Next Article in Journal
Easy to Know, Hard to Act: How Do Green Attribute Centrality, Environmental Concern, and Trust Exert a Chain Effect on Purchase Decisions?
Previous Article in Journal
Determinants of Renewable Energy Technology Deployment: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 23
10.3390/su172310539
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

How Consumers’ Motivations Influence Preferences for Organic Agricultural Products in Türkiye?

by
Gamze Aydın Eryılmaz
Landscape and Ornamental Plants Program, Park and Garden Plants Department, Ondokuz Mayıs University, 55270 Samsun, Türkiye
Sustainability 2025, 17(23), 10539; https://doi.org/10.3390/su172310539
Submission received: 10 September 2025 / Revised: 17 November 2025 / Accepted: 18 November 2025 / Published: 25 November 2025
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Despite Türkiye’s high agricultural potential, consumer interest in organic foods remains limited. Understanding the motivations of Turkish consumers who prefer organic foods is crucial for expanding the domestic organic market. This research aims to explain consumers’ attitudes and purchasing behaviors toward organic agricultural products by utilizing the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theories and examining the impact of health, environmental, economic, and social motivations on these attitudes and behaviors. Research data were obtained from online surveys conducted with 952 adult consumers across Türkiye. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling was used in the analysis of the data. Research results show that females purchase more organic agricultural products than males, and consumer aged 36 and over purchase more organic agricultural products than those aged 18–25. In the research, health-related, environmental, economic, and social motivations were found to be statistically significant in terms of consumer attitudes. It has been determined that social motivations are statistically significant in the purchasing behavior of organic agricultural products. The results show that a positive attitude towards organic agricultural products has been formed, but only social motivations can motivate consumers to purchase. The results indicate that the attitude and perceived behavioral control dimensions of the TPB, when considered in conjunction with the value- and norm-based explanations of the VBN, provide a more holistic explanation of organic product consumption. These findings highlight the importance of developing marketing strategies that center on social motivations and value-based communication. Furthermore, Turkish consumers’ economic constraints and product price differences also influence their purchasing decisions. In this context, incentives for low-income groups, such as discount campaigns and promotions, are recommended.

1. Introduction

1.1. Organic Agriculture

One of the most important challenges faced by the agricultural sector in the past decade is to be environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable [1]. Organic agriculture has been seen as a valid solution in ensuring agricultural sustainability [2]. This production model attracts attention as an indispensable part of sustainable agricultural practices. Organic agriculture is becoming an important economic activity for countries. Along with its economic dimension, organic agriculture also provides a sustainable balance in clean agricultural production and protection of the global ecosystem [3]. According to the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement (IFOAM), organic agriculture is defined as a production system that protects human health and sustains the ecosystem. This system is based on ecological processing processes, biodiversity, and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs that have negative effects [4]. For a product to be considered organic, all stages from input supply to delivery to the final consumer must be controlled and documented. No product without an organic certificate can be produced or placed on the market under this name. Control and certification, one of the basic features of organic agriculture, ensure that the products grown are produced, processed, packaged, and distributed according to organic standards [5].
Organic food products were initially presented as a niche in the market for health-conscious consumers [6]. Nowadays, it is seen that the demand for organic products is increasing all over the world [7]. One of the most important reasons for this increasing demand is consumer concerns about the harmful effects of traditional agriculture on human health and the environment [8]. Social and economic motivations also provide positive developments in organic product sales [9]. This attitude–behavior difference shows that consumers consider the balance between multiple attributes when purchasing organic products [10]. In this respect, consumers’ food choice represents a complex process in which various interrelated factors play an important role [11].
While in the past, the production and consumption of organic agricultural products were more popular in developed countries, over time these products began to be accepted in developing countries as well. Türkiye is among the countries with high agricultural potential in the world. It is a country suitable for organic farming with its suitable climate, soil, and water resources in a wide geography. Organic farming in Türkiye started in the mid-1980s. Although farmers pioneered the organic farming movement in developed countries, European private organic farming companies played an active role in the adoption of organic farming in Türkiye [12].
Organic producers in Türkiye can market their products abroad through contracted companies. They can deliver their products to consumers domestically through farm sales, ecological markets, specialized shops, e-commerce and intermediary service providers. Imported organic products can be exported abroad directly or after stages such as processing, packaging, etc., through contracted companies. These imported products reach domestic consumers through ecological markets and specialized shops (Figure 1).
Despite the increasing area of organic farmland in Türkiye and the development of marketing opportunities, per capita consumption of organic products remains relatively low. Switzerland, Denmark, Austria, and Luxembourg are among the countries with the highest per capita consumption of organic products in the world. Annual per capita organic product expenditure in Switzerland is €437, in Denmark €365, in Austria €274, and in Luxembourg €259. In contrast, annual per capita organic product consumption in Türkiye is only around €0.60 [15]. Two fundamental questions arise here. First, “Why is the demand for organic products so low in Türkiye, an agricultural country with a high potential for organic agriculture?” Previous research suggests that the primary reasons for this are consumers’ lack of sufficient knowledge about organic products [16], the concentration of organic product markets in large urban centers, and the higher prices of organic products compared to conventional products [17]. And secondly, “What are the motivational sources of the small number of organic consumers in Türkiye?”
According to Feil et al. [18], the future of organic products depends on consumers’ motivation to become “organic consumers” and their perception of these products as different and more sustainable than conventional alternatives. Motivations towards purchasing organic products are based on a wide variety of factors. Consumers’ attitudes and behaviors toward organic products are largely shaped by individuals’ motivations, values, and perceptions. Some consumers prefer organic products due to health concerns, while others may purchase organic products out of environmental concerns or as a sign of social status. These differences can be explained by the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). According to TPB, an individual’s behavioral intention is determined by attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control [19]. Accordingly, a consumer with a positive attitude toward organic products will purchase organic products if they receive approval from their peers and believe they have sufficient self-control during the purchase process. Furthermore, the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) Theory is effective in explaining the influence of environmental and ethical motivations on consumer behavior [20]. According to VBN theory, individuals feel normative pressure in line with their personal values and environmental beliefs and act accordingly. For example, a consumer with strong environmental values supports their personal beliefs and exhibits socially acceptable behavior by choosing organic products.
This research aims to empirically examine the motivations that shape consumer attitudes toward organic foods in Türkiye, where organic agriculture has a high potential but consumption remains limited, and the conditions under which these motivations translate into purchasing behavior. This research is also based on a theoretical framework combining the TPB and VBN theories to explain the low consumption of organic products in Türkiye and to understand the mechanisms driving consumer behavior.
At a theoretical level, this research proposes a holistic behavioral model of organic product consumption by combining the rational action approach of TPB with the value-based explanations of VBN. In this context, the research tests the cultural validity of behavioral models in Türkiye by revealing how individuals’ motivations, not only benefit-based but also value-belief-based, influence organic product choice. From a practical perspective, the findings will contribute to the development of targeted communication, pricing, and awareness strategies tailored to consumer segments for industry stakeholders, policymakers, and marketing strategists. Thus, the research offers concrete recommendations for the development of the organic agriculture sector in Türkiye, increasing consumption awareness, and supporting the transition to sustainable food systems.

1.2. Motivations for Organic Agricultural Products

Consumer values are classified as social, emotional, epistemic, and conditional. Each of them, when integrated with environmental awareness, health awareness, and ethical considerations, influences consumer behavior and preferences [21]. Consumer behavior also plays a key role in the development of sustainable agricultural systems [22]. Understanding the reasons for human consumption of food is important to improve people’s lives worldwide. Organic agricultural products have played an important role in this improvement in terms of human health and environmental protection [23].
Further growth in the organic sector requires a balance between supply and demand. Increased production volumes can only be sold if the demand for organic food increases. Therefore, major efforts are needed to expand the market position of organic food and to ensure that consumers purchase more products [24].
Recent research, particularly in other countries, indicates that there are different consumer motivations for purchasing organic agricultural products. Consumers prefer organic products because they find them healthy [25,26,27], because they support the local economy [28], because they are environmentally friendly [29,30], and for social reasons [9]. In the few research conducted across Türkiye, it has been determined that health [31,32,33], environmental [31,33] and social motivations [33] are effective.

1.2.1. Health Motivation

Health beliefs include perceptions surrounding the healthiness of a food. It is this perception of the healthiness of a food that has been largely targeted as a modifiable factor that can influence consumer behavior [34]. A health belief is a conscious behavioral tendency formed on a certain cognitive basis. This belief serves as a fundamental driving force in decision-making [35].
Modern consumers are more conscious of the effects of their dietary habits on health. Health awareness is one of the most important factors affecting the behavior of organic food consumers [36]. Organic foods are perceived by consumers as healthier than conventional agricultural products because they do not contain chemical substances [37,38,39]. Iqbal et al. [26], in their research, revealed that individuals’ health awareness and food safety concerns are positively related to their intention to purchase organic food products. However, consumers’ food purchasing decisions are much more than a simple choice between unhealthy and healthy food. Nevertheless, due to modern health concerns, organic food consumers exhibit a number of common characteristics [40]. Consumers’ healthier dietary choices include all cognitive, emotional, and practical efforts [41]. Moreover, healthy food choices depend on the nutritional knowledge of the general population, and this social attitude has a significant impact on individual food motivations [20].

1.2.2. Economic Motivation

Consumers’ interest and trust in organic farming can have significant economic impacts on farmers. Consumers’ motivations and preferences in this area are critical to the development of organic farming. The economic relationship established between consumers and farmers through organic products has a mutually supportive structure. While the consumption of organic products offers farmers the opportunity to earn higher incomes, it also provides consumers with access to healthier and more environmentally friendly products. Consumer motivation can help increase the sales of organic products and improve economic development [42]. Therefore, supporting a population to consume more organic food is really important to promote and expand the organic market [28]. Although organic products are sold at high prices, a more important obstacle for organic producers to stimulate demand is the lack of concrete awareness of the features that distinguish organic products from conventional products [43]. Strengthening consumers’ awareness of organic products and regulating demand contributes to the realization of economically sustainable organic production.

1.2.3. Environmental Motivation

Problems such as environmental pollution, ecological imbalance, and diseases are serious threats to the life of humanity and the sustainability of the world in developed and developing countries. Environmental concerns lead to changes in individuals’ lifestyles and direct them to environmentally friendly consumption behaviors. Indeed, environmental problems constitute a global necessity that requires all individuals to take action. For this reason, environmentally sensitive consumers want to support a more sustainable agricultural model by choosing organic products. In addition, the potential of organic agriculture to protect biodiversity is an important source of motivation for many consumers. Schmitt et al. [44] pointed out two dimensions of environmental identity: Identification with nature and seeing oneself as part of the collective struggle to protect the environment.
Organic production is considered an environmentally friendly form of production. The main objectives in organic agriculture are as follows: (i) confronting environmental and climate problems; (ii) protecting biodiversity and natural resources; (iii) applying high standards for animal welfare and animal production [45]. Consumers in many countries see themselves as part of protecting the environment and saving the world by purchasing organic food [46]. However, only organic consumers consider environmental impacts in their food choices and often prioritize organic products over alternatives [47].

1.2.4. Social Motivation

The attribute of a food represents its observable or perceived characteristics. Tangible attributes reflect the physical characteristics of the product, such as quality, which are more subjective. The outcomes are more abstract and reflect the perceived costs or benefits associated with certain attributes. These are tangible functional outcomes and more abstract psychosocial outcomes. Psychosocial outcomes can be psychological (e.g., How do I feel about consuming organic food?) or social (e.g., What do others think about my consuming organic food?) [48].
Food preferences are a social phenomenon that consumers are interested in and represent their lifestyles [49]. People generally believe that who you are is related to what you buy to some extent. Similarly, it is possible to find common points in the belief structures of organic product consumers [50]. It may also include consumers using organic foods to differentiate themselves from others and to make inferences about the identities and social roles of others [51]. Puska [52] revealed that there is a positive relationship between organic food consumption and socially focused values such as universality, helpfulness, tradition, conformity, and security.
Although motivations are examined under different categories in the research, in reality, these motivations interact with each other. For example, a consumer motivated by a desire for healthy eating may be willing to pay a higher price for organic foods. In this case, health motivation becomes a factor that directly influences economic motivation. Furthermore, the willingness to pay more strengthens an individual’s perception of being a conscious consumer, which, in turn, shapes their social identity and self-expression. This interaction demonstrates that motivations are not independent of one another but exhibit a multidimensional and dynamic structure.
Türkiye’s organic food market is a developing sector but one with high potential. Therefore, it is important to identify the social, economic, environmental, and health-based motivations that drive consumers to organic products. However, the existing literature has certain limitations on this topic. For example, some studies examining organic food motivations have used qualitative research methods with small numbers of participants, limiting the generalizability of the findings [53]. While there are studies examining consumer motivations for organic food across Türkiye [31,54], these studies have generally been conducted at the provincial level. Furthermore, these studies generally focus on identifying the factors influencing consumers’ organic food purchase preferences.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

The research data covers consumers living in urban areas in Türkiye who have purchased organic agricultural products at least once. A total of 952 adult consumers participated in the research, selected using a purposive sampling method through online surveys. This sampling method is one of the most commonly used approaches in qualitative research across a wide range of scientific disciplines [55]. It involves the deliberate selection of contexts, materials or participants who share specific qualities that are relevant and have the potential to answer the inquiry about the phenomenon of interest [56].
The survey was designed to encompass participants from diverse regions, thereby ensuring a representative sample of the entire population of Türkiye. Data collection was conducted in February 2025. In the surveys, a total of 15 questions prepared by the researcher were asked to determine the health-related (4 questions), economic (3 questions), environmental (4 questions), and social (4 questions) motivations of the consumers. Questions regarding consumer motivation were arranged in the form of a Likert Scale (strongly disagree: 1, disagree: 2, undecided: 3, agree: 4, strongly agree: 5) (Table 1).

2.2. Methodology of the Research

In studies addressing consumers’ organic consumption preferences, it is seen that factors such as health and environmental issues, and price and quality come to the fore in organic consumption [57,58,59]. However, Costa et al. [60] stated that organic products are an indicator of social identity or class while Kim et al. [61] stated that the effect of social values on organic product consumption is greater than environmental sensitivity.
The hypotheses developed in the research are based on two main theories (TPB—[19] and VBN—[20]) to explain consumers’ attitudes and purchasing behaviors toward organic products. TPB proposes that consumer behavior is driven by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. In this context, health (H1) and economic motivations (H4) are considered important determinants in individuals’ development of positive attitudes toward organic products. Furthermore, the assumption that attitudes toward organic products directly influence purchasing behavior (H6) is also consistent with the theoretical predictions.
VBN emphasizes that value systems and personal norms are the primary factors shaping consumers’ behavior. Therefore, environmental (H2) and social motivations (H3) are assumed to positively influence individuals’ attitudes and behaviors toward organic products by activating their value-based beliefs and norms. Demographic variables (H5) are considered to fall within the scope of both theories. From a TBP perspective, demographic factors indirectly influence an individual’s perception of attitudes and behavioral control, while from a VBN perspective, these variables shape an individual’s value and belief structure.
The theoretical basis of the hypotheses reveals that organic product purchasing behavior has a multidimensional structure, with both rational factors (health, economy) and value-based factors (environment, social norms) shaping consumer decisions (Table 2).
The quantitative approach allows for the collection of data from a large sample using structured data collection tools and the quantitative analysis of relationships between variables. This increases the reliability and generalizability of the results. Because the research model includes direct and indirect relationships between multidimensional and latent variables, the PLS-SEM (Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling) method was selected as a quantitative method. PLS is a multivariate statistical method that simultaneously examines the relationship between latent (unobservable) variables and the relationship between observed variables and latent variables measured indirectly through many indicators [62]. Data were analyzed with the SmartPLS 3 program.
The PLS model in the research will be created with formative variables. In the measurement model, it is assumed that the latent variable is defined by formative indicators that can be multidimensional and that there is a residual term in a linear function [63]. When solving with PLS in structural equation modeling created with formative variables, it is necessary to test some validity assumptions regarding formative variables. There are two conditions for testing the validity of the model in formative variables:
  • Outer VIF (Outer model VIF) values should be <10.
  • p values of factor weights should be <0.05.
The factor loadings of indicators (observed variables) with a p value above 0.05 are examined and if the factor loading is >0.5 or the p-value of the factor loading is <0.05, that indicator can remain in the model; otherwise, the indicator should be removed from the model [64].
All VIF values of the indicators in the model were obtained as <10. In this case, it is seen that the first assumption for reliability and validity is met. There is no multicollinearity problem among the indicators (Table 3).
The fact that the Cronbach alpha coefficients of the measurement values used in the research were above 0.80 reveals that the internal consistency reliability of the scale was ensured and the measurement structures were represented reliably.
According to the research results, factor weights of EM1, EM2, HM1, HM2, SOCM2 and CA3 variables were not found to be significant (p > 0.05). When the factor loadings of these items were examined, the factor loadings of variables other than SOCM2 were found to be significant (p < 0.05) (Table 4).
Since both the factor weights and loadings of the SOCM2 variable were not significant, it was removed from the model. All factor loadings of the variables were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.001) (Table 5). With this result, the second condition was also met.

3. Results and Discussion

It was observed that females’ purchasing behavior of organic agricultural products was higher than males, and the standardized path coefficient was obtained as 0.078, which was statistically significant (p < 0.05). This result is consistent with the research results showing that females’ organic food purchasing behavior is more positive [24,65,66]. In studies conducted in different cities of Türkiye, it was found that females’ tendency to consume organic products was more positive than males [67,68,69]. In addition, the consumption status of those aged 36–45 (β = 0.119; p = 0.003), 46–55 (β = 0.092; p = 0.011) and 56–65 (β = 0.093; p = 0.002) is higher than those aged 18–25 (Table 6). Ngobo [70] and Hwang [51] found in their studies that older age positively affects consumers’ intention to purchase organic food. Hartman and Wright [71] revealed in their studies that health consciousness is at the forefront in the preference of organic food in wealthy elderly consumers, while environmental consciousness and lifestyle are effective in young consumers.
The path coefficient between consumer attitude and social motivations was found to be statistically significant as 0.221 (p < 0.001). The path coefficient between consumer attitude and purchasing behavior was also found to be statistically significant as 0.254 (p < 0.001) (Table 6). It is an expected result that the increase in consumer attitude towards organic foods will have a positive effect on purchasing behavior. According to Yazdanpanah and Forouzani [72], since organic food consumption is an individual behavior, attitude is a stronger determinant of organic food purchase intention than other variables. On the other hand, image-oriented consumers are affected by the social benefits it provides when purchasing organic food. The fact that these consumers consider the environmental benefits of organic foods indicates that they prefer socially responsible brands [73]. According to a research in Türkiye, it is thought that because organic food prices are high, people with high social status and income can consume these foods [53].
In the research, the path coefficient between purchasing behavior and social motivations (0.180) was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.001). The increase in social motivations increases consumer attitudes and purchasing behavior towards organic foods. There are studies showing that consumers act with a sense of social responsibility when purchasing organic products [9,74,75,76]. Social values are effective in organic product preference, and consumers who want to increase their status and image can consume organic products even if they do not adopt the philosophy of consuming organic products [77]. The results show that the path coefficient between consumer attitude and economic motivations (0.202) is statistically significant (p < 0.001). This indicates that consumer attitude will change positively with the increase in economic motivations (Table 6). According to research conducted by Ditlevsen et al. [47], consumers think that they support the local economy by purchasing organic products.
The path coefficient between consumer attitude and health-related motivations (0.258) is statistically significant (p < 0.001), indicating that consumer attitudes will change positively as health motivation increases. Previous research also supports the fact that consumers find organic foods healthier than conventional foods and turn to organic foods to protect their health [78,79]. In addition, parents are increasingly inclined to prefer organic products for their children, considering their health benefits [80]. The research found that health concerns did not motivate consumers to purchase. A similar study conducted with Turkish consumers also indicated that consumers’ knowledge about the potential to reduce the risk of various diseases (chronic diseases, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, hormonal and learning disorders) compared to conventional foods did not sufficiently motivate them to purchase organic food [54].
The path coefficient between environmental motivations and consumer attitude (0.137) was statistically significant (p = 0.004) (Table 6). This result does not support the research result conducted by Malissiova et al. [65]. The researchers mentioned have identified a distinct tendency for consumers to associate organic food preferences with environmental awareness. Nafees et al. [81] found that those who purchase organic foods with health motivation mostly show a benefit-oriented approach, while those who purchase with environmental motivation are mostly social individuals.
The SRMR value for both the saturated and estimated models is 0.020, indicating an excellent fit (values below 0.08 are considered acceptable). Both d_ULS and d_G values are below 0.95, suggesting that the model has a satisfactory fit with the data. The minimal difference between the saturated and estimated models further confirms that the estimated model fits the data very well (Table 7).

4. Limitations and Future Research Directions

One of the most important limitations is that the research was conducted with consumers living in urban areas in Türkiye. Therefore, the results only cover urban consumers and do not represent the attitudes and behaviors of rural consumers towards organic products. There are significant differences between urban and rural consumers in Türkiye in terms of education, occupation, income and living conditions, and in this case, consumption preferences may also vary. In future studies, comparing consumer behaviors towards organic products in urban and rural areas may provide a better understanding of the perception towards organic products throughout the country.
Although conducting the survey online allowed for data collection from more consumers in a short time, only people with internet access were included in the research. Participation was limited for consumers living in areas with limited internet access or those with low digital literacy. This may have caused the study to focus on consumer groups with similar characteristics. Therefore, in future research on the subject, using both online and face-to-face surveys as data collection methods may increase the demographic diversity of consumers.
In this research, all social, economic, health and environmental motivations were found to be significant in consumers’ attitudes towards organic agricultural products, and only social motivations were reflected in consumer behaviors. It is expected that the relationship between consumers’ organic product purchasing behaviors and environmental motivations will be strong. This situation suggests that the environmental motivation indicators used in the research model may be inadequate.
As a result, the findings presented in this research should be evaluated within the framework of the conditions of a specific sample group. The limitations of the research were addressed from both methodological and sampling perspectives, which limits the generalizability of the findings. However, these limitations also form the basis for future research based on more comprehensive and diverse data collection techniques. They include consumers from different demographic groups and living in different geographical regions in particular will allow for multidimensional analysis of consumer behavior towards organic products.

5. Conclusions

There are many motivations in the attitudes and purchasing behaviors of consumers towards organic agricultural products. Choosing organic agricultural products is seen as a social responsibility, beyond being an individual choice. Research findings indicate that attitudes and purchasing behaviors toward organic agricultural products have a multidimensional structure. According to the TPB, the three primary factors that determine individuals’ behavior are attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. Most important result of the research is that consumers are positive towards organic products in terms of attitude, but only social motivations create an effect that motivates the consumer in purchasing. This suggests that behavioral intention is shaped not only by attitude but also by social norms. The significant influence of social motivations on purchasing behavior, in particular, supports the assumption that individuals seek acceptance in their social circles, increase their social status, or are perceived as conscious consumers.
Price, accessibility and trust issues can be cited among the reasons why consumers’ organic food attitudes in Türkiye do not turn into purchasing behavior [82]. There is a significant price difference between organic and conventional food in Türkiye. However, Turkish consumers are willing to pay an average of 2% more for organic products than for conventional ones. This willingness to pay is much higher in developed countries. In developed countries, the price difference ranges from 10% to 250%, depending on the product [83].
Organic food can be associated with a desire for health. In this context, the lack of a significant health motivation in organic food purchases in the study may be considered paradoxical. Consumers’ purchasing power in Türkiye is gradually decreasing. This may lead them to turn to lower-priced conventional food choices [82]. Turkish consumers’ awareness of organic products is also low. It is difficult to say whether they are sufficiently informed about the differences between organic food and conventional alternatives [84]. For example, consumers may label any product grown by villagers as “organic.” Trust in organic products is also a significant issue. Even if consumers have health concerns, they are more likely to use medication and supplements [85].
The research result emphasizes that consumers prefer organic agricultural products with the motivation of feeling special and being accepted as part of a group rather than its primary effects. In summary, it can be said that consumers do not prefer organic products only by prioritizing health concerns and environmental motivations; they consume organic products in order to appear in a higher status in society and to be valued more in the social environment. This result directly aligns with the subjective norm component of the TPB. According to Ecevit et al. [77], the belief that organic consumers are seen as privileged and organic consumption is accepted as a status indicator is an important factor that directs consumers to purchase. Ünal et al. [32] also revealed in their research that the most important factor in consumers’ decisions to purchase organic food in Türkiye is emotions.
Türkiye is a country where family and kinship ties are very strong and that values solidarity rather than individualism. Individuals tend to act not only for their own benefit but also for the overall benefit of society. Buying organic products not only means eating healthily but also contributing to the health of future generations and supporting domestic producers. In the context of the VBN, the results reveal that consumers’ preference for organic products is based on social values rather than health and environmental beliefs. According to VBN theory, individuals’ behavior is shaped by their values and the beliefs based on these values. In societies with collectivist values, such as Türkiye’s, individuals’ behavior is not solely focused on personal benefit but also on social benefit. In this context, organic product consumption reflects the norm that individuals should exhibit “correct” and “moral” behavior.
Organic agriculture offers valuable opportunities for society not only in terms of health and environment but also in economic terms. Increasing consumers’ awareness and trust in organic products will also provide economic benefits to farmers. Widespread communication tools can be used to strengthen consumer awareness and introduce organic products to wider audiences. The recognition of organic products alone will not be enough for a country with a fragile economy like Türkiye. Because organic products are generally more expensive than conventional products and unfortunately only a certain part of the population has the income to regularly purchase these products. Uzundumlu and Sezgin [86] stated that the most important factor affecting organic product consumption in Türkiye is economic conditions. From this perspective, it is important to take the necessary steps to fully benefit from the potential of organic agriculture. In addition, considering that organic products will reduce health expenses in the long term and this method will reduce environmental damage, it is clear that organic agriculture will be more economically advantageous in the coming years. In addition, since Turkish consumers prefer organic products due to social status and social acceptance motivation, campaigns should include strategies that target specific social groups and strengthen the perception of privileged consumption rather than being for general informational purposes.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırmaları Etik Kurul Kararları (protocol code (2025-127) and date of approval 31 January 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the author on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lamonaca, E.; Cafarelli, B.; Calculli, C.; Tricase, C. Consumer Perception of Attributes of Organic Food in Italy: A CUB Model Study. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Pérez, I.A.V.; Toral, J.N.; Vázquez, Á.T.P.; Hernández, F.G.; Ferrer, G.J.; Cano, D.G. Potential for Organic Conversion and Energy Efficiency of Conventional Livestock Production in a Humid Tropical Region of Mexico. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Schutter, O. Report Submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food; United Nations: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  4. IFOAM. International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements. 2025. Available online: https://www.ifoam.bio/why-organic/organic-landmarks/definition-organic (accessed on 15 June 2025).
  5. Boz, İ.; Kılıç, O. Measures to be Taken for the Development of Organic Agriculture in Türkiye. Turk. J. Agric. Res. 2021, 8, 390–400. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sadiq, M.; Adil, M.; Paul, J. Does Social Influence Turn Pessimistic Consumers Green? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 2937–2950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kushwah, S.; Dhir, A.; Sagar, M.; Gupta, B. Determinants of Organic Food Consumption. A systematic Literature Review on Motives and Barriers. Appetite 2019, 143, 104402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gamage, A.; Gangahagedara, R.; Gamage, J.; Jayasinghe, N.; Kodikara, N.; Suraweera, P.; Merah, O. Role of Organic Farming for Achieving Sustainability in Agriculture. Farming Syst. 2023, 1, 100005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Winterstein, J.; Zhu, B.; Habisch, A. How Personal and Social-Focused Values Shape the Purchase Intention for Organic Food: Cross-Country Comparison Between Thailand and Germany. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 434, 140313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Thøgersen, J.; Jørgensen, A.K.; Sandager, S. Consumer Decision Making Regarding a “Green” Everyday Product. Psychol. Mark. 2012, 29, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Koksal, M.H. Food Choice Motives for Consumers in Lebanon: A Descriptive Study. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 2607–2619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Demiryürek, K. The Concept of Organic Agriculture and Current Status of in the World and Turkey. J. Agric. Fac. Gaziosmanpaşa Univ. 2011, 28, 27–36. [Google Scholar]
  13. Pezikoğlu, F. Determination of the Policies Related to Application Systems of the Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Turkey. Ph.D. Thesis, Bursa Uludag University, Nilüfer, Türkiye, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  14. Akkaya, F. Türkiye’de Ekolojik (Organik) Ürün Üretimi ve Pazarlaması. Türkiye II. In Proceedings of the Ekolojik Tarım Sempozyumu-Bildiriler, Antalya, Türkiye, 14–16 November 2001. [Google Scholar]
  15. Araştırma ve Piyasa Geliştirme Müdürlüğü. Dünya ve Türkiye’de Organik Tarımın Durumu. ITB İzmir Ticaret Borsası 2025. Available online: https://itb.org.tr/dosya/rapordosya/dunya-ve-turkiyede-organik-tarim.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2025).
  16. Aral, O.; Cufadar, Y. Investigation of Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours of University Students/Consumers About Organic Animal Products. Turk. J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 12, 2242–2256. [Google Scholar]
  17. Yılmaz, D. Consumer Perceptions of Natural and Organic Cosmetics: A Qualitative Study in The Context of Gender and Media Influence. J. Mark. Mark. Res. 2025, 18, 637–674. [Google Scholar]
  18. Feil, A.A.; Cyrne, C.C.S.; Sindelar, F.C.W.; Barden, J.E.; Dalmoro, M. Profiles of Sustainable Food Consumption: Consumer Behavior Toward Organic Food in Southern Region of Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Stern, P.C. Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chae, M.J.; Kim, Y.; Roh, T. Consumers’ Attention, Experience, and Action to Organic Consumption: The Moderating Role of Anticipated Pride and Moral Obligation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2024, 79, 103824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tseng, M.-L.; Chiu, S.F.; Tan, R.R.; Siriban-Manalang, A.B. Sustainable Consumption and Production for Asia: Sustainability Through Green Design and Practice. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 40, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ljubicic, M.; Saric, M.M.; Klarin, I.; Rumbak, I.; Baric, I.C.; Ranilovic, J.; El-Kenawy, A.; Papageorgiou, M.; Vittadini, E.; Bizjak, M.C.; et al. Motivation for Health Behaviour: A Predictor of Adherence to Balanced and Healthy Food Across Different Coastal Mediterranean Countries. J. Funct. Foods 2022, 91, 105018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jürkenbeck, K. Consumer Trust in Organic Food Producers and Its Influence on Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Food Reformulation and Its Sensory Consequences. Food Humanit. 2023, 1, 793–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rana, J.; Paul, J. Health Motive and the Purchase of Organic Food: A Metaanalytic Review. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2020, 44, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Iqbal, S.Z.; Abdull Razis, A.F.; Usman, S.; Ali, N.B.; Asi, M.R. Variation of Deoxynivalenol Levels in Corn and Its Products Available in Retail Markets of Punjab, Pakistan and Estimation of Risk Assessment. Toxins 2021, 13, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Japutra, A.; Vidal-Branco, M.; Higueras-Castillo, E.; Molinillo, S. Unraveling the Mechanism to Develop Health Consciousness from Organic Food: A Cross-Comparison of Brazilian and Spanish Millennials. Br. Food J. 2021, 124, 197–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ueasangkomsate, P.; Santiteerakul, S. A Study of Consumers’ Attitudes and Intention to Buy Organic Foods for Sustainability. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 34, 423–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Carfora, V.; Cavallo, C.; Caso, D.; Del Giudice, T.; De Devitiis, B.; Viscecchia, R.; Cicia, G. Explaining Consumer Purchase Behavior for Organic Milk: Including Trust and Green Selfidentity within the Theory of Planned Behavior. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 76, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tandon, A.; Dhir, A.; Kaur, P.; Kushwah, S.; Salo, J. Why Do People Buy Organic Food? The Moderating Role of Environmental Concerns and Trust. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 57, 102247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yilmaz, B.S.; Ilter, B. Motives Underlying Organic Food Consumption in Turkey: Impact of Health, Environment, and Consumer Values on Purchase Intentions. Econ. World 2017, 5, 333–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ünal, S.; Deveci, F.G.; Yildiz, T. Do We Know Organic Food Consumers? The Personal and Social Determinants of Organic Food Consumption. Istanb. Bus. Res. (IBR) 2019, 48, 2630–5488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mengi, Ç.Ö.; Akçakaya, S.D.; Ekici, E.M. Relationship Between Sustainable Food Literacy, Organic Food Consumption and Climate Change Awareness and Worry in Türkiye. BMC Public Health 2025, 25, 2491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Clarke, C.; Best, T. Low-Carbohydrate, High-Fat Dieters: Characteristic Food Choice Motivations, Health Perceptions and Behaviours. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 62, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, C.; Guo, J.; Huang, W.; Tang, Y.; Li, R.Y.M.; Yue, X. Health-Driven Mechanism of Organic Food Consumption: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Heliyon 2024, 10, e27144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ali, H.; Li, M.; Hao, Y. Purchasing Behavior of Organic Food Among Chinese University Students. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Grankvist, G.; Biel, A. The Importance of Beliefs and Purchase Criteria in the Choice of Eco-Labeled Food Products. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 405–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Azlie, W.E.; Zahari, M.S.; Majid, H.N.A.; Hanafiah, M.H. To What Extent Does Consumers’ Perceived Health Consciousness Regarding Organic Food Influence Their Dining Choices at Organic Restaurants? An Empirical Investigation. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2023, 34, 100843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Boccia, F.; Tohidi, A. Analysis of Green Word-of-Mouth Advertising Behavior of Organic Food Consumers. Appetite 2024, 198, 107324. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  40. Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Maroscheck, N.; Hamm, U. Are Organic Consumers Preferring or Avoiding Foods with Nutrition and Health Claims? Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 30, 68–76. [Google Scholar]
  41. Screti, C.; Edwards, K.; Blissett, J. Understanding Family Food Purchasing Behaviour of Low-Income Urban UK Families: An Analysis of Parent Capability, Opportunity and Motivation. Appetite 2024, 195, 107183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Polimeni, J.M.; Iorgulescu, R.I.; Mihnea, A. Understanding Consumer Motivations for Buying Sustainable Agricultural Products at Romanian Farmers Markets. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 184, 586–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Melovic, B.; Cirovic, D.; Backovic-Vulic, T.; Dudic, B.; Gubiniova, K. Attracting Green Consumers as a Basis for Creating Sustainable Marketing Strategy on the Organic Market-Relevance for Sustainable Agriculture Business Development. Foods 2020, 9, 1552. [Google Scholar]
  44. Schmitt, M.T.; Mackay, C.M.L.; Droogendyk, L.M.; Payne, D. What Predicts Environmental Activism? The Roles of Identification with Nature and Politicized Environmental Identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 61, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Aprile, M.C.; Fiorillo, D. Other-Regarding Preferences in Pro-Environmental Behaviours: Empirical Analysis and Policy Implications of Organic and Local Food Products Purchasing in Italy. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 343, 118174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Le, M.H.; Nguyen, P.M. Integrating the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Norm Activation Model to Investigate Organic Food Purchase Intention: Evidence from Vietnam. Sustainability 2022, 14, 816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ditlevsen, K.; Denver, S.; Christensen, T.; Lassen, J.A. Taste for Locally Produced Food-Values, Opinions and Sociodemographic Differences Among ‘Organic’ and ‘Conventional’ Consumers. Appetite 2020, 147, 104544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Baker, S. Mapping the Values Driving Organic Food Choice Germany vs the UK. Eur. J. Mark. 2004, 38, 995–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Viviani, D. Food, Mass Media and Lifestyles. A Hyperreal Correlation. Ital. Sociol. Rev. 2013, 3, 165–175. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kihlberg, I.; Risvik, E. Consumers of Organic Foods-Value Segments and Liking of Bread. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 471–481. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hwang, J. Organic Food as Self-Presentation: The Role of Psychological Motivation in Older Consumers’ Purchase Intention of Organic Food. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 28, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Puska, P. Does Organic Food Consumption Signal Prosociality? An Application of Schwartz’s Value Theory. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2019, 25, 207–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cengiz, H.; Şenel, M. Investigating Consumer Motivations in the Purchase of Organic Foods Using Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique. Karabük Univ. J. Inst. Soc. Sci. 2017, 7, 56–69. [Google Scholar]
  54. Bozpolat, C. Motivations Guiding Organic Food Purchase Intention: An Examination Within The Framework of Self-Determination Theory. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Univ. J. ISS 2025, 15, 1251–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ahmad, M.; Wilkins, S. Purposive Sampling in Qualitative Research: A Framework for the Entire Journey. Qual. Quant. 2025, 59, 1461–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Creswell, J.W.; Poth, C.N. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 4th ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  57. Bartels, J.; Reinders, M.J. Social Identification, Social Representations, and Consumer Innovativeness in an Organic Food Context: A Cross-National Comparison. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 347–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Salazar, H.; Oerlemans, L.; Van Stroe-Biezen, S. Socialinfluence on Sustainable Consumption: Evidence from a Behavioural Experiment. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2013, 37, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Muposhi, A.; Dhurup, M. A Qualitative Inquiry of Generation Y Consumers’ Selection Attributes in the case of Organic Products. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 2016, 15, 9571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Costa, S.; Zepeda, L.; Sirieix, L. Exploring the Social Value of Organic Food: A Qualitative Study in France. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014, 38, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kim, H.; Lee, E.J.; Hur, W.M. The Mediating Role of Norms in the Relationship Between Green Identity and Purchase Intention of Eco-Friendly Products. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2012, 19, 125–135. [Google Scholar]
  62. Tenenhaus, M.; Vinzi, V.E.; Chatelin, Y.M.; Lauro, C. PLS Path Modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2005, 48, 159–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Avkıran, N.K. Rise of the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: An Application in Banking. Int. Ser. Oper. Res. Manag. Sci. 2018, 267, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ramayah, T.; Cheah, J.; Chuah, F.; Ting, H.; Memon, M.A. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using smartPLS 3.0. In An Updated Guide and Practical Guide to Statistical Analysis; Pearson: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  65. Malissiova, E.; Tsokana, K.; Soultani, G.; Alexandraki, M.; Katsioulis, A.; Manouras, A. Organic Food: A Study of Consumer Perception and Preferences in Greece. Appl. Food Res. 2022, 2, 100129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Oliveira, J.S.C.; Faria, C.P.; Jose, J.F.B.S. Organic Food Consumers and Producers: Understanding their Profiles, Perceptions, and Practices. Heliyon 2024, 10, e31385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Sandallıoğlu, A. Consumption of Organic Agricultural Products and Consumer Tendencies in Adana. Ph.D. Thesis, Çukurova University Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences Department of Agricultural Economics, Adana, Türkiye, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  68. İnci, H.; Karakaya, E.; Şengül, A.Y. Factors Affecting Organic Product Consumption (Diyarbakır Case). J. Agric. Nat. 2017, 20, 137–147. [Google Scholar]
  69. Kadirhanoğulları, İ.H.; Karadaş, K.; Özger, Ö.; Konu, M. Determination of Organic Product Consumer Preferences with Decision Tree Algorithms: Sample of Igdir Province. Yuz. Yıl Univ. J. Agric. Sci. 2021, 31, 188–196. [Google Scholar]
  70. Ngobo, P.V. What Drives Household Choice of Organic Products in Grocery Stores? J. Retail. 2011, 87, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hartman, H.; Wright, D. Marketing Tothenewwellnessconsumer: Understandingtrends in Wellness(1e); The Hartman Group: Bellevue, WA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  72. Yazdanpanah, M.; Forouzani, M. Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Predict Iranian Students’ Intention to Purchase Organic Food. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 342–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Daraboina, R.; Cooper, O.; Amini, M. Segmentation of Organic Food Consumers: A Revelation of Purchase Factors in Organic Food Markets. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2024, 78, 103710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Chen, N.H.; Lee, C.H.; Huang, C.T. Why Buy Organic Rice? Genetic Algorithm Based Fuzzy Association Mining Rules for Means-End Chain Data. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2015, 39, 692–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sortheix, F.M.; Schwartz, S.H. Values that Underlie and Undermine Well-Being: Variability Across Countries. Eur. J. Personal. 2017, 31, 187–201. [Google Scholar]
  76. Desai, K.; Tapas, P.; Paliwal, M. Evaluating the Efect of Values Infuencing the Choice of Organic Foods. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ecevit, M.Z.; Baş, T.; Öztek, M.Y. Do Organic Products Have Social Value? A Qualitative Research on Turkey. J. Econ. Bus. Manag. 2022, 6, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  78. Lea, E.; Worsley, T. Australians’ Organic Food Beliefs, Demographics and Values. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 855–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kamboj, S.; Matharu, M.; Gupta, M. Examining Consumer Purchase Intention Towards Organic Food: An Empirical Study. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2023, 9, 100121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Nagaraj, S. Role of Consumer Health Consciousness, Food Safety & Attitude on Organic Food Purchase in Emerging Market: A Serial Mediation Model. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 59, 102423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Nafees, L.; Hyatt, E.M.; Garber, L.L.; Das, N.; Boya, Ü.O. Motivations to Buy Organic Food in Emerging Markets: An Exploratory Study of Urban Indian Millennials. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 96, 104375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Köse, Ş.G.; Kırcova, İ. Consumers’ Approach towards Organic Foods and Marketing Communication Suggestions. Turk. Rev. Commun. Stud. 2020, 35, 338–367. [Google Scholar]
  83. T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı. 2025. Available online: https://arastirma.tarimorman.gov.tr/yalovabahce/Belgeler/brosurler/OrganikTarimsalUrunlerinPazarlanmasi.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2025).
  84. İnan, R.; Bekar, A.; Urlu, H. An Assessment of Consumers of Organic Food Purchase Behavior and Attitudes. J. Tour. Gastron. Stud. 2021, 9, 220–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kürkçü, B. Understanding Health Concerns and Social Value Perceptions in Consumers Intentions to Consume Functional Food: The Moderating Role of Health Knowledge. Master’s Thesis, Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University, Nevşehir, Türkiye, 2022. Available online: https://acikerisim.nevsehir.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/20.500.11787/7981/BERNA%20K%C3%9CRK%C3%87%C3%9C.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 15 June 2025).
  86. Uzundumlu, A.S.; Sezgin, A. Analysis of Factors Effecting Organic Product Consumption. A Case Study of Erzurum Province. IBAD J. Soc. Sci. 2019, 441–451. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 10539 g001
Figure 1. Organic product marketing channels in Türkiye [13,14].
Figure 1. Organic product marketing channels in Türkiye [13,14].
Sustainability 17 10539 g001
Table 1. Statements regarding consumer motivation.
Table 1. Statements regarding consumer motivation.
MotivationStatements of the Variables
Health
motivation (HM)		Organic agricultural products do not contain additives.
Organic agricultural products do not contain genetically modified substances.
Organic agricultural products are richer in nutritional value.
Organic agricultural products guarantee food safety.
Economic
motivation (ECOM)		Buying organic agricultural products supports the local economy.
Buying organic agricultural products supports small farmers.
The price paid for organic agricultural products is used to buy higher quality products.
Environmental motivation (EM)Organic farming protects the soil because it does not use chemical pesticides and fertilizers.
Organic farming protects water resources because it does not use chemical pesticides and fertilizers.
Organic farming is necessary for the sustainability of agriculture in the future.
Organic farming protects animal health and welfare.
Social
motivation (SOCM)		Consuming organic agricultural products provides a person with social status.
Consuming organic agricultural products is preferred by conscious consumers.
Buying organic agricultural products makes a person feel special.
Allows chatting with others interested in organic agricultural products.
Table 2. Hypothesis of the research.
Table 2. Hypothesis of the research.
HypothesisTheoryEffect
H1HM positively affects attitudes and purchasing behavior towards organic products.TPB [23]HM → positive attitude → purchase
H2EM positively affects attitudes and purchasing behavior towards organic products.VBN [24]EM → personal norm → pro-environmental behavior
H3SOCM positively affects attitudes and purchasing behavior towards organic products.VBN [24]SOCM → social norm → purchase behavior
H4ECOM positively affects attitudes and purchasing behavior towards organic products.TPB [23]ECOM → perception of economic benefit → positive attitude → purchase
H5Demographic variables positively affect attitudes and purchasing behavior towards organic products.TPB & VBN [23,24]Demographic characteristic → value/attitude → behavior
H6Attitude towards organic products positively affects purchasing behavior.TPB [23]Attitude → purchase behavior
Table 3. Multicollinearity among variables.
Table 3. Multicollinearity among variables.
Independent VariablesVIFIndependent VariablesVIF
EM11.984Age (26–35)1.000
EM22.199Age (36–45)1.000
EM32.236Age (46–55)1.000
EM42.248Age (56–65)1.000
ECOM11.811Age (66 and above)1.000
ECOM21.843MSTA (Married)1.000
ECOM31.106EDU (Primary School)1.000
PBEH1.000EDU (Secondary School)1.000
HM12.596EDU (High School)1.000
HM22.668EDU (Vocational School)1.000
HM31.863EDU (Faculty)1.000
HM42.226EDU (Master’s/PhD)1.000
SOCM11.404HSIZE (2)1.000
SOCM21.074HSIZE (3)1.000
SOCM31.383HSIZE (4)1.000
SOCM41.149HSIZE (5 and above)1.000
CAT11.312CHILD (1)1.000
CAT21.252CHILD (2)1.000
CAT31.906CHILD (3 and above)1.000
CAT42.342Gender (Female)1.000
CAT51.715
EM: Environmental Motivation, ECOM: Economic Motivation, PBEH: Purchasing Behavior, HM: Health Motivation, SOCM: Social Motivation, CAT: Consumer attitude, MSTA: Marital Status, EDU: Education, HSIZE: Household size, CHILD: Children between ages 0–6.
Table 4. Factor weight and factor loading.
Table 4. Factor weight and factor loading.
Factor WeightpFactor Loadingp
EM1 → Environmental Motivation0.1420.0880.673<0.001
EM2 → Environmental Motivation0.0950.3350.709<0.001
EM3 → Environmental Motivation0.519<0.0010.928<0.001
EM4 → Environmental Motivation0.397<0.0010.895<0.001
ECOM1 → Economic Motivation0.567<0.0010.915<0.001
ECOM2 → Economic Motivation0.449<0.0010.880<0.001
ECOM3 → Economic Motivation0.1840.0020.468<0.001
PBEH ← Purchasing Behavior1.000 1.000
HM1 → Health Motivation0.0340.7660.696<0.001
HM2 → Health Motivation0.1440.1580.743<0.001
HM3 → Health Motivation0.572<0.0010.924<0.001
HM4 → Health Motivation0.391<0.0010.872<0.001
SOCM1 → Social Motivation0.501<0.0010.766<0.001
SOCM2 → Social Motivation−0.1190.0540.1260.069
SOCM3 → Social Motivation0.248<0.0010.661<0.001
SOCM4 → Social Motivation0.586<0.0010.798<0.001
CAT1 → Consumer Attitude0.1440.0020.580<0.001
CAT2 → Consumer Attitude0.423<0.0010.749<0.001
CAT3 → Consumer Attitude0.0760.1760.678<0.001
CAT4 → Consumer Attitude0.338<0.0010.834<0.001
CAT5 → Consumer Attitude0.338<0.0010.787<0.001
PBEH: Purchasing Behavior, CAT: Consumer Attitude.
Table 5. Factor weight and factor loading (after SOS2 removal).
Table 5. Factor weight and factor loading (after SOS2 removal).
Factor WeightpFactor Loadingp
EM1 → Environmental Motivation0.1420.0850.672<0.001
EM2 → Environmental Motivation0.0940.3260.708<0.001
EM3 → Environmental Motivation0.519<0.0010.928<0.001
EM4 → Environmental Motivation0.398<0.0010.895<0.001
ECOM1 → Economic Motivation0.566<0.0010.914<0.001
ECOM2 → Economic Motivation0.450<0.0010.881<0.001
ECOM3 → Economic Motivation0.1840.0020.467<0.001
PBEH ← Purchasing Behavior1.000 1.000
HM1 → Health Motivation0.0340.7690.696<0.001
HM2 → Health Motivation0.1440.1680.743<0.001
HM3 → Health Motivation0.572<0.0010.924<0.001
HM4 → Health Motivation0.391<0.0010.872<0.001
SOCM1 → Social Motivation0.480<0.0010.771<0.001
SOCM3 → Social Motivation0.243<0.0010.665<0.001
SOCM4 → Social Motivation0.584<0.0010.803<0.001
CAT1 → Consumer Attitude0.1410.0030.577<0.001
CAT2 → Consumer Attitude0.421<0.0010.747<0.001
CAT3 → Consumer Attitude0.0800.1580.680<0.001
CAT4 → Consumer Attitude0.336<0.0010.835<0.001
CAT5 → Consumer Attitude0.341<0.0010.789<0.001
Table 6. Estimates of the PLS model.
Table 6. Estimates of the PLS model.
Coefficient (β)Std.
Deviation		tpR2Adjusted R2
HSIZE (2) → PBEH0.0170.0570.2910.7710.2070.181
HSIZE (3) → PBEH0.0860.0671.2900.197
HSIZE (4) → PBEH0.1150.0691.6800.093
HSIZE (5 and above) → PBEH0.1180.0621.9020.057
CHILD (1) → PBEH0.0110.0320.3330.739
CHILD (2) → PBEH0.0380.0271.4040.160
CHILD (3 and above) → PBEH0.0140.0330.4240.671
GENDER (Female) → PBEH0.0780.0332.3930.017
ECOM → PBEH0.0540.0391.4060.160
EDU (Primary School) → PBEH0.0450.3100.1470.883
EDU (Secondary School) → PBEH0.1440.3350.4300.667
EDU (High School) → PBEH0.1480.5310.2780.781
EDU (Vocational School) → PBEH0.1230.5350.2300.818
EDU (Faculty) → PBEH0.1240.6100.2040.839
EDU (Master’s/PhD) → PBEH0.0730.3690.1990.842
MSTA (Married) → PBEH0.0140.0420.3450.730
HM → PBEH0.0160.0410.3820.703
SOCM → PBEH0.1800.0355.134<0.001
CAT → PBEH0.2540.0435.896<0.001
AGE (26–35) → PBEH0.0270.0480.5720.567
AGE (36–45) → PBEH−0.0080.0520.1510.880
AGE (46–55) → PBEH−0.0290.0460.6380.524
AGE (56–65) → PBEH0.0300.0440.6790.497
AGE (66 and above) → PBEH−0.0020.0330.0520.958
EM → PBEH−0.0300.0420.6950.487
HSIZE (2) → CAT0.0280.0490.5800.5620.5180.503
HSIZE (3) → CAT0.0040.0550.0710.943
HSIZE (4) → CAT−0.0040.0570.0700.944
HSIZE (5 and above) → CAT−0.0100.0500.1900.849
CHILD (1) → CAT−0.0180.0290.6380.523
CHILD (2) → CAT−0.0030.0220.1430.886
CHILD (3 and above) → CAT−0.0320.0301.0580.290
GENDER (Female) → → CAT0.0270.0251.0880.277
ECOM → CAT0.2020.0414.951<0.001
EDU (Primary School) → CAT0.2070.1991.0380.299
EDU (Secondary School) → CAT0.2490.2121.1730.241
EDU (High School) → CAT0.4740.3371.4050.160
EDU (Vocational School) → CAT0.5380.3421.5740.116
EDU (Faculty) → CAT0.6770.3851.7600.079
EDU (Master’s/PhD) → CAT0.4340.2361.8430.066
MSTA (Married) → CAT0.0260.0330.8080.419
HM → CAT0.2580.0435.929<0.001
SOCM → CAT0.2210.0336.685<0.001
AGE (26–35) → CAT0.0570.0361.6040.109
AGE (36–45) → CAT0.1190.0402.9920.003
AGE (46–55) → CAT0.0920.0362.5370.011
AGE (56–65) → CAT0.0930.0303.0450.002
AGE (66 and above) → CAT0.0100.0320.2960.767
EM → CAT0.1370.0472.9140.004
Table 7. Saturated and estimated model fit index.
Table 7. Saturated and estimated model fit index.
ModelIndexValueComment
Saturated SRMR0.020Excellent
d_ULS0.399Acceptable
d_G0.551Acceptable
EstimatedSRMR0.020Excellent
d_ULS0.416Acceptable
d_G0.602Acceptable
SRMR: Standardized Root Mean Square Residual, d_ULS: Discrepancy—Unweighted Least Squares, d_G: Geodesic Distance.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aydın Eryılmaz, G. How Consumers’ Motivations Influence Preferences for Organic Agricultural Products in Türkiye? Sustainability 2025, 17, 10539. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172310539

AMA Style

Aydın Eryılmaz G. How Consumers’ Motivations Influence Preferences for Organic Agricultural Products in Türkiye? Sustainability. 2025; 17(23):10539. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172310539

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aydın Eryılmaz, Gamze. 2025. "How Consumers’ Motivations Influence Preferences for Organic Agricultural Products in Türkiye?" Sustainability 17, no. 23: 10539. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172310539

APA Style

Aydın Eryılmaz, G. (2025). How Consumers’ Motivations Influence Preferences for Organic Agricultural Products in Türkiye? Sustainability, 17(23), 10539. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172310539

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop