IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iefi13/164734.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Identifying Expectations for Innovations in Management Practices in Dairy Sector by Using Q Methodology

Author

Listed:
  • Latvala, Terhi
  • Mandolesi, Serena
  • Nicholas, Phillipa
  • Zanoli, Raffaele

Abstract

In this paper, expectations along the Finnish dairy supply chain for innovation to achieve more sustainable farming systems are identified. Four focus group discussions and three interviews for low input and organic dairy supply chain members were performed. The Q Methodology was used to highlight common ground and divergence in the expectations that organic and low input dairying can deliver. The common view is that innovation in housing aimed at improving animal welfare should be fostered. Animal welfare innovations were highlighted especially by the consumer group. Other supply chain members encouraged in accordance with consumer group animal welfare, but also innovations linking with the efficiency of production and feed quality. Common understanding between actors is that innovations linking to genetic modification are not acceptable. Many respondents also considered unnaturally those innovations that were linking with acceleration of genetic selection, speeding up calf development, and supporting in 100 % indoor dairy systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Latvala, Terhi & Mandolesi, Serena & Nicholas, Phillipa & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2013. "Identifying Expectations for Innovations in Management Practices in Dairy Sector by Using Q Methodology," 2013 International European Forum, February 18-22, 2013, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 164734, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iefi13:164734
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.164734
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/164734/files/5-Latvala.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.164734?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. Eden, Sally & Bear, Christopher & Walker, Gordon, 2008. "The sceptical consumer? Exploring views about food assurance," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 624-630, December.
    2. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    3. Naspetti, Simona & Lampkin, Nicolas & Nicolas, P. & Stolze, Matthias & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2009. "Organic supply chain collaboration: a case study in eight EU Countries," 113th Seminar, September 3-6, 2009, Chania, Crete, Greece 58105, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Zanoli, Raffaele & Naspetti, Simona, 2002. "Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food. A means-end approach," MPRA Paper 32712, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    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. Serena Mandolesi & Emilia Cubero Dudinskaya & Simona Naspetti & Francesco Solfanelli & Raffaele Zanoli, 2022. "Freedom of Choice—Organic Consumers’ Discourses on New Plant Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Mandolesi, Serena & Nicholas, Philippa & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2015. "Identifying viewpoints on innovation in low-input and organic dairy supply chains: A Q-methodological study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 25-34.
    3. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Vehapi Semir, 2015. "A Study of the Consumer Motives which Influence the Purchase of Organic Food in Serbia," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 53(1), pages 102-118, March.
    5. Carter, Kealy & Jayachandran, Satish & Murdock, Mitchel R., 2021. "Building A Sustainable Shelf: The Role of Firm Sustainability Reputation," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 507-522.
    6. Ágnes Nemcsicsné Zsóka, 2007. "The role of organisational culture in the environmental awareness of companies," Journal of East European Management Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 12(2), pages 109-131.
    7. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    8. Anna Gaviglio & Mattia Bertocchi & Maria Elena Marescotti & Eugenio Demartini & Alberto Pirani, 2016. "The social pillar of sustainability: a quantitative approach at the farm level," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-19, December.
    9. Ngobo, Paul-Valentin & Jean, Sylvie, 2012. "Does store image influence demand for organic store brands?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 621-628.
    10. Jessica Aschemann-Witzel & Stephan Zielke, 2017. "Can't Buy Me Green? A Review of Consumer Perceptions of and Behavior Toward the Price of Organic Food," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 211-251, March.
    11. Nadine E. van der Waal & Frans Folkvord & Rachid Azrout & Corine S. Meppelink, 2022. "Can Product Information Steer towards Sustainable and Healthy Food Choices? A Pilot Study in an Online Supermarket," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-17, January.
    12. Cecilia Castaldo & Matilde Giaccherini & Giacomo Pallante & Alessandro Palma, 2024. "Unveiling Shades of Green Food beyond Labels. Evidence from an Online Experiment to Climate Adaptation," CESifo Working Paper Series 11161, CESifo.
    13. Elena Zepharovich & Michele Graziano Ceddia & Stephan Rist, 2020. "Land-Use Conflict in the Gran Chaco: Finding Common Ground through Use of the Q Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    14. Soyoung Seo & Hee-Kyung Ahn & Jaeseok Jeong & Junghoon Moon, 2016. "Consumers’ Attitude toward Sustainable Food Products: Ingredients vs. Packaging," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-19, October.
    15. Marietta Kiss & Kontor Eniko & Kun Andras Istvan, 2015. "The Effect Of 'Organic' Labels On Consumer Perception Of Chocolates," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(1), pages 448-457, July.
    16. Muhammad Asif, 2020. "Role of Energy Conservation and Management in the 4D Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-3, November.
    17. Iliriana Miftari & Rainer Haas & Oliver Meixner & Drini Imami & Ekrem Gjokaj, 2022. "Factors Influencing Consumer Attitudes towards Organic Food Products in a Transition Economy—Insights from Kosovo," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, May.
    18. Elisa Monnot & Fanny Reniou & Béatrice Parguel, 2014. "Consumer responses to elimination of overpackaging on private label products," Working Papers halshs-01076408, HAL.
    19. Davies, Ben B. & Hodge, Ian D., 2012. "Shifting environmental perspectives in agriculture: Repeated Q analysis and the stability of preference structures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 51-57.
    20. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Kozak, Robert & Markum,, 2016. "Certification of forest watershed services: A Q methodology analysis of opportunities and challenges in Lombok, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 51-59.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Farm Management; Production Economics; Productivity Analysis; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;
    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:iefi13:164734. 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/ilbonde.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.