PSRB19_proof 19 November 2016 1/10

Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1e10

55
H O S T E D BY Contents lists available at ScienceDirect 56
57
Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences 58
59
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . j o u r n a l s . e l s e v i e r . c o m / p a c i fi c - s c i e n c e - 60
review-b-humanities-and-social-sciences/ 61
62
63
64
65
1 A review of sustainability, deterrents, personal values, attitudes and 66
2 67
3 Q15 purchase intentions in the organic food supply chain 68
4 69
5 Q14,1 Kottala Sriyogi a, *, Rajwinder Singh b, Shashi Kashav c 70
6 Q13
a 71
Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya (A Central University), Department of Industrial & Production Engineering, Institute of Technology, GGU, Koni,
7 72
Q2 Bilaspur, India
8 b
International Management Institute, Bhubaneswar, India 73
9 c
Punjabi University, India 74
10 75
11 76
12 a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t 77
13 78
14 Article history: This study aims to enhance our understanding of the organic food supply chain among practitioners, ac- 79
15 Received 1 August 2016 ademicians and researchers by underlining the major factors affecting the growth of the organic food
Received in revised form
80
16 business. Previous articles on organic food have been quantitative in nature; therefore, we proposed a
7 September 2016 81
17 qualitative study as a pathnder for prospective researchers to understand the complex factors involved in
Accepted 8 September 2016 82
18 Available online xxx
the organic food supply chain (OFSC). To do so, this study reviewed eighty-four previous studies on organic
83
foods and proposed a conceptual model for future research; customers' attitudes shall be inuenced by
19 84
sustainability, market deterrents, personal values, demographic and the socioeconomic environment. A
20 Keywords: 85
Organic food
customer's attitude has a direct impact on the purchase intention of the OFSC. The study also suggests an
21 investigation of the indirect impact of sustainability, market deterrents, personal values and demographic 86
Sustainability
22 and the socioeconomic environment on organic purchase intentions. The ndings afrmed globally that 87
Food scandals
23 Customers' knowledge environment protection, pesticide-free food and animal protection are major sustainability issues. In 88
24 Personal values addition, premium price, insufcient availability and low awareness are the greatest deterrents, considering 89
25 Consumer buying behaviour that personal values such as health benets, natural contents, superior quality and better taste foster 90
26 customers to purchase organic foodstuffs. In demographic and socioeconomic environmental contexts, 91
27 education and income have emerged as major predictors of organic product purchases.
92
28 Copyright 2016, Far Eastern Federal University, Kangnam University, Dalian University of Technology,
93
29 Kokushikan University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
94
30 95
31 96
32 97
33 98
34 1. Introduction claim that societal and individualistic inputs are key drivers behind 99
35 organic food consumption. However, Organic food: buying more 100
36 Currently, organic food (OF) is one of the fastest-growing seg- safety or just peace of mind is an idea that continues to be ques- 101
37 ments of the food market, with outstanding improvements collec- tioned by consumers, researchers and authorities (Magkos et al., 102
38 tively in production and sales volumes in many countries (Liang, 2006). Lack of standard measures for evaluating the organic credi- 103
39 2016). In the last decade, production areas under the organic bility and customers' unawareness are two major traits that are 104
40 farming and sales volume have gained 10% in compound annual blamed by scholars (Bedur et al., 2014; Meixner et al., 2014). 105
41 growth rate (Willer and Kilcher, 2012). Factors such as environmental According to World Health Organization (2015), unsafe food 106
Q3
42 sustainability, health issues, food safety, quality, consumer dissatis- containing harmful bacteria, viruses, parasites or chemical sub- 107
43 faction with conventional food (CF) and pressures from various stances causes more than 200 diseases, ranging from diarrhoea to 108
44 stakeholders have imposed serious considerations towards OFSC cancers. Globally each year, approximately 600 million people, 109
45 (Hughner et al., 2007; Reisch et al., 2013). Krystallis et al. (2008) almost 1 in 10 individuals, fall ill after consuming contaminated food, 110
46 and 4,20,000 die. Additionally, children under 5 years of age carry 111
47 40% of the foodborne disease burden, with 1, 25,000 deaths every 112
48 * Corresponding author. year. Moreover, some serious ecological problems pertaining to CF 113
49 E-mail addresses: kottalasriyogi@gmail.com (K. Sriyogi), rajwindergheer@gmail.com production and consumption comprises climate change, air and 114
50 (R. Singh), shashikashav37@gmail.com (S. Kashav).
water pollution, scarcity of natural resources, soil degradation, loss of 115
51 Peer review under responsibility of Far Eastern Federal University, Kangnam
habitats and biodiversity (Reisch et al., 2013). Therefore, to overcome 116
University, Dalian University of Technology, Kokushikan University.
52 117
53 118
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.003
54 2405-8831/Copyright 2016, Far Eastern Federal University, Kangnam University, Dalian University of Technology, Kokushikan University. Production and hosting by Elsevier 119
B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article in press as: Sriyogi, K., et al., A review of sustainability, deterrents, personal values, attitudes and purchase intentions in
the organic food supply chain, Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.003
 PSRB19_proof 19 November 2016 2/10

2 K. Sriyogi et al. / Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1e10

1 the above-mentioned problems, promoting organic production, To review customers' attitude towards OF at global scale. 66
2 availability and consumption is highly important for environmental To develop a synthesized conceptual framework for future 67
3 protection, sustaining life and furthering congenial health. research. 68
4 Generally, OF product categories cover fruits and vegetables, 69
5 meat, poultry, condiments, sauces, breads, grains, packaged/pre- 70
6 pared foods, snacks, dairy and beverages. The retailing of organic 2.2. Research methodology 71
7 foodstuffs has evolved since 1997, when OF stores were the main 72
8 outlets (Dimitr and Oberholtzer, 2009). Although the global OF As this study is qualitative in nature, efforts have been made to 73
9 market has gained signicant growth, unprosperous opportunity, review previous studies on the OF supply chain and consumption, 74
10 Q4 high prices are currently in demand, which is effecting supply which are published in refereed international journals. To do so, we 75
11 reliability; therefore, organic product sales do not represent a fair have selected 84 studies based on the following selection criteria: 76
12 proportion in total food sales (Kottila and Ronni, 2008). The avail- 77
13 able literature sheds light on the most common issues associated a) Subject: key words used are organic food, sustainability, 78
14 with OF supply chain and existing studies have been conducted barriers, drivers, attitude, and purchase intentions. 79
15 using qualitative methods. According to Hjelamr (2011), qualitative b) Publication years: from 2001 to 2016. 80
16 research methods help offset the limitations of qualitative c) Publishers: Emerald, Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis and 81
17 methods. Thus, there is a substantial need to conduct more Springer. 82
18 research to develop a comprehensive framework for the OF supply d) Paper citations: Other than renowned publishers (excluding 83
19 chain. Therefore, the intention of this article is to review the OF Emerald, Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis and Springer), if 84
20 literature and formulate an appropriate framework for a sustain- the paper has 50 citations. 85
21 able OF supply chain. 86
22 The remaining sections of this paper are organized as follows: Fig. 1 highlights the name of publishers considered for the 87
23 Section 2 outlines the objectives and methodology. In Section 3, the literature review in this study. Out of the 84 papers, 26 are pub- 88
24 Q5 concept of a sustainable OF supply chain is discussed. In Section 4, lished in Emerald, which has emerged as the dominant publisher in 89
25 the ndings of the literature review are presented. The conceptual an OF context. However, of 26 papers, 25 are published in the 90
26 framework is discussed in Section 5. Finally, conclusions and sug- British Food Journal and one paper in the International Journal of 91
27 gestions for future research are presented in Section 6. Retail & Distribution Management. 20 papers have been published 92
28 in Elsevier, of which 5 were considered from food quality and 93
29 2. Objectives and research methodology preference, 4 from appetite, 2 from food policy, and the other 9 94
30 belong to other Elsevier journals. 95
31 In this section, we discuss the objectives and research method- In addition, 17 papers were published in the Wiley Online Li- 96
32 ology to build a comprehensive understanding of our current work. brary and journal covering 3 papers each in Agribusiness: An In- 97
33 ternational Journal, International Journal of Consumer Studies, and 98
34 2.1. Research objectives Journal of Consumer Behaviour. Similarly, there were two papers 99
35 each in The Journal of Consumer Affairs and Sociologica Ruralis. 100
36 The objectives of this research are: Indeed, 16 publications belong to other renowned publishers. 101
37 Taylor & Francis and Springer contributed 3 and 2 publications, 102
38 To review the sustainability aspects of the OF supply chain from respectively, as shown in Fig. 1. 103
39 different perspectives. 104
40 To review and identify the deterrents in the OF market. 3. Organic food supply chain 105
41 To highlight customers' personal values. 106
42 To draw a clear picture of the demographic and socioeconomic Organic farming is one of the most sustainable agricultural 107
43 environment pertaining to OF consumption. methods extensively being promoted and practiced across the 108
44 109
45 110
46 111
47 112
48 113
49 114
50 115
51 116
52 117
53 118
54 119
55 120
56 121
57 122
58 123
59 124
60 125
61 126
62 127
63 128
64 129
65 Fig. 1. Number of publications. 130

Please cite this article in press as: Sriyogi, K., et al., A review of sustainability, deterrents, personal values, attitudes and purchase intentions in
the organic food supply chain, Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.003
 PSRB19_proof 19 November 2016 3/10

K. Sriyogi et al. / Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1e10 3

1 globe and has been signicantly noticed by researchers, academi- purchase intentions. From these ndings it could be hypothesized 66
2 cians and practitioners (Reisch et al., 2013; Bravo et al., 2013; that signicant improvement in marketing efforts will make a 67
3 Annunziata and Vecchio, 2016). Jones et al. (2001) and Hughner signicant improvement in market share. Apart from this, the 68
4 et al. (2007) dene sustainable organic production as biological literature identied these common barriers: premium price, 69
5 practices which assist in improving environmental conditions, insufcient availability, less variety and changed consumers' food 70
6 human health, soil fertility, animal welfare and conservation of habits (Padel and Foster, 2005; Yiridoe et al., 2005; Hughner et al., 71
7 natural resources. Rapid changes in consumption patterns, aware- 2007). Magnusson et al. (2001) note that consumer satisfaction 72
8 ness of pesticide poisoning and diseases from CF, as well as envi- with CF is an another major deterrent. The skepticism with certi- 73
9 ronment consciousness, have been regularly inuencing customers cations and logos, and a lack of trust pertaining to OF, could be 74
10 to consume sustainable food (Sangkumchaliang and Huang, 2012). possible reasons behind the high customer satisfaction with CF. 75
11 However, organic products are differentiated by input and practices However, although price is not an absolute matter of concern, 76
12 used in their production process and not by their inherent prop- the complex decision-making process seems to be a major dif- 77
13 erties (Lea and Worsley, 2005). Thus, there is no legal denition of culty. Customers consider price in the context of disposable income 78
14 organic farming, and the word organic is inferred to a process and value for money; thus companies need to justify a price 79
15 Q6 _
claim, not a product claim (Zakowska-Biemans, 2001). However, premium through sustainable gains of organic consumptions 80
16 there have been a number of studies which claim that customers (Padel and Foster, 2005). Moreover, quality of organic product alone 81
17 have a positive attitude towards OF consumption (Hoppe et al., is not able to attract or retain customers (Buder et al., 2014). This 82
18 2013; Basha et al., 2015; Cavdar and Aydin, 2015; Yadav and indicates that the price of organic products is not meeting its worth, 83
19 Pathak, 2016), but the gap between attitude and actual behaviour which is a serious issue for consideration and now needs to be 84
20 also exists within the literature (Shae and Rennie, 2012). reported. Trust also emerged as a prerequisite for growth because 85
21 The expansion in the global food business has created severe customers will hesitate to purchase OF unless they fully trust the 86
22 ecological and socioeconomic drawbacks, along with bringing is- retailer (Kim et al., 2008). Apart from this, Padel and Foster (2005) 87
23 sues associated with environmental protection, food safety, animal reported an interesting problem in the OF context, which is a lack of 88
24 welfare and biological preservation into the public discussion cooking skills, whereas other studies failed to address that issue. 89
25 (Risku-Norj and Muukka, 2013). The regular outbreaks of food Despite the existence of many deterrents, there are drivers 90
26 scandals such as mad cow disease, pig plagues, the foot and which stimulate consumers to buy organic products. The litera- 91
27 mouth outbreak (Vindigni et al., 2002), BSE and dioxin food ture highlights that one major motivation behind OF consumption 92
28 scandals and tainted milk scandal (Dellios et al., 2009) have is the production process (without the use of synthetic pesti- 93
29 increased health consciousness among consumers. This means that cides); thus OF seems more environmentally friendly, healthier, to 94
30 sustainability in the food supply chain has gained momentum on a have superior quality and to taste better (Sangkumchaliang and 95
31 global scale and that OF has emerged as the most suitable option for Huang, 2012). However, Hoefkens et al. (2009) claim there are 96
32 consumption. no signicant differences in any additional health benets or in 97
33 From consumption and industrial perspectives, sustainability the nutritional contents of OFs in comparison to CF, even though 98
34 issues such as biodiversity preservation, natural resources conser- Vieira et al. (2013) stress that OF consumers have high personal 99
35 vation, waste reduction, food security, lower energy consumption, values that are predictors of their attitude. 100
36 and supply of high nutrition products have high value (Joshi and According to Chen (2009), health benets are more dominant 101
37 Rahman, 2015; Meyer-Ho fer et al., 2015). As a result, frequently in determining OF preference and purchase intentions compared 102
38 cited articles on sustainable food SC have been reported in the last to ecological benets. One interesting fact dened by researchers 103
39 decade (Seyfang, 2004; Risku-Norj and Muukka, 2013). In today's is the idea of supporting local farmers and economy by pur- 104
40 food sector, company goodwill, along with investor reputation, will chasing natural foodstuffs. This idea could play a vital role market 105
41 be at risk if companies fail to justify their rational position in the growth because it may provide income certainty to OF producers, 106
42 domain of sustainability (Tseng et al., 2015). Hence, regulatory and which could further motivate them to foster their production 107
43 non-government organizations' pressures are regularly coercing to scale. However, this idea is fully dependent upon the customers' 108
44 food SC companies and their partners to adopt a triple-bottom-line viewpoint. Moreover, Aertsens et al. (2009) concluded that such 109
45 approach dealing with environmental, economic and social bene- values as security, hedonism, stimulation, universalism, self- 110
46 ts (Carter and Easton, 2011). direction, benevolence, conformity, and power are drivers for 111
47 In the literature, few studies revealed that biodiversity preser- OF consumption. 112
48 vation is one of the major challenges, and numerous conventional Demographic and socioeconomic variables, namely age, marital 113
49 farming systems have been regularly affected (Aertsens et al., 2009; status, income, education and family size, are effective measures in 114
50 Meyer-Ho fer et al., 2015; Annunziata and Vecchio, 2016). Similarly, determining demand and buying behaviour (Wier et al., 2003). The 115
51 the world population is increasing at a rapid growth rate; thus, to majority of international articles reveal that highly educated con- 116
52 full the needs of billions of people with depleting natural re- sumers have a positive attitude and purchase intentions towards OF 117
53 sources seems impossible (Reisch et al., 2013). Therefore, promo- (Magnusson et al., 2001; Fotopoulos and Krystallis, 2002; 118
54 tion, adoption and consumption of organic products could Tsakiridou et al., 2008). Lockie et al. (2002) observed that con- 119
55 signicantly assist in fullling consumers' needs and tackling sus- sumers, especially those with science background, have a strong 120
56 tainability barriers. However, the literature highlights numerous correlation with sustainable OF consumption. The study also 121
57 deterrents in the diffusion of the OF market, despite the green highlights income as a predictor of purchase behaviour, whereas 122
58 trends in food supply. Lea and Worsley (2005) highlighted the minimal effect of education 123
59 According to Sangkumchaliang and Huang (2012), lack of in- on organic product buyers' attitude and intentions. Countering the 124
60 formation is a major obstacle in the growth of the organic market. above ndings, another research article emphasized that a high 125
61 Their study reported that consumers have no awareness of the level of education has a negative inuence on organic consumption 126
62 potential benets of sustainable food consumption, and approxi- (Durham, 2007). This means that the higher the education level, the 127
63 mately 90% of food customers feel a need to see organic product lower the rate of organic consumption. Diversity in cultural and so- 128
64 advertisements. Hughner et al. (2007) reported that information cioeconomic factors in different countries might be a possible reason 129
65 retrieval has a strong inuence on trust development and OF for this contradictory view. 130

Please cite this article in press as: Sriyogi, K., et al., A review of sustainability, deterrents, personal values, attitudes and purchase intentions in
the organic food supply chain, Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.003
 PSRB19_proof 19 November 2016 4/10

4 K. Sriyogi et al. / Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1e10

1 From a gender and age perspective, older women are more keen these sustainability issues somehow motivate customers to pur- 66
2 to buy natural foods in large quantities, for health and environ- chase and recommend OF (Wier et al., 2008; Van Loo et al., 2010; 67
3 mental sensitivity reasons, in comparison to men (Krystallis and Reisch et al., 2013; Cavdar and Aydin, 2015). However, Tsakiridou 68
4 Chryssohoidis, 2005; Gracia et al., 2012). This shows a positive et al. (2008) reported that the gap between attitude and actual 69
5 attitude and intentions of females and older persons, although behaviour of customers is related to organic product consumption. 70
6 Urena et al. (2008) reported that men have a greater willingness to This means that the majority of customers are aware of the gains of 71
7 pay for organic foodstuffs than women, in spite of womens' high sustainability and, due to this, have a positive attitude towards OF 72
8 organic product purchase frequency. Tsakiridou et al. (2008) also but do not prefer to purchase natural foodstuffs regularly. Based on 73
9 gauged the effect of age on attitude and purchase intention. As we the above arguments, the hypotheses framed are these: 74
10 discussed earlier, income affects purchase quantity. Kenanog lu and 75
H1. Sustainability is positively associated with customer attitude.
11 Karahan (2002) emphasized that one of the major barriers in 76
12 Turkey to OF market expansion is the average low income of its H2. Sustainability is positively but less associated with purchase 77
13 citizens, which does not allow them to spend a great deal on OF intentions. 78
14 products. 79
15 Pino et al. (2012) conducted a consumer-based survey study, 80
16 which classied OF consumers into two types: regular and occa- 4.2. Deterrents 81
17 sional consumers. For this classication, buying frequencies were 82
18 taken as a base. The results indicate that ethical motivation is highly The literature highlighted the existence of many deterrents 83
19 that have conned the growth of the global OF industry: pre- 84
correlated with the purchase intention of regular consumers, while
20 food safety is highly correlated with occasional consumers' pur- mium price, scarce or inadequate marketing, lack of trust, lack of 85
21 variety, customer unawareness and skepticism of certications 86
chase intentions. In addition, a survey conducted in 2008 in Brazil
22 and logos (Lea et al., 2005; Sadati et al., 2010; Kihlberg and Risvik, 87
by the Brazilian Environmental Ministry acknowledged that 73% of
23 2007; Bruschi et al., 2015). Uncertainty in information and 88
consumers show an interest in buying OF products. The majority of
24 availability as well as lack of variety negatively affect customer 89
international studies quoted a positive attitude related to organic
25 condence, which leads them to be consumers of CF (Padel and 90
product consumption (Arvola et al., 2008; Tarkiainen and
26 Foster, 2005; Hughner et al., 2007; Buder et al., 2014). More- 91
Sundqvist, 2009; Dias et al., 2016). Aside from this, Loebnitz and
27 over, Dias et al. (2016) also documented that these barriers affect 92
Aschemann-Witzel (2016) also point out that to examine the
28 customer loyalty and could have a negative impact on customer 93
impact of sustainability and personal values on OF customer
29 bucket size (purchase quantity) at a retail store. Therefore, we 94
behaviour is an important future research agenda.
30 develop these hypotheses: 95
31 4. Conceptual model H3. Deterrents are negatively associated with organic products 96
32 customers' attitude. 97
33 At this junction, as a part of review, an effort was made to 98
34 H4. Deterrents are negatively associated with organic products 99
develop a framework for this study, as shown in Fig. 2.
35 purchase intentions. 100
36 4.1. Sustainability 101
37 4.3. Personal values 102
38 To support organic production is a promising policy for 103
39 increasing sustainability in the food industry, which would affect Personal values inuence customers' willingness to pay 104
40 both customer attitude and purchase intention (Bravo et al., 2013; (Chryssohoidis and Krystallis, 2005); hence, to support local 105
41 Aschemann-Witzel and Zielke, 2015). Organic production assists farmers, health benets, consumption of natural content, high 106
42 in environmental protection, health, animal welfare, biodiversity quality and better taste of organic products signicantly affect 107
43 preservation, natural resource conservation, food safety, etc customer perception (Chakrabarti, 2010; Stolz et al., 2011; Urban 108
44 (Meyer-Hofer et al., 2015). Many scholars acknowledged that all et al., 2012). In support of the above argument, Vieira et al. (2013) 109
45 110
46 111
47 112
48 113
49 Sustainability 114
50 115
H2
51 116
52 H1 117
53 H4 118
Deterrents
54 H3 119
Customers Purchase
55 Attitude Intention 120
56 121
H5
57 122
58 H6 H8 123
Personal values
59 124
H7
60 125
61 Demographic, 126
Socio-economic
62 127
variables
63 128
64 129
65 Fig. 2. Conceptual model for organic food consumption. 130

Please cite this article in press as: Sriyogi, K., et al., A review of sustainability, deterrents, personal values, attitudes and purchase intentions in
the organic food supply chain, Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.003
 PSRB19_proof 19 November 2016 5/10

K. Sriyogi et al. / Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1e10 5

1 noted that OF buyers have strong personal values, which build a H7. Demographic and socioeconomic factors have an effect on 66
2 positive attitude in consumers. In other words, strong personal organic customer attitude. 67
3 values attract organic consumption and foster consumer belief that 68
H8. Demographic and socioeconomic factors have an effect on
4 OF is virtually free from hazards. Recently, a study conducted by 69
organic purchase intentions.
5 Annunziata and Vecchio (2016) advocated that the major drivers 70
6 behind OF market growth are health benets, natural content, taste 71
7 and quality. In addition, the idea of supporting local farmers and the 72
4.5. Attitude
8 economy also motivates consumers to buy OF products (Essoussi 73
9 and Zahar, 2009; Annunziata and Vecchio, 2016). From the above 74
Attitude is a determent to purchase intention. Certain similar-
10 discussion, the following hypotheses emerged: 75
ities have been found in consumer attitudes towards OFs in pre-
11 76
H5. Personal values are positively associated with organic products vious studies (Hoppe et al., 2013; Teng and Wang, 2015; Yadav and
12 77
customers' attitude. Pathak, 2016). Kareklas et al. (2014) and Basha et al. (2015) found
13 78
that consumers have a positive attitude towards purchasing OF
14 H6. Personal values are positively but less associated with organic 79
because of its better taste, health benets and environment-
15 products purchase intentions. 80
friendly nature but also that its premium price, lesser variety and
16 81
scarcity restrict consumer attitude and do not allow them to
17 82
become successful OF product buyers (Yin et al., 2010). Moreover, in
18 4.4. Demographic and socioeconomic environment 83
the literature, the results pertaining to the relationship between
19 84
consumer attitude and purchase intentions do not reveal consis-
20 Demographic and socioeconomic variables are key metrics, which 85
tency (Arvola et al., 2001; Chen, 2009). Tarkiainen and Sundqvist
21 predict buying behaviour of consumers in a particular place or region 86
(2008) also reported a gap between attitude and actual buying
22 (Wier et al., 2003). According to Tsakiridou et al. (2008), education 87
behaviour of organic product consumers. Considering the above
23 level has a signicant impact on consumption level, whereas Durham 88
viewpoints, we contemplated the following hypothesis:
24 (2007) contradicted this and proposed the viewpoint that education 89
25 level has a negative impact on the scale of consumption. Similarly, in H9. Customer attitude has positive effect but one less associated with 90
26 the context of age and gender, Dettmann (2008) and Kim et al. (2008) organic food purchase intentions. 91
27 emphasized that companies need to evaluate the demographic and 92
28 socioeconomic environment to attain paramount business perfor- 93
29 mance. Although young people are more conscious about ecological 5. Results 94
30 issues, they have less of a willingness to pay for OF because of their 95
31 lower purchasing power, while older people are more health- At this juncture, an attempt has been made to analyse the pre- 96
32 conscious and have a higher willingness to pay the extra cost vious studies to draw a clear picture of the organic market. 97
33 (Fotopoulos and Krystallis, 2002; Tsakiridou et al., 2008). Addition- Table 1 shows that all analysed studies reported environmental 98
34 ally, cultural differences lead customers to perceive different values protection as a dominant sustainability issue. The majority of 99
35 at the time of OF purchases (Baker et al., 2002). However, in the studies show that food consumers have little awareness of the role 100
36 literature, there is an ongoing debate on the importance of de- of organic production in environmental protection. This is a con- 101
37 mographic and socioeconomic indicators in OF consumption (Shae crete predictor of the future growth of the organic market. The 102
38 and Rennie, 2012). Thus we expect the demographic and socioeco- absence of chemicals, animal welfare and food safety also emerged 103
39 nomic variables to affect attitude and intentions. Hence, we proposed as key sustainability determinants of organic product SC, with 104
40 the following hypotheses: 85%, 80% and 75% literature support, respectively. Soil and water 105
41 106
42 107
43 Table 1 108
44 Organic food supply chain sustainability issues. 109
45 No. Study Environmental Animal Biodiversity Food Low energy Soil & water Waste Free from
110
46 protection welfare preservation safety inputs conservation reduction chemicals 111
47 112
1 Jones et al. (2001)
48 2 Reed (2001) 113
49 Q12 3 Lockie et al. (2002) 114
50 4 McEachern and McClean (2002) 115
5 Magnusson et al. (2003)
51 116
6 Seyfang (2004)
52 7 Hole et al. (2005)
117
53 8 Pimentel et al. (2005) 118
54 9 Honkanen et al. (2006) 119
55 10 Hughner et al. (2007) 120
11 Wier et al. (2008)
56 121
12 Aertsens et al. (2009)
57 13 Van Loo et al. (2010) 122
58 14 Aertsens et al. (2011) 123
59 15 Larceneux et al. (2012) 124
60 16 Reisch et al. (2013) 125
17 Bravo et al. (2013)
61 18 Cavdar and Aydin (2015)
126
62 19 Meyer-Ho fer et al. (2015) 127
63 20 Annunziata and Vecchio (2016) 128
64 Percentage support 100 80 35 75 20 40 45 85 129
Rank 1 3 7 4 8 6 5 2
65 130

Please cite this article in press as: Sriyogi, K., et al., A review of sustainability, deterrents, personal values, attitudes and purchase intentions in
the organic food supply chain, Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.003
 PSRB19_proof 19 November 2016 6/10

6 K. Sriyogi et al. / Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1e10

1 conservation and waste reduction through organic farming consumption. Both gained 95% literature support, which is supreme 66
2 improve an identical preponderance in the literature, with 45% and from an organic market growth perspective. However, 25% re- 67
3 40% support. This shows that practitioners and customers are not ported in the literature reviewed, inferring that there was no sig- 68
4 fully aware of promoting water conservation and waste reduction nicant reason behind purchasing OF to support local level farmers 69
5 through organic production and consumption. Table 3. Q8 70
6 In addition, biodiversity preservation gained only 35% literature The review results of demographic and socioeconomic factors 71
7 support. This shows that despite the inevitable role of organic are reported in Table 4, which indicates that education is an 72
8 production in biodiversity preservation, previous studies failed in important determinant of consumer buying behaviour, with 75% 73
9 highlighting this issue, which is to be addressed as a future research literature support. Furthermore, this is followed by income, age and 74
10 direction. Similarly, 20% of the literature revealed that the organic gender, with 65%, 35% and 35% literature support, respectively. 75
11 farming system needs low energy inputs. Additionally, 20% of the studies also claimed the inuence of life- 76
12 Indeed, premium price emerged as a dominant factor for not style on customer attitude and purchase intentions towards OF. 77
13 purchasing OF, with 100% literature support (Table 2). All the This reveals that buyers who are willing to adopt a healthy diet and 78
14 studies in this review claimed that the high price of organic prod- balanced lifestyle have favourable intentions of buying OF products. 79
15 ucts has restricted market growth. Likewise, 80% of the studies Marital status came out as the least valuable indicator, with 15% 80
16 noted that scarcity is coercing food customers to continue CF literature support. 81
17 consumption. The low scale of production could be blamed for the Studies reported in Table 5 show that food consumers have a 82
18 imbalance between supply and demand. As analysed studies positive attitude towards OF, and it gained 100% literature support. 83
19 represent different countries, this means that premium price and All studies representing different countries and researchers used 84
20 insufcient availability are two global deterrents. However, fear of different statistical tools to come up with generalizable answers, 85
21 uncertain income is also addressed as a constraint by some re- but structural equation modelling is a widely used statistical tool 86
22 Q7 searchers, and it gained 30% support through this literature review. for proposing a new theory and build a body of knowledge about 87
23 Meanwhile, all food customers are not fully knowledgeable or OFSC. However, the gap between attitude and purchase intentions 88
24 aware of the benets pertaining to OF. Generally, customer also exists in the literature. 89
25 knowledge of the potential benets of products builds positive 90
26 attitude and intentions, and thus low awareness of customers has 6. Discussion 91
27 hindered the efforts of practitioners. However, although govern- 92
28 ment and non-governmental organizations are playing a crucial Sustainability in food SC has been threatened by substantial 93
29 role in promoting the organic trend, more strategic efforts are environmental deterioration, and by cultural, social and economic 94
30 required. Moreover, half of the studies reviewed also blamed the problems. However, OFSC draws special attention globally and is 95
31 lack of OF variety, which is unable to full the changed consumers' driven by sustainability and personal values. However, the pre- 96
32 food preferences. Moreover, presentation of CF as an OF, as well as mium price of organic products is the impediment in the industry. 97
33 skepticism of organic certication and logo, are serious subjects Therefore, an increase in production scale of organic foodstuffs and 98
34 with 45% literature support. Thus customers do not easily trust OF, its sale at supermarkets due to good crowd gathering could be a 99
35 which results in less perceived value and sales volume. good strategy for the industry to foster sales. For example, initially 100
36 The results of consumers' personal values are quoted in Table 5. Patanjali Ayurved announced a tie-up with India's largest retail 101
37 This table concludes that health benets and the natural contents house Future Group to make Patanjali products available on the 102
38 of organic products are dominant personal values. Both variables shelves of Big Bazaar with the intention of boosting their sales 103
39 gained 100% literature support. Similarly, OF quality and tastes are volume (Jain, 2015). Concurrently, as consumers of OF are few, 104
40 playing a signicant role in persuading customers of organic producers should focus on total customer satisfaction that would 105
41 106
42 107
43 Table 2 108
44 Deterrents in organic food market. 109
45 No. Studies Price Uncertain Insufcient Insufcient Less Lack of Lack of Lack of Skepticism of
110
46 income marketing availability variety perceived value knowledge trust certications & logos 111
47 112
1 Baecke et al. (2002)
48 2 Fotopoulos and Krystallis (2002) 113
49 3 Vindigni et al. (2002) 114
50 4 Lea et al. (2005) 115
5 Padel and Foster (2005)
51 116
6 Yiridoe et al. (2005)
52 7 Hughner et al. (2007)
117
53 8 Kihlberg and Risvik (2007) 118
54 9 Rodrguez et al. (2012) 119
55 10 Essoussi and Zahar (2009) 120
11 Constance and Choi (2010)
56 121
12 Sadati et al. (2010)
57 13 Sangkumchaliang and Huang (2012) 122
58 14 Meixner et al. (2014) 123
59 15 Buder et al. (2014) 124
60 16 Bruschi et al. (2015) 125
17 Joshi and Rahman (2015)
61 18 Yip and Janssen (2015)
126
62 19 Liang (2016) 127
63 20 Yadav and Pathak (2016) 128
64 Percentage support 100 30 45 80 50 15 65 40 45 129
Rank 1 7 5 2 4 8 3 6 5
65 130

Please cite this article in press as: Sriyogi, K., et al., A review of sustainability, deterrents, personal values, attitudes and purchase intentions in
the organic food supply chain, Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.003
 PSRB19_proof 19 November 2016 7/10

K. Sriyogi et al. / Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1e10 7

1 Table 3 66
2 Personal values. 67
3 No. Study To support local farmers Health benets Natural content Quality Taste 68
4 1 Lockie et al. (2002)
69
5 2 McEachern and McClean (2002) 70
6 3 Zanoli and Naspetti (2002) 71
7 4 Magnusson et al. (2003) 72
5 Saba and Messina (2003)
8 73
6 Seyfang (2004)
9 7 Wilkins (2005) 74
10 8 Hughner et al. (2007) 75
11 9 Biel and Thgersen (2007) 76
12 10 Dean et al. (2008) 77
11 Aertsens et al. (2009)
13 12 Essoussi and Zahar (2009)
78
14 13 Chakrabarti (2010) 79
15 14 Kearney (2010) 80
16 15 Stolz et al. (2011) 81
16 Sangkumchaliang and Huang (2012)
17 82
17 Shae and Rennie (2012)
18 18 Urban et al. (2012) 83
19 19 Joshi and Rahman (2015) 84
20 20 Annunziata and Vecchio (2016) 85
21 Percentage support 25 100 100 95 95 86
Rank 3 1 1 2 2
22 87
23 88
24 89
Table 4
25 90
Demographic and socioeconomic factors.
26 91
27 No. Studies Education Income Age Gender Marital status Lifestyle 92
28 1 Lockie et al. (2004) 93
29 2 Hoefkens et al. (2006) 94
3 Honkanen et al. (2006)
30 95
4 Krystallis and Chryssohoidis (2005)
31 5 Onyango et al. (2007)
96
32 6 Dettmann (2008) 97
33 7 Rodrguez et al. (2012) 98
34 8 Tsakiridou et al. (2008) 99
9 Aertsens et al. (2009)
35 100
10 Kim et al. (2009)
36 11 Smith et al. (2009) 101
37 12 Ngobo (2001) 102
13 _
Zakowska-Biemans (2011)
38 103
14 Chen and Lobo (2012)
39 104
15 Dimitri and Dettmann (2012)
40 16 Forman and Silverstein (2012)
105
41 17 Chen et al. (2014) 106
42 18 Nasir and Karakaya (2014) 107
43 19 Basha et al. (2015) 108
20 De-Magistris and Gracia (2016)
44 109
Percentage support 70 65 35 35 15 20
45 Rank 1 2 3 3 5 4 110
46 111
47 112
48 113
49 lead to signicant customer retention and be reected in sustain- and development programs, information technology and to pro- 114
50 able business growth. The reason behind this inference is that there mote best farm management practices. 115
51 is a signicant positive attitude towards OF products. As the world organic market is still small and undeveloped, 116
52 In addition, if non-government organizations and food author- unorganized food consumers generally have a limited knowledge 117
53 ities motivate farmers to adopt organic production, as well as and understating the entities of OFSC. Therefore, development of 118
54 customers to begin organic consumption, this would signicantly trust by effective marketing, and delivering unprecedented value 119
55 contribute to environmental, economic and social sustainability. experience to customers, could work as a strategic weapon to cope 120
56 Meanwhile, it would assist in reducing prices, and in improving with the many market challenges and to secure competitiveness. If 121
57 resources and variety, which would further jolt OF product de- rms integrate their business partners of OFSC, which it is acces- 122
58 mand. Similarly, direct marketing at the producer end has an sible in handling the market complexities. Thus, taking both up- Q9 123
59 immense importance and will surely facilitate in gaining a stream and downstream integration into account may result in a 124
60 reasonable income. Findings indicate that a lack of customer reduction in inventory levels, cost, lead-time and delivery errors, as 125
61 knowledge of the paybacks of organic consumption has conned well as improvement in production, exibility, accuracy, informa- 126
62 market growth, but the knowledge of producers is also a hidden tion sharing, demand measurement and distribution. Similarly, to 127
63 deterrent, as they continue to use obsolete production techniques. address problem of OF variety, the development of organic product 128
64 In other words, the majority of producers are inefcient in farm lines according to age, income, family size and price, etc., would 129
65 management. Hence, there is a strong need to invest in research assist marketers in gaining consumer condence. However, the 130

Please cite this article in press as: Sriyogi, K., et al., A review of sustainability, deterrents, personal values, attitudes and purchase intentions in
the organic food supply chain, Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.003
 PSRB19_proof 19 November 2016 8/10

8 K. Sriyogi et al. / Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1e10

1 Table 5 66
2 Customers' attitude towards organic products. 67
3 No. Study Country Data collection Analysis/Tools/Techniques used Positive Negative 68
4 1 Fotopoulos and Krystallis (2002) Greek Interview Descriptive
69
5 2 Saba and Messina (2003) Italy Survey Cluster analysis & Structural equation modelling 70
6 3 Honkanen et al. (2006) Norway Survey Structural equation modelling 71
7 4 Chen (2007) Taiwan Survey Regression analysis 72
5 Stobbelaar et al. (2007) Dutch Survey Descriptive
8 73
6 Arvola et al. (2008) Italy, Finland & U.K. Survey Structural equation modelling
9 7 Tsakiridou et al. (2008) Greek Survey ManneWhitney and KruskaleWhallis test 74
10 8 Wier et al. (2008) Britain & Denmark Panel data Regression 75
11 9 Tarkiainen and Sundqvist (2009) Finland Survey Conrmatory factor analysis & regression 76
12 10 Pieniak et al. (2010) Belgium Survey Factor analysis & Structural equation modelling 77
11 Aertsens et al. (2011) Belgium Survey Regression
13 12 Zagata (2012) Czech Republic Survey Descriptive & regression
78
14 13 Hoppe et al. (2013) Brazil Survey Descriptive 79
15 14 Kareklas et al. (2014) U.S. Survey Structural equation modelling 80
16 15 Basha et al. (2015) India Survey Regression & ANOVQ 81
16 Bruschi et al. (2015) Russia Interview & Survey Descriptive statistics & regression
17 82
17 Teng and Wang (2015) Taiwan Surveys Structural equation modelling
18 18 Xie et al. (2015) China Survey Descriptive 83
19 19 Dias et al. (2016) Brazil Survey Structural equation modelling 84
20 20 Yadav and Pathak (2016) India Survey Structural equation modelling 85
21 Percentage support 100 000 86
22 87
23 88
24 perception is that organic buyers are mainly associated with 7. Managerial implications and concluding remarks 89
25 organic fruit and vegetable consumption and that less preference is 90
26 given to organic meat and eggs (Tsakiridou et al., 2008). This is the rst systematic qualitative study to consider sus- 91
27 Study results also reported that many customers are facing the tainability, deterrents, personal values, demographic and socio- 92
28 problem of identication of sustainable foodstuffs, certications economic factors, attitude and purchase intentions pertaining to OF 93
29 and logos. This is an emerging gap between attitude and purchase production and consumption. Extensive literature revision from 94
30 intention. In other words, in customers who hold a positive atti- various refereed journals was taken as a criterion for the develop- 95
31 tude, uncertainty and other hindrances are not pushing them to ment of a conceptual model for future research. It would be inter- 96
32 become a successful and regular buyers of organic producers. esting to test this conceptual model with structural equation 97
33 Hence regular promotions and inspection of organic product cer- modelling techniques. As far as study results are concerned, envi- 98
34 tications, logos, labelling and quality by government agencies can ronmental protection, pesticide-free food and animal welfare 99
35 spread awareness among people and build knowledge, trust and emerged as major sustainability issues, whereas premium price, 100
36 involvement in organic purchases. Similarly, claims about health scarcity and knowledge emerged as dominant deterrents in the 101
37 and environment benets from OF could motivate customer will- expansion of the global organic food market. 102
38 ingness to pay higher prices for organic foodstuffs. As ndings show, environmental protection, animal welfare, 103
39 Although the overall satisfaction level of consumers of OF is waste reduction and biodiversity preservation are primary sus- 104
40 higher than those of CF, nevertheless this study also noticed some tainability factors that stimulate the food customers to search for 105
41 variations in this satisfaction level due to different perceived values. OF products. 106
42 As organic production is lower, products transported to those Additionally, health benets, natural content quality, and taste 107
43 Q10 markets where more chances of high earning. Thus, high lead time are four major personal OF consumption values. Levels of education 108
44 affects quality, tastes, and appearance, and when it reaches the and income regularly affect customer attitude and purchase 109
45 market, the result is a high rejection rate by customers. Thus, past intentions. 110
46 unpleasant consumption experience adversely affect customer As concerns managerial implications, the study suggests three 111
47 attitude and preferences. Therefore, the use of cold chain to supply important areas that jolt the demand, production and supply of 112
48 these highly perishable products would help prolong product life organic foodstuffs. In the 21st century, competition is no longer 113
49 and enhance consumer satisfaction. Furthermore, in the long run this between rms' SC but has is shifted towards value-added SC. 114
50 can surely minimize the early reported gap between attitude and Companies would do well by understand the market environment 115
51 purchase intentions. by formulating best marketing strategies to reduce lead-time, 116
52 The study ndings indicated that demographic and socio- waste rate, inventory, and cost by increasing quality, taste, label- 117
53 economic variables affect attitude and intention. The serious- ling, packaging, certication, availability and product presentation. 118
54 ness of this for children and family health rests with women, However, this requires a collective effort, and rms would have to 119
55 who are responsible for the high purchase frequency home- integrate other business partners of the OFSC. Therefore, producers, 120
56 maker role inuencing factor for less willingness to pay for OF suppliers, processors, distributors, wholesalers and retailers, as 121
57 Q11 products. Similarly, in the context of age and education, as both well as government authorities, need to work together to improve 122
58 variables increase, the positiveness in attitude and organic OF sales in total food sales. Thus, environmental education through 123
59 purchase intention is high. One hidden market opportunity broadband media could change the perception of customers and 124
60 would be to build a positive attitude within all ages, education encourage them to adopt a healthy and sustainable lifestyle. 125
61 levels, genders and income groups by approaching consumers The present study is benecial for practitioners, researchers and 126
62 via print and broadcast media. However, it is equally important academicians. It includes all organic product categories; thus de- 127
63 for companies to single out any hidden factors that might also terrents, personal values and attitudes might differ with reference 128
64 affect their business growth before formulating and imple- to products, which is one of the limitations. Therefore, in future 129
65 menting their plans. research, it might be worthwhile to study early discussed factors 130

Please cite this article in press as: Sriyogi, K., et al., A review of sustainability, deterrents, personal values, attitudes and purchase intentions in
the organic food supply chain, Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.003
 PSRB19_proof 19 November 2016 9/10

K. Sriyogi et al. / Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1e10 9

1 according to OF product categories. Meanwhile, examining the Fotopoulos, C., Krystallis, A., 2002. Organic product avoidance: reasons for rejection and 66
potential buyers identication in a countrywide survey. Brit. Food J. 104 (9), 730e765.
2 impact of information ow on building trust and positive attitude 67
Gracia, A., deMagistris, T., Nayga, R.M., 2012. Importance of social inuence in
3 and intentions would be an emerging research area in OFSC. consumers' willingness to pay for local food: are there gender differences? 68
4 Agribusiness 28 (3), 361e371. 69
5 Hoefkens, C., Camp, J.V., Verbeke, W., Aertsens, J., Mondelaers, K., 2009. The 70
References nutritional and toxicological value of organic vegetables: consumer perception
6 versus scientic evidence. Brit. Food J. 111 (10), 1062e1077. 71
7 Aertsens, J., Sociol, Rural, Mondelaers, K., Verbeke, W., Buysse, J., Hole, D.G., Perkins, A.J., Wilson, J.D., Alexander, I.H., Grice, P.V., Evans, A.D., 2005. 72
8 Huylenbroeck, G.V., 2011. The inuence of subjective and objective knowledge Does organic farming benet biodiversity? Biol. Conserv. 122, 113e130. 73
on attitude, motivations and consumption of organic food. Brit. Food J. 113 (11), Honkanen, P., Verplanken, B., Olsen, S.O., 2006. Ethical values and motives driving
9 organic food choice. J. Consum. Behav. 5, 420e430.
74
1353e1378.
10 Aertsens, J., Verbeke, W., Mondelaers, K., Huylenbroeck, G.H., 2009. Personal de- Hoppe, A., Vieira, L.M., Barcellos, M.D.D., 2013. Consumer behaviour towards 75
11 terminants of organic food consumption: a review. Brit. Food J. 111 (10), organic food in portoalegre: an application of the theory of planned behaviour. 76
1140e1167. Rev. Econ. Soc. Rural. 51 (1), 69e90.
12 Hughner, R.S., McDonagh, Prothero, A., Shultz, C.J., Stanton, J., 2007. Who are
77
Annunziata, A., Vecchio, R., 2016. Organic farming and sustainability in food
13 choices: an analysis of consumer preference in Southern Italy. Agric. Agric. Sci. organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase 78
14 Proc. 8, 193e200. organic food. J. Consum. Behav. 6, 94e110. 79
Arvola, A., Vassallo, M., Dean, M., Lampila, P., Saba, A., Lahteenmaki, L., Shepherd, R., Jain, V., 2015. Patanjali enters big retail with future group tie-up. Econ. Times. Oct
15 80
2008. Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: the role of affective and 10, 2015.
16 moral attitudes in the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite 50 (2e3), Jones, P., Clarke-Hill, C., Shears, P., 2001. Retailing organic foods. Brit. Food J. 103 (5), 81
17 443e454. 358e365. 82
Aschemann-Witzel, J., Zielke, S., 2015. Can't buy me green? A review of consumer Joshi, Y., Rahman, Z., 2015. Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future
18 83
perceptions of and behavior toward the price of organic food. J. Consum. Aff. research directions. Int. Strat. Manage. Rev. 3 (1e2), 128e143.
19 Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joca.12092/epdf. Kareklas, I., Carlson, J.R., Muehling, D.D., 2014. I eat organic for my benet and 84
20 Baecke, E., Rogiers, G., De Cock, L., Van Huylenbroeck, G., 2002. The supply chain yours: egoistic and altruistic considerations for purchasing organic food and 85
21 and conversion to organic farming in Belgium or the story of the egg and the their implications for advertising strategists. J. Advert. 43 (1), 18e32. 86
chicken. Brit. Food J. 104 (3/4/5), 163e174. Kearney, J., 2010. Food consumption trends and drivers. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. 365,
22 Basha, M.B., Mason, C., Shamsudin, M.F., Hussain, H.I., Salem, M.A., 2015. Consumers 2793e2807. 87
23 attitude towards organic. Proc. Econ. Fin 31, 444e452. Kenanog lu, Z., Karahan, O., 2002. Policy implementations for organic agriculture in 88
24 Biel, A., Thgersen, J., 2007. Activation of social norms in social dilemmas: a review Turkey. Brit. Food J. 104 (3-4-5), 300e318. 89
of the evidence and reections on the implications for environmental behav- Kihlberg, I., Risvik, E., 2007. Consumer of organic foods-value segments and liking of
25 bread. Food Qual. Prefer. 18 (3), 471e481.
90
iour. J. Econ. Psychol. 28, 93e112.
26 Bravo, C.P., Cordts, A., Schulze, B., Spiller, A., 2013. Assessing determinants of organic Kim, Y.G., Eves, A., Scarles, C., 2009. Building a model of local food consumption on 91
27 food consumption using data from the German National Nutrition Survey II. trips and holidays: a grounded theory approach. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 28, 92
Food Qual. Prefer 28, 60e70. 423e431.
28 Kottila, M., Ronni, P., 2008. Collaboration and trust in two organic food chains. Brit.
93
Bruschi, V., Shershneva, K., Dolgopolova, I., Canavari, M., Teuber, R., 2015. Consumer
29 perception of organic food in emerging markets: evidence from Saint Peters- Food J. 110 (4/5), 376e394. 94
30 burg, Russia. Agribusiness 31 (3), 414e432. Krystallis, A., Chryssohoidis, G., 2005. Consumer's willingness to pay for organic 95
Buder, F., Feldmann, C., Hamm, U., 2014. Why regular buyers of organic food still food: factors that affects it and variation per organic product type. Brit. Food J.
31 96
buy many conventional products. Brit. Food J. 116 (3), 390e404. 107 (4/5), 320e323.
32 Cavdar, S.C., Aydin, A.D., 2015. Consumer attitudes towards organic food applica- Krystallis, A., Vassallo, M., Chryssohoidis, G., Perrea, T., 2008. Societal and individ- 97
33 tions, environmental issues and genetically modied organisms (gmos). Food ualistic drivers as predictors of organic purchasing revealed through a portrait 98
Sci. Qual. Manage. 41, 115e128. value questionnaire (PVQ)-based inventory. J. Consum. Behav. 7, 164e187.
34 99
Chakrabarti, S., 2010. Factors inuencing organic food purchase in India e expert Larceneux, F., Beniot-Moreau, F., Renudin, V., 2012. Why might organic labels fail to
35 survey insights. Brit. Food J. 112 (8), 902e915. inuence consumer choices? Marginal labelling and brand equity effects. 100
36 Chen, M.F., 2007. Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic J. Consum. Pol. 35, 85e104. 101
37 foods in Taiwan: moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Lea, E., Worsley, T., 2005. Australians' organic food beliefs, demographics and 102
Qual. Prefer 18, 1008e1021. values. Brit. Food J. 107 (11), 855e869.
38 Chen, M.F., 2009. Attitude toward organic foods among Taiwanese as related to Liang, R., 2016. Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: the moderating 103
39 health consciousness, environmental attitudes, and the mediating effects of a effects of organic food prices. Brit. Food J. 118 (1), 183e199. 104
40 healthy lifestyle. Brit. Food J. 111 (2), 165e178. Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G., Mummery, K., 2002. Eating Green: motivations 105
Chen, J., Lobo, A., 2012. Organic food products in China: determinants of consumers' behind organic food consumption in Australia. Sociol. Rural. 42 (1), 23e40.
41 Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G., Grice, J., 2004. Choosing organics: a path analysis
106
purchase intentions. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 22 (3), 293e314.
42 Chen, J., Lobo, A., Rajendran, N., 2014. Drivers of organic food purchase intentions in of factors underlying the selection of organic food among Australian consumers. 107
43 mainland China e evaluating potential customers' attitudes, demographics and Appetite 43, 135e146. 108
segmentation. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 38, 346e356. Magnusson, M., Arvola, A., Hursti, U.K., Aberg, L., Sjoden, P., 2001. Attitudes towards
44 organic foods among Swedish consumers. Brit. Food J. 103 (3), 209e226.
109
Chryssohoidis, G.M., Krystallis, A., 2005. Organic consumers' personal values
45 research: testing and validating the list of values (LOV) scale and implementing Magnusson, M.K., Arvola, A., Hursti, U.K., Aberg, L., Sjoden, P., 2003. Choice of 110
46 a value-based segmentation task. Food Qual. Prefer. 16 (7), 585e599. organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to 111
Constance, D.H., Choi, J.Y., 2010. Overcoming the barriers to organic adoption in the environmentally friendly behavior. Appetite 40, 109e117.
47 112
United States: a look at pragmatic conventional producers in Texas. Sustain- McEachern, M.G., McClean, P., 2002. Organic purchasing motivations and attitudes:
48 ability 2, 163e188. are they ethical? Int. J. Consum. Stud. 26 (2), 85e92. 113
49 De-Magistris, T., Gracia, A., 2016. Consumers' willingness to pay for light, organic Meixner, O., Haas, R., Perevoshchikova, Y., Canavari, M., 2014. Consumer attitudes, 114
and PDO cheese. Brit. Food J. 118 (3), 560e571. knowledge, and behavior in the Russian market for organic food. Int. J. Food
50 115
Dean, M., Raats, M.M., Shepherd, R., 2008. Moral concerns and consumer choice of Syst. Dyn. 5 (2), 110e120.
51 fresh and processed organic foods. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 38 (8), 2088e2107. Meyer-Ho fer, M.V., Nitzko, S., Spiller, A., 2015. Is there an expectation gap? Con- 116
52 Dellios, R., Yang, X., Yilmaz, N.K., 2009. Food safety and the role of the government: sumers' expectations towards organic: an exploratory survey in mature and 117
53 implications for CSR policies in China. iBusiness 1, 75e84. emerging European organic food markets. Brit. Food J. 117 (5), 1527e1546. 118
Dettmann, R.L., 2008. Organic Produce: who's eating it? A demographic prole of Nasir, V.A., Karakaya, F., 2014. Underlying motivations of organic food purchase
54 organic produce consumers. In: American Agricultural Economics Association, intentions. Agribusiness 30 (3), 290e308. 119
55 Annual Meeting. Ngobo, P.V., 2011. What drives household choice of organic products in grocery 120
56 Dias, V.D.V., Schuster, M.D.S., Talamini, E., Revillion, J.P., 2016. Scale of consumer stores? J. Retail. 87 (1), 90e100. 121
loyalty for organic food. Brit. Food J. 118 (3), 697e713. Onyango, B.M., Hallman, W.K., Bellows, A.C., 2007. Purchasing organic food in US
57 food systems. Brit. Food J. 109 (5), 399e411.
122
Dimitr, C., Oberholtzer, L., 2009. Marketing U.S. Organic Foods Recent Trends from
58 Farms to Consumers. Retrieved from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/185272/ Padel, S., Foster, C., 2005. Exploring the gap between attitude and behaviour: un- 123
59 eib58_1_.pdf. derstanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food. Brit. Food J. 107 (8), 124
Dimitri, C., Dettmann, R.L., 2012. Organic food consumers: what do we really know 606e625.
60 Pieniak, Z., Aertsens, J., Verbeke, W., 2010. Subjective and objective knowledge as
125
about them? Brit. Food J. 114 (8), 1157e1183.
61 Durham, C.A., 2007. The impact of environmental and health motivations on the determinants of organic vegetables consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 21, 581e588. 126
62 organic share of purchases. Agric.Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 36 (2), 304e320. Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., Seidel, R., 2005. Environmental, 127
Essoussi, L.H., Zahar, M., 2009. Exploring the decision-making process of Canadian energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming
63 128
organic food consumers. Qual. Mark. Res. 12 (4), 443e459. systems. BioScence 55 (7), 573e582.
64 Forman, J., Silverstein, J., 2012. Organic foods: health and environmental advantages Pino, G., Alessandro, M.P., Guido, G., 2012. Determinants of regular and occasional 129
65 and disadvantages. Pediatrics 130 (5), e1406ee1415. consumers' intentions to buy organic food. J. Consum. Aff. 46 (1), 157e167. 130

Please cite this article in press as: Sriyogi, K., et al., A review of sustainability, deterrents, personal values, attitudes and purchase intentions in
the organic food supply chain, Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.003
 PSRB19_proof 19 November 2016 10/10

10 K. Sriyogi et al. / Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1e10

1 Reed, M., 2001. Fight the future. How the contemporary campaigns of the UK Tsakiridou, E., Boutsouki, C., Zotos, Y., Mattas, K., 2008. Attitudes and behaviour 30
organic movement have arisen from their composting past. Sociol. Rural. 41 (1), towards organic products: an exploratory study. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manage. 36
2 31
31e45. (2), 158e175.
3 Reisch, L., Eberle, U., Lorek, S., 2013. Sustainable food consumption: an overview of Van Loo, E., Caputo, V.C., Nayga, R.M., Meullenet, J.M., Crandall, P.G., Ricke, S.C., 2010. 32
4 contemporary issues and policies. Sustain. Sci. Prac. Policy 9 (2), 7e25. Effect of organic poultry purchase frequency on consumer attitudes toward 33
5 Risku-Norj, H., Muukka, E., 2013. Food and sustainability: local and organic food in organic poultry meat. J. Food Sci. 75 (7), S384eS397. 34
Finnish food policy and in institutional kitchens. Acta Agric.Agric. Scand. B 63 Vieira, L.M., De Barcellos, M.D., Hoppe, A., da Silva, S.B., 2013. An analysis of value in
6 (1), 8e18. an organic food supply chain. Brit. Food J. 115 (10), 1454e1472. 35
7 Rodrguez, E., Lacaze, V., Lupn, B., 2012. Contingent Valuation of Consumers' Vindigni, G., Janssen, M.A., Wander, J., 2002. Organic food consumption. A multi- 36
8 Willingness-to-pay for organic Food in Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Mar theoretical framework of consumer decision-making. Brit Food J. 104 (8), 624e642. 37
del Plata/Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Mar del Plata, Argentina. Wier, M., O'Doherty Jensen, K., Mrch Andersen, L., Millock, K., 2008. The character
9 Saba, A., Messina, F., 2003. Attitudes towards organic foods and risk/benet of demand in mature organic food markets: great Britain and Denmark
38
10 perception associated with pesticides. Food Qual. Prefer. 14, 637e645. compared. Food Pol. 33 (5), 406e421. 39
11 Sadati, S.A., Sadati, S.A., Fami, H., Del, P.T.T., 2010. Survey consumer attitude toward Wilkins, J., 2005. Eating right here: moving from consumer to food citizen. Agric. 40
barriers of organic products (OP) in Iran: a case study in Gorgan City. World. Agric. Hum. Val. 22, 269e273.
12 Appl. Sci. J. 8 (11), 1298e1303. World Health Organization, 2015. Food Safety. Retrieved from at: http://www.who.
41
13 Sangkumchaliang, P., Huang, W.C., 2012. Consumers' perceptions and attitudes of organic int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs399/en/. 42
14 food products in northern Thailand. Int. Food Agric. Manag. Rev. 15 (1), 87e102. Xie, B., Wang, L., Yang, H., Wang, Y., Zhang, M., 2015. Consumer perceptions and 43
Seyfang, G., 2004. Local organic Food: the Social Implications of Sustainable Con- attitudes of organic food products in Eastern China. Brit. Food J. 117 (3),
15 44
sumption. Retrieved from: http://www.cserge.ac.uk/sites/default/les/edm_ 1105e1121.
16 2004_09.pdf. Yadav, R., Pathak, G.S., 2016. Intention to purchase organic food among young 45
17 Shae, F.A., Rennie, D., 2012. Consumer perceptions towards organic food. Procedia consumers: evidence from a developing nation. Appetite 96, 122e128. 46
49, 360e367. Yip, L., Janssen, M., 2015. How do consumers perceive organic food from different
18 47
Smith, T.A., Huang, C.L., Lin, B., 2009. Does price or income affect organic choice? geographic origins? Evidence from Hong Kong and Shanghai. J. Agric. Agric.
19 Analysis of U.S. fresh produce users. J. Agric. Agric. Appl. Econ. 41 (3), 731e744. Rural. Dev. Trop. 116 (1), 71e84. 48
20 Stobbelaar, D.J., Casimir, G., Borghuis, J., Marks, I., Meijer, L., Zebeda, S., 2007. Ado- Yiridoe, E.K., Bonti-Ankomah, S., Martin, R.C., 2005. Comparison of consumer per- 49
21 lescents' attitudes towards organic food: a survey of 15- to 16-year old school ceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: 50
children. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 31, 349e356. a review and update of the literature. Renew. Agric. Agric. Food Syst. 20 (4),
22 Stolz, H., Stolze, M., Hamm, U., Janssen, M., Ruto, E., 2011. Consumer attitudes to- 193e205. 51
23 wards organic versus conventional food with specic quality attributes. NJAS e Zagata, L., 2012. Consumers' beliefs and behavioural intentions towards organic 52
24 Wagen. J. Life Sci. 58 (3e4), 67e72. food. Evidence from the Czech Republic. Appetite 59 (1), 81e89. 53
Tarkiainen, A., Sundqvist, S., 2009. Product involvement in organic food con- _
Zakowska-Biemans, S., 2001. Polish consumer food choices and beliefs about
25 sumption: does ideology meet practice? Psychol. Mark. 26 (9), 844e863. organic food. Brit. Food J. 113 (1), 122e137.
54
26 Teng, C., Wang, Y., 2015. Decisional factors driving organic food consumption. Brit. Zanoli, R., Naspetti, S., 2002. Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food: 55
27 Food J. 117 (3), 1066e1081. a means-end approach. Brit. Food J. 104 (8), 643e653. 56
28 57
29 58

Please cite this article in press as: Sriyogi, K., et al., A review of sustainability, deterrents, personal values, attitudes and purchase intentions in
the organic food supply chain, Pacic Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.003