4.4 Article

Consumer behaviour and corporate social responsibility: an empirical study of Expo 2015

期刊

BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL
卷 119, 期 8, 页码 1826-1838

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/BFJ-12-2016-0601

关键词

Sustainability; Willingness to pay; Food security; Agri-food company; CSR-oriented companies; Expo 2015

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to ascertain the attitudes of people towards issues of food safety, food security and sustainability. For this, an empirical study was conducted on visitors to the event Milan Expo 2015. Particular attention was paid to any greater propensity to purchase products from socially responsible agri-food companies and whether the event might have contributed to enrich the baggage of their knowledge on the issues of sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) and to influence future buying behaviour. Design/methodology/approach - Different groups of visiting consumers were identified through cluster analysis in order to segment and divide visitors into groups based on their approach to food safety, food security and sustainability, their willingness to pay for products from companies practising CSR, and the impact of the event on their future buying behaviour. Findings - The results showed a positive attitude of respondents towards issues of food safety, food security and sustainability in general and to the purchase of sustainable food products. However, due to shortcomings in the communication strategy used by companies attending the event, the sample of visitors did not enrich their knowledge on sustainability and CSR. The impact of Expo 2015 on future buying behaviour was far from impressive. Originality/value - The findings are particularly useful for the future development of the reputation and profitability of food companies, for the enrichment of knowledge concerning CSR-oriented food companies and to increase the price of products from socially responsible agri-food companies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据