Abstract
Imports are necessary to satisfy consumer demand for a varied organic food assortment. In developed economies, consumers generally prefer domestic products, while consumers in developing and emerging economies tend to prefer imported. Underlying reasons for these organic food preferences are explored in an emerging and a developed economy, China and Germany, employing a comparative mixed-methods approach consisting of in-store interviews, focus groups, and an online survey. Contrary to prior research, we find a domestic country bias for organic foods in China, but smaller than in Germany, and Chinese consumers trust the organic standards of developed countries more than their own. Chinese consumers’ primary reasons for preferring organic foods are food quality and safety concerns. German consumers prefer domestic products and imports from geographically close countries and environmental concerns are the primary reasons for this and for preferring organic foods. Results suggest that higher consumer trust in institutions in developed (“WEIRD”) countries is a competitive advantage for producers in these countries, not only on the domestic market, but also in the world market for organic food.
Introduction
Organic food is by far the largest and most rapidly growing sustainability-differentiated product category worldwide (Lernoud et al. 2018). The world market for organic food and drink reached USD 97 billion in 2018, up from less than USD 15 billion two decades ago (Willer, Schlatter, and Trávní 2020). With sustainability being a megatrend (Mittelstaedt et al. 2014), it is especially important for market actors of sustainability-differentiated products, such as organic food, to know how they are perceived by consumers in different markets—not least markets that are growing in importance. The principles of organic production are defined by (IFOAM n.d.), and in the EU, for example, organic production is governed by EU Regulation 834/2007, which, among other things, bans the use of chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and GMOs from organic production and sets high minimum standards for livestock welfare. These standards, and the accompanying organic certification and labeling, define the organic market and help consumers navigate the decision-making process for organic food products by enhancing the clarity and credibility of organic product claims (Bech-Larsen and Grunert 2001; Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen 2017). Trust in institutions certifying and controlling organic products have been identified as particularly important for consumers’ positive evaluation of these products (Bruschi et al. 2015; Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen 2017).
Originally a western phenomenon, the demand for organic food is now growing in emerging economies (e.g., Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen 2019; Shahriari, et al. 2019; Wang, et al. 2012; Wang, et al. 2015), spurred by increasing consumer affluence and intensely published food scandals (Sahota 2020). Many countries see conversion rates to organic products that are insufficient for meeting the demand, which has led to supply deficits in several domestically produced categories (Willer, Schlatter, and Trávní 2020). In addition, once consumers have started buying organic food products, they tend to look for them in more and more categories and eventually across the whole food assortment (Juhl et al. 2017), including foreign products. Together, these developments have spurred growth in international marketing and trade of organic food products and thereby increased current and potential exporters’ need for knowledge about consumer preferences for organic food products on foreign markets.
Much research has been dedicated to the sources of the widely found “domestic country bias” (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos 2004; Verlegh and Steenkamp 1999), which leads to domestic products generally being preferred to imported products. It is well documented that consumers’ evaluation of imported products is influenced by the image of the origin country (Thøgersen, Aschemann-Witzel, and Pedersen 2021), the so-called country of origin (COO) effect (Dekhili and Achabou 2014; Pharr 2005; Verlegh and Steenkamp 1999). However, there is still a lack of generalizable knowledge about COO food labeling (Newman et al. 2014). For example, whereas a preference for domestic food products is ubiquitous in developed countries, findings are more mixed in developing and emerging economies (e.g., Ortega et al. 2016). Here, consumers often prefer imported food products from an economically developed country (Ahmed and d'Astous 2008; Andéhn, Nordin, and Nilsson 2016; Klein, Ettenson, and Krishnan 2006; Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen 2019), but few studies have focused on the special case of preferences for organic food products (see, however, Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen 2019; Thøgersen, Pedersen, and Aschemann-Witzel 2019). As emphasized by Leonidou, et al. (2018), marketing research has hitherto paid little attention to differences between developed and developing, or WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic) and non-WEIRD (Henrich, Heine, and Norenzayan 2010) countries. In particular, they emphasize the need for more research on differences with regard to basic issues, such as the weaker or less consistent preferences for domestic origin in developing and emerging economies, also when it comes to sustainability-differentiated products such as organic food.
This paper, thus, contributes to filling the theoretical and empirical gap in macromarketing research with regard to sustainability-relevant insights from non-WEIRD countries (Wooliscroft and Ko 2021) by investigating differences in consumers’ responses to sustainability-differentiated imported products in non-WEIRD and WEIRD economies (cf. Leonidou, et al. 2018). Specifically, we take our point of departure in research finding a weaker domestic country bias and stronger consumer preference for imported organic products in China (e.g., Ortega, et al. 2016; Thøgersen, Pedersen, and Aschemann-Witzel 2019), the world's largest emerging economy and a relatively recent emerging organic market, compared to Germany (e.g., Hempel and Hamm 2016b; Thøgersen, Pedersen, and Aschemann-Witzel 2019)—one of the earliest and most established organic markets in a developed economy. We extend this research and contribute to the macromarketing literature especially by highlighting the role of trust in organic standards and certification as one of the main reasons for a weaker preference for domestic origin in non-WEIRD countries.
In 2018, the German organic market reached EUR 10910 million and the Chinese EUR 8087 million with an annual growth rate of over five percent in both countries (Willer, Schlatter, and Trávní 2020). China is now the fourth largest market for organic food, surpassed only by the United States, Germany, and France (Willer, Schlatter, and Trávní 2020). Germany has one of the most mature and thoroughly researched organic food markets in the world, which means that a large part of the shared knowledge about the organic food market stems from studies in Germany. This makes Germany a useful benchmark for interpreting findings from a rapidly emerging organic food market, such as the one in China. The Chinese organic market represents great opportunities not only for domestic producers, but also for exporters of such products and therefore it is crucial for domestic producers and exporters alike to have a good understanding of Chinese consumers’ responses to imported sustainability-differentiated food products. This comparative study of consumer responses in China and Germany offers both new and practically relevant empirical evidence and a deeper theoretical understanding of consumer responses to sustainability-differentiated products in different markets, in the intersection between specific market characteristics, societal institutions, and the marketing of both domestic and imported products. When benchmarking China against Germany, it is important to use methods that are sensitive to the fact that not only the two countries’ economies differ, but also their political and other institutions and national cultures (e.g., China emphasizing collectivism and Germany individualism more, cf., e.g., Hofstede 2001; House, et al. 2004), which on the one hand might influence how consumers evaluate imported sustainability-differentiated food products and, on the other hand, (partly) be a product of consumers’ “normal” everyday behavior, including how common it is to take individual responsibility for sustainability and other social problems.
In sum, this article contributes to the macromarketing literature by extending and deeping the current understanding of consumer preferences for imported sustainability-differentiated food products in an emerging economy and not least the under-researched role of institutions that countries create for supporting the development of this kind of market, such as regulation and organizations for certifying and labeling organic products. The achieved insights have important implications for the market for sustainability-differentiated products and society in general.
Literature Review
COO Preferences for Organic Food
Studies on consumer preferences for organic food and on specific COO preferences are increasing (e.g., Aschemann-Witzel and Zielke 2017; Hemmerling, Hamm, and Spiller 2015), but studies on COO effects for organic food products are still limited (Dekhili and Achabou 2014; Thøgersen, et al. 2017). Furthermore, most of these studies are carried out in developed countries where a preference for domestic products is pronounced. For instance, in samples of French, Danish, Swedish and British consumers, Dransfield, et al. (2005) found that a vast majority preferred organic pork from their home country over an imported product. The strong preference for domestic products has been attributed to higher perceived quality (Denver and Jensen 2014; Loureiro and Umberger 2003; Loureiro and Umberger 2007; Telligman, Worosz, and Bratcher 2017) and to domestic products being considered healthier, more natural (Gineikiene, Schlegelmilch, and Ruzeviciute 2016), and also more environmentally friendly than imported ones (Pedersen, Aschemann-Witzel, and Thøgersen 2018), among other things due to the shorter transportation distance. Some studies in developed countries find that the preference for domestic is weaker for organic than for conventional products (Onozaka and Mcfadden 2011; Schjøll 2017; Thøgersen, Pedersen, and Aschemann-Witzel 2019; Xie et al. 2016), suggesting that consumers to some extent infer the same benefits from domestic and organic. Strong preferences for domestic products have also been attributed to consumer ethnocentrism (CE) (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos 2004; Chattalas, Kramer, and Takada 2008; Chryssochoidis, Krystallis, and Perreas 2007), defined as “beliefs held by consumers about the appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made products” (Shimp and Sharma 1987, p. 280). By definition, CE reduces consumer inclination to buy imported products, especially when there are domestic alternatives available, which makes CE a source of competitive disadvantage for exporters competing with domestic products (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos 2004; Balabanis and Nikoletta-Theofania 2017; Verlegh and Steenkamp 1999), also in the organic food market (Scholl-Grissemann 2018).
Similar to developed countries, some studies in developing and emerging economies also found a preference for domestic organic food products (e.g., Kledal, et al. 2011; Schnettler et al. 2008; Sirieix, Kledal, and Sulitang 2011; Thaiyotin, Ujiie, and Shuto 2015). For instance, Kledal, et al. (2011) found that Egyptian consumers prefer local organic products, but that high prices and low trust in organic production are important barriers. This was also found in Shanghai, China (Sirieix, Kledal, and Sulitang 2011). The primary motives for buying organic food appear to be the same in developing and emerging economies as in Europe and North America, namely the perceived healthiness, environmental friendliness, and superior taste of organic food products (Thøgersen, et al. 2015). However, a preference for domestic products is not found as consistently and with as strong an impact in developing and emerging economies as in developed countries (e.g., Ahmed and d'Astous 2007; Kaynak and Kara 2002; Klein, Ettenson, and Krishnan 2006). For instance, in Thailand, Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen (2019) found a domestic country bias for organic food products co-existing with a higher trust in the organic standards and certification of developed countries. Similarly, Bruschi et al. (2015) found that Russian consumers prefer imported organic food products from Western Europe due to the higher perceived trustworthiness of certification and stricter standards for organic food production. However, none of these studies employed a comparative approach and they are therefore limited when it comes to differences in responses between developing and developed countries. Hence the calls for more research to explain the weaker and less consistent preferences for domestic origin in developing and emerging economies (Leonidou, et al. 2018) and for deeper insights in general into non-WEIRD consumers’ responses to sustainability-differentiated products in a global market (Wooliscroft and Ko 2021).
Due to the premium price and ethically relevant process characteristics of organic food, it is often assumed that consumer involvement is higher for organic food than for conventional products (e.g., Kotler 1997; Tarkiainen and Sundqvist 2009; Thøgersen and Zhou 2012). Higher involvement means that it is more likely that COO is combined with or traded off against other information to form an overall evaluation of an organic product in a multi-attribute decision-making process. Consistent with this assumption, a few recent studies based on choice experiments indeed found trade-offs between COO and other product attributes influencing consumer preferences for organic food (Schjøll 2017; Thøgersen, Pedersen, and Aschemann-Witzel 2019; Xie et al. 2016). The few studies investigating the joint effect of COO and organic labeling in an emerging economy context find that, like in developed countries, the COO effect is smaller for organic than for conventional products (Ortega et al. 2016; Thøgersen, Pedersen, and Aschemann-Witzel 2019). In a recent comparative choice experiment covering Germany, France, Denmark, China, and Thailand, Thøgersen, Pedersen, and Aschemann-Witzel (2019) found that, in the case of milk and pork chops, consumers in all these countries generally prefer organic to conventional products, and imported products from economically developed countries to those from less developed countries. Further, in the three developed countries, but not in the two emerging economies, a strong preference for domestic origin appeared. Hence, based on the reviewed research suggesting differences in domestic country bias between emerging and developed economies, we hypothesize:
The Role of Trust in COO Preferences for Organic Food
In 2019, Germany ranked in the top ten out of 198 countries on the Corruption Perception Index, a higher rank indicating the lower perceived level of public sector corruption, while China ranked eighty—a picture that has been stable for both countries in the past decade (Transparency_International 2019). On this background, it is likely that consumers in China trust the national institutions certifying and controlling organic products less than in Germany. According to prior research, the factors that are particularly important for developing and emerging economy consumers’ evaluation of domestic and imported products include their perception of institutions certifying and controlling the products (Bruschi et al. 2015; Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen 2017), as well as their perceived knowledge of and experience and familiarity with the product category (Teng and Wang 2015; Wu et al. 2014). Also, concerns about food safety (Knight, et al. 2008; Veeck, Yu, and Burns 2010; Xie, et al. 2015; Yin, et al. 2010) and traceability (Ortega, et al. 2011; Zhang, Bai, and Wahl 2012) appear to be important reasons for buying organic food among Chinese consumers, presumably due to numerous and widely published food scandals over the last decade (Lai, et al. 2018).
With research on the topic still being scarce, the role of consumers’ trust in institutions certifying and labeling organic products for their evaluation of domestic and imported organic products is not well understood and more research is needed, especially in emerging economies, where market actors and policy makers are shaping the rapidly developing organic markets. A few studies have used qualitative methods to gain a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of consumer preferences for imported versus domestic organic food products in either a developed (Pedersen, Aschemann-Witzel, and Thøgersen 2018) or a developing or emerging economy context (Kledal, et al. 2011; Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen 2019; Sirieix, Kledal, and Sulitang 2011). However, the few studies of the role of trust for COO preferences regarding organic food all lacked an explicit comparative perspective, making it difficult to generalize results across countries. Our expectations, based on the reviewed research, are expressed in the following hypotheses:
The overall conceptual framework is presented in Figure 1, illustrating how we understand the importance of the national context for COO preferences for imported organic products to (Chinese and German) consumers and the reasons why, including the roles of trust in institutions and consumer ethnocentrism. The three studies are presented in more detail in the next section.
Materials and Methods
A sequential mixed-method approach was adopted to reduce the impact of inherent method and cultural biases and to enhance the validity of findings (Greene, Caracelli, and Graham 1989). To avoid cultural biases, we established a multi-cultural research and author team including nationals from both countries to support our collection, interpretation, and presentation of data. We used only carefully instructed local interviewers, moderators, and translators, double-checked translations, back-translations, transcriptions, and audio recording interviews, enabling reference to the original expressions in case of doubt.
Conceptual framework.
Three methods were employed in both China and Germany: First, we conducted interviews in retail stores to investigate consumers’ perception of imported organic food products in a natural buying situation and decision context. This interview setting makes questions less hypothetical and safeguards the validity of answers (Malhotra, Birks, and Wills 2012). Second, based on the findings from the in-store interviews, we conducted focus group interviews to get a deeper understanding of consumer perceptions of and attitudes towards imported organic food products and especially the reasoning behind these perceptions and attitudes. Informants for the qualitative interviews were sampled from a big city in each country (Hamburg in Germany and Guangzhou in China), because organic food is generally more available in cities than in small towns and rural areas. Lastly, we conducted a survey in the two countries to investigate the generalizability of key findings from the qualitative interviews. The three data collection methods differ in reach, representativeness, and depth as well as in characteristics of the data collection situation; they will be presented in more detail below. Figure 2 provides an overview of the three studies.
Study overview.
Study 1: In-Store Interviews
Procedure and Sample
The purpose of the in-store interviews was to investigate whether ordinary consumers in the two countries pay attention to the COO of organic food when shopping, and whether they find this information important. Also, we wanted to uncover possible COO preferences for imported organic products and what triggers these preferences. Only consumers who at least sometimes would buy organic food were considered suitable informants regarding this topic. Hence, intercepted consumers were first asked if they bought organic food and if so, how often. Responses were given on a 5-point scale (1 = never to 5 = always).
In Hamburg, Germany, ninety three consumers meet the recruitment criteria and were interviewed, while 79 met the criteria in Guangzhou, China. Interviews took place in March 2016 in both cities and additional interviews were made in Guangzhou in March 2017. Separate analyses of the Chinese data collected in 2016 and 2017 did not reveal any substantial differences, hence they were combined and compared to the German data. In Guangzhou, interviews were carried out in fifteen different stores, which were a mix of supermarkets and large specialty stores carrying organic food products. In Hamburg, the in-store interviews were conducted in retail stores belonging to either Rewe or the largest specialty store for organic products, denn's Biomarkt. To rule out any systematic interviewer influence, the interviews were carried out by several interviewers (two in Germany, several in China, who were carefully instructed, and who used the same interview guide).
The structured interview guide (in Chinese and German, respectively) contained six questions plus socio-demographics and was designed so that an interview would last approximately five minutes. The interviewer briefly introduced the study without revealing its specific aim in order to avoid biasing informants. After the screening question, questions were asked about the importance of COO for the product category and why, the person's attention to COO information on food products, the importance of COO, and preferences for COO of imported products and why. Finally, a few demographic characteristics of the participants were registered (Table 1).
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of in-Store Informants.
*In 2016, 38 interviews (66% female) and in 2017, 41 interviews (80% female) were conducted. Mean age was 30.8 (SD 11) in 2016 and 32.8 (SD 12) in 2017. Household sizes were 4.0 (SD 1.5) in 2016 and 3.3. (SD 1.6) in 2017.
Interviews were audio recorded with consent. The audio recordings were transcribed by the interviewers and translated into English. Another local speaker checked the audio recordings, the transcriptions and translations for inconsistencies. The interviews were analyzed using a content analysis approach, which is generally considered a useful technique for making valid and replicable inferences (Krippendorff 2018). For selected research questions (such as COO preferences), a summative approach to content analysis was applied (Hsieh and Shannon 2005); this is useful when analyzing a large number of interviews. The summative approach involves counting specific keywords, but also interpreting the underlying context—in this case, COO preferences. When using a summative approach with a large sample size, it can be meaningful to conduct simple statistical tests, such as chi-square tests of relationships between counts.
Results
Informants were asked what their preferred COO for organic food was if it was not from their home country. Their answers are reported in Figure 3.
Chinese and German consumers’ COO preferences for imported food products.
The Chinese informants preferred imported organic products from countries with a high level of economic development in the Asia-Pacific region, primarily Australia and New Zealand, followed by developed countries further away, such as the United States of America, Germany, and “Europe.” The German informants preferred imported organic products from neighboring countries, especially countries close to their city of residence (located in the north-western part of Germany). The only overlap in country preferences for imported organic food products between consumers in the two countries is that all the preferred countries are economically developed countries. This is consistent with Hypothesis 2f.
Participants were also asked why they preferred a specific COO. Their answers are summarized in Figure 4.
Reasons for COO preferences for imported organic products among Chinese and German consumers.
The overriding reason for preferring a COO differed between the two counties, but there were also reasons mentioned by many informants in both countries. Consistent with Hypotheses 2b and 2e, trust in organic standards and certification was important among informants in both China and Germany. Other important reasons mentioned in both countries include general country image and personal preferences (based on experience with specific countries or products). In the following, we comment on the reasons that were specific to informants in each country.
China
Among the Chinese informants, the primary reason for preferring imported organic food from a particular country was food quality. For instance, one said: Even though we have milk produced in China, I choose the milk from Germany because of the good quality (female, 27). Because the climate of New Zealand or Australia is very suitable for animal husbandry (…) antibiotics are not used in these animals. The environment is perfect (female, 60). Yes, it matters to me. Because currently the pollution issue is very serious in China. Lots of vegetables are planted in soil polluted by heavy metal. Of course, the plants growing in this kind of polluted soil are very harmful to our body. I don’t want for my family and me to eat these polluted vegetables (male, 37). Because the latitude is relatively high, I feel that the air quality is better, so the products would be natural and pollution-free (…) I feel that there's no pollution there (female, 23). American agriculture is developed, and this country pays more attention to food safety (female, 28).
Germany
For the German informants, transport distance was the main reason for preferring a COO for imported organic food, mentioned by 72 percent. It was mainly the perceived negative environmental effects of transportation that caused this to be the primary reason. One German consumer said: In principle I pay a lot of attention to regional environmental products, since transportation needs to be reduced (….) Transportation should be kept as low as possible because of the environmental consequences (male, 66). Products from the Netherlands, but also from Denmark would be within the radius (female, 49). Well, Austria and Switzerland I would prefer a lot more (…) since I associate them with trust [in organic standards] (female, 33). For the Netherlands, I still have a strange gut feeling. I don’t know … Probably I still have these negative associations with a Dutch tomato from back then (female, 39).
Discussion
The in-store interviews revealed similarities but to a considerably higher extent differences in COO preferences between consumers in the two countries as shown in Figure 3. When buying imported organic products, informants in both countries preferred products from economically developed countries. German informants preferred imported organic products from their (economically developed) neighbors, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, whereas Chinese informants preferred imports from countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.
From Figure 4, it appears that Chinese consumers trust and perceive organic products from economically developed countries to be of high quality, safe and trustworthy. Similar findings have been reported for Thailand (Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen 2019) and Russia (Bruschi et al. 2015). The most important underlying reason for German informants’ COO preferences is a relatively short transport distance and therefore less environmental impact from the transportation of the product. Trust in the organic certification and country image were also mentioned as important reasons. Environmental issues and trust in standards were also reasons that were frequently mentioned by Chinese informants, but compared to German informants a broader range of reasons were mentioned more or less equally: food quality, environmental considerations (no pollution, naturalness), image of the exporting country, trust and food safety including trust in organic products from a specific country truly being organic. This range of reasons for Chinese consumers’ COO preferences all contributes to explaining their preferences for products from economically developed countries. However, compared to German consumers, the environmental reasons were linked more specifically to the pollution of soil, water, and products from industrialized agriculture and less to broader issues, such as climate change (which is an important reason why German consumers care about the transportation distance of products).
Study 2: Focus Groups
Procedure and Sample
The focus group interviews were conducted to validate findings from the in-store interviews and to obtain a deeper understanding of consumers’ COO preferences, especially their reasoning behind these preferences. In March 2016, two focus group interviews were conducted in Guangzhou, China, and two in Hamburg, Germany. Participants in Guangzhou were recruited from MBA classes and in Hamburg by distributing an illustrative flyer and addressing organic consumers through various media channels, in both cases supplemented by snowball sampling (Bryman and Bell 2015).
Potential participants were screened for being at least partly responsible for grocery shopping in their household and for having bought at least one organic food product during the past two weeks. Table 2 displays the socio-demographic characteristics of the focus group participants. Across the two countries, both genders were represented in each group with a majority of females, which is in line with the typical share of food shopping responsibility in households. The mean age was lower in China than in Germany. In Germany, there was an equal distribution among students and employed; two persons were retired and one unemployed. In the Chinese focus groups, all participants were employed in various companies but were also MBA students.
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Focus Group Participants.
*In the Chinese focus groups, participants were all employed in different companies, but were also MBA students.
To guide the focus group discussions, we developed a semi-structured interview guide consisting of open-ended questions, allowing for a non-directive open conversation (Kitzinger 1994). Various stimulus materials and techniques, such as writing associations to a certain word on a piece of paper individually or ranking a number of attributes, were employed to reveal participants’ less accessible perceptions, associations, and attitudes (Malhotra, Birks, and Wills 2012).
The first topic was country associations. Participants were asked to write their associations to selected countries on a piece of paper and to briefly explain their associations (Usunier and Cestre 2007). Afterward, participants were asked to rate the selected countries on a scale from 0 = least favored country to 10 = most favored country and explain their rating. The second topic focused specifically on the combined effect of organic food and COO. Participants were asked about their attention to the COO of organic products, and how important they perceived the COO to be in this connection. Also, participants were asked to explain their preferences for COO. The third topic was about trust. Here, participants were given a list of ten selected countries (both economically developed and emerging economies) and asked to indicate which country on the list they trusted the most and the least as an organic producer and to explain why.
The focus groups lasted between 52 and 118 min. Participants received a EUR 10 gift card (in Hamburg) or equivalent (in Guangzhou) for their time and effort. In the recruitment announcement, a reward for participation was mentioned, but not specified. This in order to reduce possible detrimental effects of such a reward on organic consumers’ intrinsic motivation to participate and share their thoughts, including a possible increased risk of careless or random answering (Hyman and Sierra 2012). All focus groups were led by a local moderator and supported by a local assistant. The focus groups were audio recorded with the consent of the participants, and participants were informed that they were free to leave the focus group at any time. The audio recordings were transcribed in the national languages by the local assistant and then translated into English by another person. The moderator compared the audio recordings, the transcriptions, and the English translations to ensure consistency.
Content analysis was performed using Nvivo 11, taking both the content and the context of the data into account (Krippendorff 2018). The verbatim text was first read and then re-read by three researchers and an initial open coding was carried out. The initial codes as well as emerging themes were then discussed. A second coding was conducted focusing on positive and negative associations to various countries and COO preferences for organic food products and trust in CsOO. These codes were compared and the final themes were determined.
Results
Participants had many, mainly positive, associations related to food, culture, and the natural environment in the selected countries. Approximately half of the Chinese participants and a large majority of the German participants stated that COO information was important. Their COO preferences for organic food products mirrored the results from the in-store interviews, where Chinese participants preferred imported organic products from countries with a high level of economic development, high organic standards, and certification, while the German participants preferred domestic organic products and mentioned a number of countries, where they did not want to buy organic products from due to lack of trust in organic certification. Consistent with Hypotheses 2b and 2e, trust in organic standards and certification was important among participants in both China and Germany. In the following, we comment on the results that were specific to participants in each country.
China
Most of the Chinese participants’ associations to five selected countries (Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, and Denmark) were related to their natural environment, food, and culture such as the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, sushi, electronics, and cherry blossoms for Japan, technology for Germany, pastures, and The Lord of the Rings for New Zealand and The Little Mermaid, cookies and the corruption index for Denmark. When asked to rate the five countries on a scale from 0 (least favored) to 10 (most favored), the majority of Chinese participants favored Australia, Germany, or New Zealand—mainly because of direct or indirect personal experience. Japan was least favored by some participants, mentioning historical conflicts between China and Japan as the main reason. Denmark was often the least preferred of the five countries, primarily due to limited knowledge about the country.
When asked about their attention to the COO of organic products and how important they perceived COO information to be, about half of the participants expressed that they paid attention to the COO of organic products. For example, one participant said: When I buy organic food, I first check the date and country of manufacture, then compare the price (male, 29, FG2). I check whether there are Chinese characters on the package or if it is all labeled in English. If is all marked in English, it is trustworthy. If there are Chinese characters, even though it is foreign brand, I won’t buy it (male, 28, FG1).
1
I usually think that food from Japan, Australia or developed countries in Europe is more trustworthy. I think that it depends on what you buy. If you want to buy fresh fruit, those from the countries close to us like Australia, Japan, Korea are good. If you want to buy something authentic, for example salmon, it will be better from Northern Europe (female, 37, FG1). … better country governance makes me feel at ease. If the food is from China and labeled organic, I dare not believe this information (male, 31, FG1). I tend to trust developed industrial countries. Because their social systems are better and they have effective monitoring [of organic production]. I feel that developed countries have more commercial morality and are more socially responsible (female, 32, FG2).
Germany
The German participants were questioned about their associations to Austria, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Especially Austria yielded a rich diversity of associations and included the Alps, lakes, hiking, skiing, and beautiful scenery, and many participants demonstrated an elaborate understanding of Austria's culture and traditions. The same was the case for the Netherlands, which some participants called “a close neighbor” expressing admiration for their culture: I just like the culture there. The diversity and liveliness, the colorfulness and also how they treat alleged fringe groups such as people with disabilities, and people in niches, so to speak. This is something very progressive (male, 40, FG1).
When asked to rate the three countries on a scale from 0 (least favored) to 10 (most favored), Austria was favored due to familiarity, similarity, and appreciation of the natural scenery, while the Netherlands was favored based on culture, food, and familiarity. Denmark was less known to many participants and therefore was evaluated less favorably.
When asked about attention to and importance of COO of organic products, many participants stated that they actively paid attention and that this information was important; some participants, however, just assumed the COO of organic products, which they expected to be domestically grown or produced: If it is foodstuff which could actually come from this region, I automatically deduce that, especially because one assumes that organic is always good. One thinks that they simply cannot have long transport routes (female, 35, FG1).
Many participants stated that they paid attention to the organic labels and some only bought products from specific certification standards such as Demeter or Bioland, as these were perceived as more trustworthy and rigorous than the national or the European organic label. One participant said: I watched a documentary on how EU organic-labelled vegetables were grown on substrate in Spain and the Netherlands. So, they no longer grow in real soil, but on a high dose of suitable fertilizers, which still qualify them to carry the EU organic label. That is why I trust labels such as Bioland and Demeter more, because I know the standards are stricter (male, 40, FG2).
When asked about their COO preferences for organic food, most German participants expressed no preference for a specific COO. Instead, most mentioned a number of countries that they would definitely reject as the origin of their organic products. For instance, a participant said: I have the same confidence in all EU, but if I had to choose, I trust Poland the least. Because Poland is politically not positive in my mind … and I think that is because of the country's economic situation, it will most likely violate policies or directives to earn money (male, 24, FG2).
This skepticism towards food from foreign countries was pronounced among the participants, and a majority clearly preferred regional or at least domestic food products. Hence Germany was the preferred COO and also at the top of the rating of countries’ trustworthiness as organic producers. The trust placed in organic labels and organic certification agencies was clearly important for the German participants’ COO preferences.
Discussion
The Chinese focus group participants clearly had less direct experience with organic products from the selected countries (especially the distant ones) than the German consumers. Hence, it appeared—especially in the Chinese focus groups—that participants’ evaluations of different countries and products were to some extent based on stereotypes built on information from media and acquaintances. Prior research suggests that when product quality is difficult to assess—for example, due to low or no experience—consumers tend to use stereotyping (Maheswaran 1994).
Overall, the results from the focus groups confirmed and elaborated the findings from the in-store interviews. Especially, the focus groups confirmed that trust in certification and control systems are some of the most important reasons for Chinese consumers’ COO preferences, especially the preference for economically developed countries (such as Australia and New Zealand). Chinese focus group participants expressed even stronger reservations than the informants interviewed in the store regarding China's own organic certification and control system, and this skepticism was the main argument for preferring imported products from economically developed countries.
These findings are consistent with Hypotheses 2a–2f. COO seems to be an important supplementary cue for Chinese consumers when the product carries an organic label. As suggested by Zanoli and Naspetti (2002), COO may serve as an additional quality cue when consumers are more involved in the decision. The Chinese participants perceived a high risk of being misled by organic claims (especially Chinese ones) and explained how they used COO as a cue to evaluate the credibility of other cues (i.e., organic labels).
Participants in the German focus groups expressed strong preferences for local or regional products and a number of countries were rejected as the origin of organic products—mainly less economically developed countries or countries with a record of food scandals. Hence, in these cases, COO information was used as a cue for products to avoid. Consistent with prior research (Hempel and Hamm 2016a; Hempel and Hamm 2016b), some German consumers also perceived local foods as more trustworthy than imported organic foods due to mistrust in organic production principles in certain foreign countries—even though the products carried the EU organic label. Also, some German consumers trusted organic producer association labels, such as Demeter and Bioland, more than the national organic (Bio) label. Most research finds that state-controlled organic labels are trusted more and are more successful than producer association organic labels (Thøgersen 2010), but in Germany, a national organic label was introduced as late as in 2000, 2 whereas the first organic producer association label was introduced in 1928. 3
Study 3: Online Survey
Procedure and Sample
Lastly, in order to validate and investigate the generalizability of findings from the qualitative studies, an online survey was conducted in China and Germany in May–June 2017. In China, a sample of 1340 and in Germany 991 consumers, 18–65 years old, participated in the survey. The gross samples, before the screening, were drawn to be representative of the population studied (in Germany, the whole country, in China, the three largest cities: Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, because organic food is generally less available in rural areas and small towns than in big cities in China) in terms of key background characteristics such as gender, age, geographical location, and income. To make the two samples more comparable in terms of knowledge of and experience with the products in focus, they were screened for—at least partial—responsibility for the household's shopping (thirty-one screened away in both countries) and knowledge of organic food (256 screened away in China, 248 in Germany).
The questionnaire was developed in English and translated into Chinese and German. A back-translation into English was conducted by a different person in order to check the translation. The authors of this article checked the back-translations comparing them with the original English version and settled all uncertainties and ambiguities with the translators. Participant recruitment, online data collection, and the organization and presentation of the data in an SPSS file were handled by YouGov, an international, ISO-certified research company, sampling participants from their standing panels in China and Germany. Panel participants received a small compensation from YouGov for their time and effort.
Table 3 shows that, reflecting population differences, the Chinese and German samples differ on several background characteristics. As is the case for the city population in China in general (cf., e.g., Lin and Wu 2018; Wang and Somogyi 2020), the Chinese sample is relatively young (60% being between 18 and 34, 28% between 35 and 49, and 12% between 50 and 65). Almost half (48%) had less than a high-school education, while 18 percent had a high-school education, 31.8 percent further education, and 2.2 percent had a master’s degree or higher. There was an uneven distribution in the income levels in China with 62.3% of the sample on levels 5 to 7, which is again the situation in big cities in China. German participants were balanced in terms of gender and with an even distribution across the three age groups. It was a highly educated sample with 20.5 percent having a master’s degree or higher, 60.6 percent some further education, 12.4 percent high school education, and 6.5 percent no education. There was a fairly even distribution across income levels in Germany; 14.8 percent of the German respondents did not reveal their income.
Background Characteristics of Survey Samples.
*Data were collected so as to enable direct comparison of levels. Hence, here are the levels in national currencies. Germany: (1) Less than 1000€, (2) 1000–1499 €, (3) 1500–1999 €, (4) 2000–2499 €, (5) 2500–2999 €, (6) 3000–3499 €, (7) 3500–3999 €, (8) 4000–4499 €, (9) 4500–4999 €, (10) 5000€ and above. China: (1) Up to ¥4000, (2) ¥4001–6000, (3) ¥6001–8000, (4) ¥8001–10000, (5) ¥10001–15000, (6) ¥15001–20000, (7) ¥20001–25000, (8) ¥25001–30000, (9) ¥30001–40000, (10) ¥40001 and above.
Survey Measures
Survey research is limited by self-reports and usually a single source of data, which entails a risk of common method and other biases (Chang, van Witteloostuijn, and Eden 2010; MacKenzie and Podsakoff 2012). The procedures applied to reduce these limitations and potential biases included different scale types and randomization of the sequence of questions. In addition, measuring key theoretical constructs using multiple items makes them less prone to common method bias (Fuller, et al. 2016). Finally, the survey was web-based and fully anonymous, and respondents were assured of their anonymity and that there were no right or wrong answers to eliminate interviewer influence and reducing social desirability bias (MacKenzie and Podsakoff 2012).
Because the qualitative studies suggested that at least some consumers in both countries perceive the products studied with a strong domestic country bias, qualified by trust in countries and their institutions, the survey asked about consumer ethnocentrism as well as trust in various countries, including their home country, as producers of organic food. To control for the impact of different exposure to and experience with organic food in the two countries, we also measured (subjective) knowledge of organic food. In addition, the survey contained questions on socio-economic background characteristics as well as questions not pertinent to this study (but reported elsewhere, see Thøgersen, Pedersen, and Aschemann-Witzel 2019; Thøgersen, Aschemann-Witzel, and Pedersen 2021). For all questions, except for the ranking, responses were given on a 7-point Likert scale, from 1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree.
Respondents were asked to rank eight countries (including their home country) in terms of how much they trusted them as producers of organic products. Besides China and Germany, the list included three European (Denmark, Austria, and the Netherlands) and three Asia-Pacific countries (Japan, Thailand, and Australia). The main criteria for selecting these countries were their geographical location relative to the two countries surveyed, that food products from the countries are quite common in the two countries, and that they represent exporting countries of different economic development (with Thailand being at approximately the same level of development as China, both with regard to economic development in general and organic food). To make the task easier, respondents were just asked to indicate which of the eight countries, they trusted the most, second most, and third most, and which of the eight countries they trusted the least. A “trust ranking” scale was created for each country by extending the country ranking as first, second, and third, most trusted by coding “least trusted” as 8 and the remaining as a tied 4. Table 4 displays the trust rankings of the eight selected countries in China and Germany.
Trust in Eight Selected Countries as Producers of Organic Food in %. China: N = 1340. Germany: N = 991.
Based on 1st, 2nd, 3rd trusted coded as 1, 2, and 3, least trusted coded as 8, and all others coded as 4. Hence, the lower the number, the higher the trust.
In addition, respondents’ trust in their home country as an organic food producer was measured on a rating scale by means of three items adapted from Perrini, et al. (2010): (1) You can count on China/Germany as a producer of organic food, (2) I trust China/Germany as a producer of organic food, and (3) Consumers can always rely on China/Germany as a producer of organic food.
Consumer ethnocentrism (CE) was measured with four items from the CETSCALE (Shimp and Sharma 1987): (1) Only those products that are unavailable in China/Germany should be imported; (2) A true Chinese/German should always buy China/Germany-made products; (3) Chinese/Germans should not buy foreign products, because this hurts Chinese/German business and causes unemployment; (4) It may cost me in the long run, but I prefer to support Chinese/German products.
Respondents’ subjective knowledge of organic food was also measured with four items, which were adapted from the instrument proposed by Flynn and Goldsmith (1999): (1) I know pretty much about organic food; (2) I feel very knowledgeable about organic food; (3) Compared to most other people, I know more about organic food; (4) When it comes to organic food, I know a lot.
Construct and Discriminant Validities
As preparation for the main analyses, construct and discriminant validities of the three constructs measured with multiple items were estimated by means of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and the cross-country measurement invariance of the constructs was examined by means of multi-group CFA. These analyses were done by means of AMOS 26 (Arbuckle 2017). Construct reliabilities (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) for the trust, consumer ethnocentrism, and knowledge constructs as well as correlations between constructs are reported for each country in Table 5.
Means and Validity Measures: Correlations Between Latent Variables, Construct Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). Germany: N = 991. China: N = 1340.
Note. Correlations are all significant, p <.001. Lower left = Germany, upper right = China. Numbers in the diagonal are square roots of the AVE, Germany/China. Fit: Germany: Chi-square = 164.286, 40 df. CFI = .99. TLI = .98. RMSEA = .056 (LO 90 = .047, HI 90 = .065). China: Chi-square = 178.587, 40 df. CFI = .99. TLI = .98. RMSEA = .051 (LO 90 = .043, HI 90 = .059).
It appears from Table 5 that the three constructs possess eminent CR and AVE in both countries, the normally acceptable thresholds being .7 and .5, respectively (Malhotra, Birks, and Wills 2012). Hence, the items used to measure the constructs possess adequate convergent validity. Further, all correlations between constructs are positive and highly significant, which confirms nomological validity. However, the square root of the AVE is consistently larger than the correlation between a construct and all other constructs, fulfilling Fornelland Larcker’s (1981) strict criterion for discriminant validity. Note also that the correlations between constructs, and especially between trust in the home country and consumer ethnocentrism, are stronger in China than in Germany.
Cross-Country Measurement Invariance
For cross-country comparisons of correlations and regression weights to be justified, at least partial metric invariance is required, and for cross-country comparisons of means to be justified, at least partial scalar invariance is required (Chen 2007; Putnick and Bornstein 2016; Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). Fit indices for four nested multi-group CFA models are reported in Table 6: the unconstrained model as well as three models characterized by an increasing number of relevant equality constraints across countries.
Measurement Invariance Test.
All intercepts for trust and two of the four intercepts for ethnocentrism.
The first row shows that the multi-group CFA model with no cross-country equality constraints has an excellent fit to the data, that is, the model represents the data well in both countries. Specifically, the CFI and the TLI are higher than the normally accepted minimum threshold of .95, and in addition, the RMSEA is .035, which is substantially lower than the normally accepted maximum threshold of .06 (Bagozzi and Yi 2012). This shows that the CFA models possess configural invariance across the two countries analyzed. From the fit indices in the second row, it appears that constraining the factor loadings (i.e., measurement weights) for each latent variable to be equal across countries reduces the absolute fit, as reflected in the χ2, but that the alternative fit measures are either not affected at all or only marginally effected (the CFI). This shows that the model also possesses metric invariance (Putnick and Bornstein 2016). Row four shows that all fit indices deteriorate if all measurement intercepts are constrained to be equal across countries (i.e., assuming full scalar invariance). However, row 3 shows that some measurement intercepts can be constrained to be equal with an acceptable reduction in fit, according to conventions (Putnick and Bornstein 2016). Specifically, in the model in row three, all measurement intercepts for trust and two of the four intercepts for ethnocentrism were constrained to be equal across the two countries, assuming full and partial scalar invariance, respectively. However, it was not possible to constrain two intercepts to be equal for the knowledge measure. Hence, the measurement instrument for subjective knowledge is apparently not invariant across countries with respect to item intercepts. This means that the knowledge construct is marked by serious nation-specific response biases that are caused by other influences than variations in the underlying factor. Based on these results, it appears that in general, we can assume metric invariance, which is sufficient for the comparative analysis of relationships between constructs. However, only with regard to two of the three latent constructs, trust and ethnocentrism, can we meaningfully compare the means across countries, which requires at least partial scalar invariance.
Results
We analyzed relationships between key variables both with and without demographic covariates (all background characteristics are in Table 3). In the German sample, no parameter estimates were influenced by the covariates at the two-digit level, and in the Chinese sample, the influence was marginal and without substantial importance. Still, to be on the safe side, all correlations we report below are partial correlations controlling for demographic background characteristics in order to remove their effects.
As reported in Table 5, participants generally trusted their home country as an organic producer as reflected in means above the midpoint of the scale (M = 4.53 in China and M = 4.91 in Germany). The difference in means between Germany and China is small, but statistically significant (t = 6.089, p < .001; t-test based on the multi-group CFA = 6.138, p < .001), suggesting that German consumers trust their home country as an organic producer more than (big city) Chinese consumers.
The ranking of eight countries, including one's home country, with regard to trust in them as organic producers, are reported in Figure 5, showing the share of respondents in China and Germany trusting each of the eight countries most and least. The rating and the ranking measures of trust in the home country as an organic producer are moderately correlated in the expected direction (r = −.587, p < .001 for China and r = −.346, p < .001 for Germany), which supports their construct validity.
Share of respondents trusting each of eight countries most and least as producers of organic food products in %. China: N = 1340. Germany: N = 991.
The home country is the most trusted of the eight countries in both countries, however, with a huge difference in the percentage of participants picking their home country as the most trusted (78% in Germany, 27% in China, χ2 = 326.4, 18 df., p < .001). Hence, it appears that there is a substantially lower relative trust in the home country as an organic producer in China than in Germany. A substantial share of the Chinese participants (20.5%) mentioned their home country as the least trusted of the eight, while this was only expressed by less than one percent of the German participants. These findings are consistent with what we found in the qualitative interviews and with Hypotheses 2a–2e. The image advantage of developed countries found in the qualitative studies is confirmed by the fact that Thailand, and in Germany also China, is less trusted than the developed countries on the list, consistent with Hypothesis 2d.
The survey also revealed that on average German consumers scored higher on CE than their Chinese counterparts (M = 4.52 in Germany, M = 4.17 in China). The difference is statistically significant (t = 5.711, p < .001; t-test based on the multi-group CFA = 4.174, p < .001). In both China and Germany, we find the expected correlations between CE and the two indicators (rating and ranking) of trust in the home country: A strong and positive correlation between participants’ trust rating of their home country and CE—stronger in China (r = .71) than in Germany (r = .41), and a negative correlation between CE and the trust ranking of the home country (a negative sign means that participants having a higher CE score tend to give their home country a more favorable ranking), again stronger in China (r = −.51, p < .001) than in Germany (r = −.17, p < .001).
Chinese consumers scored higher on subjective knowledge about organic food than their German counterparts (M = 4.87 in China, M = 3.85 in Germany). The difference is statistically significant (t = −18.661, p < .001), but since the subjective knowledge measure is not sufficiently invariant across the two countries, the means are not directly comparable. In China, trust in the home country as an organic producer also correlates with subjective knowledge about organic food, irrespective of whether a trust is measured by rating (r = .42, p < .001) or by ranking (r = −.11, p < .001). When controlling for CE, the correlation between subjective knowledge and the home country's trust rating is attenuated (partial r = .33, p < .001), and the correlation between subjective knowledge and the trust ranking is also attenuated and changes sign (partial r = .06, p = .03). The correlation between CE and trust in the home country as an organic producer is hardly influenced at all by controlling for subjective knowledge, irrespective of whether a trust is measured by rating (partial r = .69, p < .001) or ranking (partial r = −.50, p < .001).
In Germany, trust in the home country as an organic producer also correlates with consumers’ subjective knowledge about organic food when trust is measured by rating (r = .32, p < .001), but not when it is measured by ranking (r = −.04, p = .257). When controlling for CE, the correlation between subjective knowledge and the rating of the home country as an organic producer is attenuated (partial r = .23, p < .001). As in China, the correlation between CE and German consumers’ trust in the home country as an organic producer is only marginally influenced by controlling for subjective knowledge, irrespective of whether a trust is measured by rating (partial r = .36, p < .001) or ranking (partial r = −.17, p < .001).
Discussion
The survey revealed a general trust in domestic organic food in both China and Germany when assessed on a rating scale (Figure 5), but a considerably lower level of trust in the home country compared to other countries in China than in Germany. Whereas consumer trust in the home country is nearly universal in Germany, Chinese consumers are divided on this point. This means that consumer trust is a much bigger competitive advantage in the domestic market for German than for Chinese organic food producers. Consumers may build confidence and trust in products based on information from labeling and/or their own stereotyping of specific countries, which indeed boosts trust in domestic organic products in both countries. Trust in domestic products is more strongly correlated with CE in China than in Germany, but both CE and trust in domestic organic products are higher in Germany than in China, indicating that CE affects German consumers’ decisions about whether or not to buy imported products more. In sum, the findings of this survey confirm that trust is important for consumers’ preferences for domestic versus imported organic food products no matter their country of residence. However, the higher level of consumer trust in domestic organic products and a higher level of CE among German than among Chinese consumers suggest that the domestic country bias (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos 2004) is a bigger advantage for domestic organic producers in Germany than in China.
It may seem surprising that Chinese consumers report higher subjective knowledge about organic food than German consumers since Chinese consumers—on average—have less opportunities to buy organic food than German consumers. A possible reason is the sample of big city Chinese consumers being more exposed to organic food products than those living in smaller towns and rural areas. The in-store interviews also indicated that some Chinese consumers were very involved in buying organic food for various reasons. Nevertheless, subjective knowledge about organic food appears to have little impact on consumer trust in organic food from their home country when controlling for other possible antecedents. The partial correlation analyses revealed that, in both countries, trust and trust-based preferences for domestic products are based more on patriotic feelings and beliefs than on knowledge of organic food production.
General Discussion and Implications
This comparative study contributes to theoretical development and filling a gap in macromarketing research with regard to understanding the nature and impact of sustainability concerns in non-WEIRD countries. A comprehensive comparative mixed-methods study of differences in consumer responses to imported organic food products and the role of COO, CE, and trust in this connection was conducted in China (a rapidly developing market) and Germany (a more mature, developed market). The comparative, mixed-methods approach has been instrumental in creating a clear focus on similarities and differences in domestic country biases and consumer responses in a non-WEIRD and a WEIRD country. The study also extends the limited research documenting the importance of trust in standards and certification institutions for the functioning of a market for sustainability-differentiated (e.g., organic) products. The importance of these factors becomes especially salient when they are lacking or weak, as manifested in the context of an emerging economy, such as China. Hence, our study contributes with empirical and theoretical insights on the importance of consumers’ trust in certifying and labeling institutions especially for the marketing of domestic and imported sustainability-differentiated products, which has—until now—not been researched much, especially in emerging economies.
Although a domestic country bias manifests itself in all studies in both of the two countries (consistent with Hypothesis 1a), it appears to impact product evaluation and choices less in China than in Germany (consistent with Hypotheses 1b and 1c). An important reason seems to be that, although most Chinese participants express trust in organic food from China, many of them trust organic food from economically more developed countries more (consistent with Hypothesis 2a), as opposed to German consumers, who consistently trust domestic products the most (consistent with Hypothesis 2c). The findings with regard to China confirm the (few) earlier studies here (Ortega et al. 2016; Walley, et al. 2014) and in other emerging economies (Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen 2019; Thøgersen, Pedersen, and Aschemann-Witzel 2019). As has also been found in other studies (Thøgersen, et al. 2015), consumers in the two countries seem to have similar reasons for preferring organic products, but skepticism and lack of trust in the national organic certification system in China (Lai, et al. 2018; Ortega, et al. 2011), and stronger and more elaborate environmental concerns in Germany, lead to different COO preferences. Both Chinese and German consumers trust the organic standards and certification of developed countries more than those of developing and emerging economies (consistent with Hypothesis 2d) and, in both countries, consumers prefer organic foods from economically developed countries to those from developing countries (consistent with Hypotheses 2b, 2e, and 2f).
In addition to the empirical insights into specific markets and the importance of sustainability for consumer responses in non-WEIRD economies, this research contributes to macromarketing research on the role of trust in standards and institutions in both WEIRD and non-WEIRD contexts (e.g., Ferrell, Gresham, and Fraedrich 1989; Ozdamar Ertekin and Atik 2015; Redmond 2018). Consistent with and extending this research, we find trust in standards and certification institutions is of utmost importance to organic consumers. Hence, not least for producers in developing and emerging economies, the highest priority should be high and credible product standards supported by strong and credible domestic institutions to certify and control production, which would benefit the further development of the organic market and would be an asset for marketing the products. China introduced a national, state-controlled organic labeling and certification system in 2005. Although state control appears to be less trusted in countries like China than in developed countries (Liu et al. 2019), international experience suggests that a strategy based on establishing, strengthening, and communicating the credibility of a state-controlled system has a higher likelihood of success than introducing new producer association labels (Thøgersen 2010). Hence, where a state-controlled system exists, like in China, producer associations should work on strengthening and promoting the system based on reasonable expectations of mutual benefits for all domestic producers. The certification and accreditation administration in China was restructured in 2018 and 2019, including a significantly increased number of organic certification bodies and stricter monitoring (Willer, Schlatter, and Trávní 2020), which is a step in the right direction. However, the social and environmental country image of China is a serious challenge (García-de-Frutos and Ortega-Egea 2015). Only time will show if the reforms are sufficient to build trust in Chinese organic products among consumers in China and beyond. Given the number and seriousness of food scandals in China (Lai, et al. 2018) and the extent of mistrust revealed by this study, as well as similar findings reported in other studies (Ortega et al. 2016; Walley, et al. 2014) and from other developing and emerging economies (Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen 2019; Thøgersen, Pedersen, and Aschemann-Witzel 2019), it seems likely that it will take a while before the trust advantage of developed countries has faded completely. The key importance for organic consumers of trust in organic standards, certification, and control has important practical implications for exporters: They need to communicate high quality and credible certification and standards by means of credible, substantiated marketing communication in the Chinese market and elsewhere. Transparency and traceability is effective lever of trust (Badia-Melis, Mishra, and Ruiz-García 2015; Lee, Bae, and Kim 2020; Liu et al. 2019). Hence, new technologies, such as quick response (QR) codes and blockchain technology, offer new opportunities for effective trust-building by providing retailers and consumers with information at their fingertips about a product's origin, manufacturing process, certification, suppliers, transport, etc. QR codes are already a widespread technology—not least in China—and almost a prerequisite for consumers wanting to interact with the market (Bradu, Orquin, and Thøgersen 2014; Keane and Su 2019). As technology for storing and sharing information across a network of users (producers, retailers, etc.) in an open, virtual space, blockchain technology opens new promising opportunities for increasing the traceability of products (Kamilaris, Fonts, and Prenafeta-Boldύ 2019; Kim and Woo 2016), which can increase food safety and help avoiding food scandals, for example, in case of contamination. Countries, industries, and companies that suffer from low consumer trust stand to gain most from increased transparency and traceability and should therefore give the development and implementation of these new technologies the highest priority.
Strong and credible institutions are a competitive advantage for economically developed countries on the world market and the main reason why they can compete with similar, but cheaper, products from economically less developed countries. However, as the German case illustrates, having strong and credible institutions might not be enough to secure a competitive advantage for exporters from a developed country in other developed countries, where also lower price, superior taste, or the authenticity attached to a specific geographic location play a role in consumer preferences. The most important argument for consumers in Germany—transportation distance and its environmental impacts—might at some point gain stronger relevance for Chinese consumers as well, then becoming a further argument in favor of domestic products and supporting the development of the organic market in China. In addition, for all exporters operating in developed economy markets, increased transparency and traceability is likely to be a useful tool to overcome the “liability of foreignness” (e.g., Sethi and Guisinger 2002), in much the same way as it is for industries and companies in developing and emerging countries suffering from low consumer trust even in their domestic market.
Conclusions, Limitations and Future research
This comparative study has provided new and more elaborate insights into how and why a domestic country bias manifests itself with regard to a popular, sustainability-differentiated type of food, organic food, in a non-WEIRD country (China), benchmarked against a WEIRD country with a mature organic market (Germany). Especially, the study has contributed new insights into the important role of trust in standards and institutions in this connection.
Despite the mixed-methods design allowing not only between, but also within method data triangulation, this study, like all others, has limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. Due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, the included studies are obviously mute about causal relationships between concepts. Data were only collected from two countries, leaving uncertainty as to how general the findings are for the broader categories of countries that they represent. Also, there were only two emerging economies on the list of countries to choose from in the questionnaire, chosen so as to be relevant to consumers in both China and Germany. In addition, participants in China were recruited from the most economically developed parts of China, which is where the organic market is currently emerging. However, it means that the findings cannot necessarily be generalized to small-town and rural China. In addition, the use of convenience sampling for the qualitative interviews means that findings from these studies are not necessarily representative of the general population.
Also, as revealed in the qualitative interviews, obviously there are many other aspects than trust and ethnocentrism that are relevant for consumers’ COO preferences, meaning that focusing only on these issues in the survey is a limitation. We focused on these issues in the quantitative study because its main purpose was to investigate the generalizability of key findings from the qualitative studies, which suggested that domestic country bias is linked to trust issues and that the two together are key sources of COO preferences for organic food.
Respondents in the survey were recruited through YouGov's panels, which means that they are probably more open to participating in and experienced with surveys than the general public. However, because participants in the panel were not recruited for this particular survey, there is no reason to expect sampling bias in responses to questions in the survey. Because respondents were a small fraction of each national panel, it was possible to draw a sample that is representative of the population studied on selected demographic characteristics. However, as mentioned, there were differences in the demographic composition between the Chinese and German samples, with the Chinese sample being younger, from bigger cities, and with a lower educational background than the German sample. Hence, we controlled for differences in background characteristics in order to rule out that differences in sample characteristics account for the differences found between countries.
When comparing an emerging and a developed economy with radically different national institutions and cultures, attention is directed towards differences between the two contexts. This is instrumental for refining our understanding not only of differences in consumer responses that can be attributed to these contextual differences, but also of what is common, despite the radically different contexts. In this way, the comparative approach has helped create insights regarding reasons for a domestic country bias and trust in certifying institutions that may help foresee the future development of the market for sustainability-differentiated products, such as organic food, especially in China and other emerging economies. However, more research is needed on the role of economic and institutional development for COO preferences – also in countries that are less economically developed than China.
Our studies suggest a weaker or less common consumer ethnocentrism among Chinese than German consumers and a substantial segment of Chinese consumers prefers imported products from more economically developed countries over domestic products. An important reason for the latter is higher trust in developed countries’ certification standards and food quality and safety, but also the origin country's general image appears to play a role. Hence, future research should more thoroughly investigate the impact of trust on actual buying behavior, especially in developing and emerging economies while taking the different national institutions and cultures into account.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
This paper is an outcome of the SOMDwIT project, which is part of the Organic RDD 2.2 program, coordinated by ICROFS (International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems). The project is funded by the Green Development and Demonstration Programme under the Danish Ministry for the Environment and Food, grant no. 34009-15-0985, and by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant no. 71872194. The interviews and transcriptions in Germany were carried out by research assistants Maria Paternoga and Eva Schwendel. In China, the focus groups were moderated by Yanfeng Zhou and transcribed by Doby Duan and the in-store interviews were collected and transcribed by students in John Thøgersen's MBA classes. Thanks to Birgitte Steffensen for the language correction.
Associate Editor
Ben Wooliscroft.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by the Green Development and Demonstration Programme under the Danish Ministry for the Environment and Food, grant no. 34009-15-0985, and by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant no. 71872194.
