IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/boc/fsug24/24.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sustainability initiatives in food supply chains from stakeholders' perspectives: An analysis of predictors of cognition-based trust and trust initiatives

Author

Listed:
  • Cyrielle Gaglio

    (University of Helsinki)

  • Simone Pfuderer

    (University of Reading)

  • Bodo Steiner

    (University of Helsinki)

Abstract

This presentation aims to improve our understanding of the role of trust in the context of sustainability initiatives, from multiple supply chain (consumer and producer) perspectives, employing a set of logistic regression models. First, it analyzes consumer preferences regarding sustainability initiatives that food supply chain stakeholders (farmers, retailers, food processors, food service providers) could potentially implement from a consumer perspective to increase consumer trust. This consumer perspective is then contrasted with a producer perspective, where we aim to understand the drivers of producers' trust into externally provided sustainability initiatives (certi

Suggested Citation

  • Cyrielle Gaglio & Simone Pfuderer & Bodo Steiner, 2024. "Sustainability initiatives in food supply chains from stakeholders' perspectives: An analysis of predictors of cognition-based trust and trust initiatives," French Stata Users' Group Meetings 2024 24, Stata Users Group.
    • Handle: RePEc:boc:fsug24:24
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.org/frsug2024/France24_Gaglio.pdf
    File Function: presentation materials
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bozic, Branko, 2017. "Consumer trust repair: A critical literature review," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 538-547.
    2. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    3. Marco A. Palma, 2017. "Improving the prediction of ranking data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1681-1710, December.
    4. Devaney, Laura, 2016. "Good governance? Perceptions of accountability, transparency and effectiveness in Irish food risk governance," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1-10.
    5. Sharma, Varinder M. & Klein, Andreas, 2020. "Consumer perceived value, involvement, trust, susceptibility to interpersonal influence, and intention to participate in online group buying," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    6. Donna M. Dosman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Steve E. Hrudey, 2001. "Socioeconomic Determinants of Health‐ and Food Safety‐Related Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 307-318, April.
    7. Kibet, N. & Obare, G.A. & Lagat, J.K, 2018. "Risk attitude effects on Global-GAP certification decisions by smallholder French bean farmers in Kenya," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-29.
    8. Macready, Anna L. & Hieke, Sophie & Klimczuk-Kochańska, Magdalena & Szumiał, Szymon & Vranken, Liesbet & Grunert, Klaus G., 2020. "Consumer trust in the food value chain and its impact on consumer confidence: A model for assessing consumer trust and evidence from a 5-country study in Europe," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    9. Hollebeek, Linda D. & Macky, Keith, 2019. "Digital Content Marketing's Role in Fostering Consumer Engagement, Trust, and Value: Framework, Fundamental Propositions, and Implications," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 27-41.
    10. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    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. Degutis, Mindaugas & UrbonaviÄ ius, Sigitas & Hollebeek, Linda D. & Anselmsson, Johan, 2023. "Consumers’ willingness to disclose their personal data in e-commerce: A reciprocity-based social exchange perspective," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    2. Ben Aoki-Sherwood & Catherine Bregou & David Liben-Nowell & Kiran Tomlinson & Thomas Zeng, 2024. "Bounding Consideration Probabilities in Consider-Then-Choose Ranking Models," Papers 2401.11016, arXiv.org.
    3. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    4. Patil, Vikram & Ghosh, Ranjan & Kathuria, Vinish & Farrell, Katharine N., 2020. "Money, Land or self-employment? Understanding preference heterogeneity in landowners’ choices for compensation under land acquisition in India," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. Huang, Qian & Chen, Juan & Li, Ruoxi & Liu, Jingtong, 2024. "Experiencing awe, engaging in extreme sports: Incidental awe as an effective promoter for extreme sports engagement," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    6. Bo Yang & Chao Liu & Xusen Cheng & Xi Ma, 2022. "Understanding Users' Group Behavioral Decisions About Sharing Articles in Social Media: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 819-842, August.
    7. Ito, Nobuyuki & Takeuchi, Kenji & Managi, Shunsuke, 2019. "Do battery-switching systems accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles? A stated preference study," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 85-92.
    8. Pavel Kireyev, 2016. "Markets for Ideas: Prize Structure, Entry Limits, and the Design of Ideation Contests," Harvard Business School Working Papers 16-129, Harvard Business School.
    9. YingHua He & Thierry Magnac, 2022. "Application Costs and Congestion in Matching Markets," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(648), pages 2918-2950.
    10. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2007. "Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders' preferences for multiple forest values," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 516-526, January.
    11. Alexandros Dimitropoulos, 2014. "The Influence of Environmental Concerns on Drivers’ Preferences for Electric Cars," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-128/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    12. Jason Barnes & Harriet Whiley & Kirstin Ross & James Smith, 2022. "Defining Food Safety Inspection," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David & Peterle, Emmanuel, 2018. "Discrimination as favoritism: The private benefits and social costs of in-group favoritism in an experimental labor market," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 220-236.
    14. Ralph Stevens & Jennifer Alonso Garcia & Hazel Bateman & Arthur van Soest & Johan Bonekamp, 2022. "Saving preferences after retirement," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/342267, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    15. Siikamki, Juha, 2001. "Valuing Benefits of Finnish Forest Biodiversity Conservation: Fixed and Random Parameter Logit Models for Pooled Contingent Valuation and Contingent Rating/Ranking Survey Data," Western Region Archives 321696, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    16. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    17. Luo, Xi & Cheah, Jun-Hwa & Hollebeek, Linda D. & Lim, Xin-Jean, 2024. "Boosting customers’ impulsive buying tendency in live-streaming commerce: The role of customer engagement and deal proneness," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    18. Laurent Gobillon & Dominique Meurs & Sébastien Roux, 2022. "Differences in Positions along a Hierarchy: Counterfactuals Based on an Assignment Model," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 145, pages 29-74.
    19. Gopindra Sivakumar Nair & Sebastian Astroza & Chandra R. Bhat & Sara Khoeini & Ram M. Pendyala, 2018. "An application of a rank ordered probit modeling approach to understanding level of interest in autonomous vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1623-1637, November.
    20. Tong Wang & Congyi Zhou, 2020. "High school admission reform in China: a welfare analysis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 24(3), pages 215-269, December.

    More about this item

    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:boc:fsug24:24. 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: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/stataea.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.