IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gewi17/261992.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Messung moralischer Besorgnis gegenüber Prozessstandards am Fallbeispiel der Käfighaltung von Legehennen - Skalenentwicklung und -validierung

Author

Listed:
  • Sonntag, Winnie Isabel
  • Spiller, Achim

Abstract

Viele Bürger, insbesondere in Industrienationen, hinterfragen derzeit aus moralischen Be-weggründen bestimmte Prozessstandards in der Landwirtschaft. Im Jahr 2014 hat das WTO-Schlichtungsgremium in einem wegweisenden Schiedsspruch das Importverbot der Europäi-schen Union für Robbenprodukte auf Grundlage des Art. XX (a) GATT grundsätzlich ge-rechtfertigt und dabei auf die moralische Besorgnis (moral concerns) der Gesellschaft rekur-riert. Allerdings existiert bislang keine valide und reliable Skala zur Quantifizierung von mo-ralischer Besorgnis. Ziel des vorliegenden Beitrages ist daher die Entwicklung, Erprobung und Validierung einer Skala zur validen und reliablen Messung von moralischer Besorgnis gegenüber am Endprodukt nicht mehr messbaren Prozessstandards. Am Fallbeispiel der kon-ventionellen Käfighaltung von Legehennen wurde eine Pilotstudie (Online-Umfrage mit 220 deutschen Bürgern) durchgeführt. Es wurden sowohl eine Item- und Reliabilitätsanalyse so-wie eine Überprüfung der Konstruktvalidität durchgeführt. Explorative und konfirmatorische Faktorenanalysen sowie ein Strukturgleichungsmodell belegen eine hohe Reliabilität und Sta-bilität sowie Konstruktvalidität. Der vorgeschlagene Moral Concerns Scale könnte auf ver-schiedenen Ebenen genutzt werden: Insbesondere im Rahmen handelsrechtlicher Auseinan-dersetzungen in der WTO, aber auch im unternehmerischen CSR-Management.

Suggested Citation

  • Sonntag, Winnie Isabel & Spiller, Achim, 2017. "Messung moralischer Besorgnis gegenüber Prozessstandards am Fallbeispiel der Käfighaltung von Legehennen - Skalenentwicklung und -validierung," 57th Annual Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 13-15, 2017 261992, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gewi17:261992
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.261992
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/261992/files/Sonntag_140.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/261992/files/Sonntag_140.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.261992?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sonntag, Winnie & Spiller, Achim, 2016. "Prozessqualitäten in der WTO: Ein Vorschlag für die reliable Messung von moralischen Bedenken," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260775, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    2. Ingo Balderjahn & Anja Buerke & Manfred Kirchgeorg & Mathias Peyer & Barbara Seegebarth & Klaus-Peter Wiedmann, 2013. "Consciousness for sustainable consumption: scale development and new insights in the economic dimension of consumers’ sustainability," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 3(4), pages 181-192, December.
    3. Heng, Yan & Hanawa Peterson, Hikaru & Li, Xianghong, 2013. "Consumer Attitudes toward Farm-Animal Welfare: The Case of Laying Hens," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-17.
    4. Hildebrandt, Lutz & Temme, Dirk, 2006. "Probleme der Validierung mit Strukturgleichungsmodellen," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2006-082, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    5. Sykes, Katie, 2014. "Sealing animal welfare into the GATT exceptions: the international dimension of animal welfare in WTO disputes," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 471-498, July.
    6. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Grimsrud, Kristine M. & McCluskey, Jill J. & Loureiro, Maria L. & Wahl, Thomas I., 2002. "Consumer Attitudes Towards Genetically Modified Foods In Norway," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Winnie Isabel Sonntag & Achim Spiller, 2018. "Measuring Public Concerns? Developing a Moral Concerns Scale Regarding Non-Product Related Process and Production Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Sonntag, Winnie & Spiller, Achim, 2016. "Prozessqualitäten in der WTO: Ein Vorschlag für die reliable Messung von moralischen Bedenken," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260775, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    3. Brenna Ellison & Kathleen Brooks & Taro Mieno, 2017. "Which livestock production claims matter most to consumers?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 819-831, December.
    4. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan, 2020. "Consumer Willingness to pay for Organic and Animal Welfare Product Attributes: Do Experimental Results Align with Market Data?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304328, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Ali Eldesouky & Francisco J. Mesias & Miguel Escribano, 2020. "Consumer Assessment of Sustainability Traits in Meat Production. A Choice Experiment Study in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, May.
    6. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    7. Jennifer Porter & David Conner & Jane Kolodinsky & Amy Trubek, 2017. "Get real: an analysis of student preference for real food," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 921-932, December.
    8. Otieno, David & Ogutu, Sylvester, 2015. "Consumer willingness to pay for animal welfare attributes in a developing country context: The case of chicken in Nairobi, Kenya," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212602, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Stefan Hoffmann & Michael S. W. Lee, 2016. "Consume Less and Be Happy? Consume Less to Be Happy! An Introduction to the Special Issue on Anti-Consumption and Consumer Well-Being," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 3-17, March.
    10. Blemings, Benjamin & Zhang, Peilu & Neill, Clinton L., 2023. "Where is the value? The impacts of sow gestation crate laws on pork supply and consumer value perceptions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    11. Jayson Lusk, 2011. "The market for animal welfare," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 561-575, December.
    12. Brümmer, Nanke & Petersen, Wiebke & Christoph-Schulz, Inken, 2018. "Consumer Acceptance of Dual-Purpose Chickens A Mixed Methods Approach," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 67(4), December.
    13. Christopher J. Hopwood & Madeline R. Lenhausen & Wiebke Bleidorn, 2023. "Toward a comprehensive dimensional model of sustainable behaviors," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 10171-10195, September.
    14. Djamel Rahmani & Zein Kallas & Maria Pappa & José Maria Gil, 2019. "Are Consumers’ Egg Preferences Influenced by Animal-Welfare Conditions and Environmental Impacts?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-23, November.
    15. Zhong, Funing & Chen, Xi, 2009. "How does biotech food labelling affect consumers’ purchasing preferences and the market? Evidence from urban China," MPRA Paper 14702, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Kaneko, Naoya & Chern, Wen S., 2005. "Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Oil, Cornflakes, and Salmon: Evidence from a U.S. Telephone Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-19, December.
    17. Ali Razzaq & Nabeel Younus Ansari & Zohaib Razzaq & Hayat Muhammad Awan, 2018. "The Impact of Fashion Involvement and Pro-Environmental Attitude on Sustainable Clothing Consumption: The Moderating Role of Islamic Religiosity," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(2), pages 21582440187, June.
    18. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    19. Szilvia Molnár & László Szőllősi, 2020. "Sustainability and Quality Aspects of Different Table Egg Production Systems: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.
    20. Rovers, Anja & Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Brümmer, Nanke, 2019. "Citizens’ Perception of Different Aspects Regarding German Livestock Production," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 10(04), October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; International Relations/Trade; Livestock Production/Industries;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gewi17:261992. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gewisea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.