, particularly in emerging markets such as Romania, where consumer influence is vital for the development of brands capable of meeting the evolving expectations of the market.