Faculty of Bio-Science Engineering

Academic year 2011 – 2012

The impact of country-of-origin labelling (COO) on food product preference

The case of Belgian versus Brazilian chicken meat

Lopez Elliot Promotor: Prof. dr. ir. Wim Verbeke Co-promotor: dr. ir. Filiep Vanhonacker

Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master Science in Human Nutrition and Rural

Development

Abstract

The purpose of this master thesis is to provide an in-depth examination of importance of

country-of-origin (COO) theory in perceptions of consumers in a national setting. It shows how

explanatory factors like socio-demographics, familiarity with a country’s products, given

importance to food attributes, and willingness to pay for a foreign country product jointly work

to explain consumers’ COO perceptions. Cross sectional data were collected from a web based

survey through the panel “thesistools” (n = 542). This is a quantitative study using a

questionnaire with 27 questions among Belgian consumers in the Region of Flanders and

Brussels.

Findings: Country-of-origin (COO) was the least important product attribute in a list of 13

attributes on average. Yet, findings showed that it‘s importance differed between consumers. A

profile is drawn of consumers with a different level of interest in origin, in terms of socio-

demographics, and different attitudinal measurements. Further, the impact of country-of-origin

was investigated for chicken meat with Belgian versus Brazilian origin, and the association

between preference for Belgian chicken meat and country image (significantly different),

ethnocentrism (significantly different), interest in foreign cultures (not significant), familiarity

with the country (not significant) was investigated, according to country-of-origin theories.

Research limitations/implications: The study used only respondents from two of the

three regions of Belgium. Future research should seek to develop a multi-dimensional scale for

chicken meat of different countries of origin.

Practical implications: It seems important to increase consumers’ familiarity with a COO

and its products to improve its overall perception. Products imported from developing countries

have the lowest level of familiarity in general. Thus, increasing familiarity with their products is

particularly important to achieve export success.

AKNOWLEDGEMENT

After working during months, I want to say that this work would not have been possible

without the collaboration of many persons that contributed to get to the final book.

First of all, I thank to God, spirituality and faith have drive my life the last years.

Then I would like to thanks to my family that in the distance have supported me and give

me the encouragement needed to pursue my objectives and dreams. To my mom who tought

me the importance of education and being an agent of change, Lupina, you have been my

example all my life, and I will always thank you for all your efforts and help and inconditional

love, mami te quiero mucho!

To my brother Emir Lopez and my sister Erika Lopez who are my examples of excellence, I

love you guys more than you think, and through all this process I thought a lot about you, is

going to take a while to get where you are but I will meet you in your careers dreams.

Very special thanks to my promoter, Prof. Dr. ir Wim Verbeke, who allowed me to be part

of an incredible dynamic and organized team or researchers of the Faculty of Bio-science

Engineering at Ugent. To Dr. ir. Filiep Vanhonacker, who helped me and supported me through

the whole procedure with his quick emails and accurate revisions, without your guidance,

patience and kindness this work would not have been possible, I will always thank you for that.

To all collaborators that facilitated me information in a very efficient and friendly way:

Bastin Valérie (Attaché), Direction générale Potentiel économique. Direction des

Industries agroalimentaires (Belgium)

Dethise Réjane. Documentatiecentrum OIVO (Belgium)

Dr Edith Hoc. AFSCA. DG Politique de contrôle (Belgium)

Dr. Pierre Naassens. Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (AFSCA)(Belgium)

Pottier Jean, Regulatory Expert Food Labelling, Nutrition and Health Claims. Animal, Plant

and food Directorate-General. Service Food, Feed, Other Consumption Products,

Eurostation/Eurostation (Belgium)

Samborski, Vincent. Landbouw en Visserij - Vlaanderen.be, Department of monitoring and

Studies (Belgium)

Vanderhasselt Roselien, Instituut voor Landbouw- en Visserijonderzoek. Eenheid Dier -

Veehouderij en dierenwelzijn (Belgium)

I would also like to thank to the coordinator of our Master in Science in Human Nutrition

and Rural Development, Ann-Marie De Winter, always encouraging students to pursue their

objectives, energetic and positive towards all type of difficulties, I see you as an important agent

of change in the world, and want to thank you for the work that you do giving support and

opportunities to those that probably needed the most.

To the university of Gent and their excellent team of professors, researchers and

collaborators, impacting my life through knowledge and inspiring through their passion for

sciences

To my best friend Antoine Pacco, who helped me until the very last minute, Bolinho ‘Dank

u wel’!. To my friends Marijke Geerts, Bérénice Goffinet, Caroline Smeyers, Celine and Sophie

Van den Abeele, Kris and Karen Mathay, Ariel Eberstein, Siska van Nieuwenhove, Anna Munchin,

Lauret Benchariff and Igor T’Serstevens, who became pillars in the difficult moments, sharing my

worries and my succeeds.

pg. 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ANOVA Analysis of variance

BE Belgium

BR Brazil

COO Country of Origin

COOL Country of Origin labeling

EC European Commission

EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de pesquisa agropecuária (Brazilian agricultural research

cooperation)

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

LDCs Low developed Countries

MDCs Middle Developed Countries

MMT Millions Metric Tones

R2adj Adjusted R square

SD Standard Deviation

SE Standard Error

SEM Standard Error of the Mean

USA United States of America

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

VLAM Vlaams Centrum voor Agro- en Visserijmarketing vzw (Flemish Centre for

Agriculture and Fish marketing

WTP Willingness To Pay

pg. 2

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Major Producers of Broiler Meat. 2010............................................................................ 14

Table 2. Major Exporters from Broilers in the World, 2010........................................................... 15

Table 3. Belgian neto production of poultry meat (in tones, carcass weight (kg)) ........................ 16

Table 4. Selected socio-demographic characteristics of the sample (n=542) ............................... 31

Table 5. Factor loading from principal components analysis for evaluation of knowledge and

ethnocentrism ................................................................................................................................ 37

Table 6. Factor loading from principal components analysis for evaluation of interest in foreign

cultures ........................................................................................................................................... 37

Table 7. Mean scores and standard deviation on a 7 point scale that ranged from (1) ‘Totally

unimportant’ to ‘Strictly important’ ............................................................................................... 39

Table 8. Relative Importance of Country of Origin for Quartiles ................................................... 40

Table 9. Socio-demographic profiling of Quartiles......................................................................... 42

Table 10. Comparison among quartiles of RI scores of food attributes of BE vs. BR chicken meat

........................................................................................................................................................ 44

Table 11. Difference among quartiles for preference of BR vs. BE chicken meat ......................... 49

Table 12. Difference among quartiles for perception of economic development scores BE-BR .. 51

Table 13. Willingness to pay for chicken meat of developed and developing countries .............. 52

Table 14. Difference among quartiles for interest in foreigner cultures ....................................... 53

Table 15. Difference among quartiles regarding familiarity to BR ................................................. 54

Table 16. Difference among quartiles for willingness to pay for BR vs. BE chicken products ....... 55

pg. 3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Major Producers of Broiler Meat in Quantity (ready-to-cook-equivalent) ..................... 14

Figure 2. Production of broilers chicken in Belgium by region*, 2000-2011 (pieces) ................... 16

Figure 3. Composition of Poultry Livestock in Belgium, in pieces (2000-2010) ............................. 17

Figure 4. Example of Country of Origin Labeling in a Food Product .............................................. 28

Figure 5. Evaluation of product attributes of Brazilian versus Belgian meat ................................. 45

Figure 6. Evaluation of Brazilian Chicken Meat Production (means) ............................................. 46

pg. 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .............................................................................. 1

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... 2

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................. 6

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE THESIS ........................................................................................................... 9

1.2 THESIS OUTLINE ..................................................................................................................... 10

1.3 HYPOTHESIS .......................................................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................................... 12

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 12

2.1 Chicken Meat .................................................................................................................... 12

2.1.1 Poultry consumption and Trade ................................................................................. 12

2.2 Country of Origin ............................................................................................................... 18

2.3 Influencing Factors of COO ............................................................................................... 20

2.3.1 Socio Demographics Characteristics Influence .......................................................... 20

2.3.3 Country image ............................................................................................................ 23

2.3.4 Ethnocentrism ............................................................................................................ 24

2.4 Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for meat commodity: Legal Framework .................... 26

2.4.1 Communication and consumers................................................................................. 28

2.4.2 Consumer’s Responses ............................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................................... 30

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................ 30

3.1 Study Design and Subjects ................................................................................................ 30

3.3 Questionnaire and Scales .................................................................................................. 32

3.4 Analyses procedures ......................................................................................................... 35

pg. 5

CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................................... 36

4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 36

4.1 Data Editing ....................................................................................................................... 36

4.2 Profiling Variables ............................................................................................................. 38

4.2 Segmentation of variables ................................................................................................ 39

4.3 COO and Country image .................................................................................................... 44

4.3.1 Product perception BE vs. BR ..................................................................................... 44

4.3.2 Production methods perception BE vs. BR................................................................. 45

4.3.3 Perception of broiler chicken farms size BE vs. BR .................................................... 47

4.4 COO and Ethnocentrism .................................................................................................... 47

4.5 COO and Willingness to Pay .............................................................................................. 50

4.6 Interest in foreign cultures................................................................................................ 52

4.6.1 COO and familiarity .................................................................................................... 54

4.7 Influence of level of processing ........................................................................................ 55

CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................ 57

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 57

pg. 6

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Interest in country of origin has increased in society along the years. A large body of

research has provided strong empirical evidence of country-of-origin (COO) effects on product

evaluations. COO have been found to affect the significance of how consumers associate with

distinct foods and may influence their preferences. In an expanding global economy, aspects

concerning country-of-origin (COO) and the advantages/disadvantages of its communication are

gaining importance, especially in the agro-food sector. For many consumers worldwide, origin

has been identified to be a determining purchase criterion in food consumption.

Meat consumption has increased in the last decades, shifting preferences for white over

red meat, being chicken meat the favorite of global consumers. Health concerns, economic

changes and global trade, are some of the possible factors affecting these changes. As result of

the increasing demand of chicken meat, production of fresh and processed chicken meat

products have increased in many developing countries, such as Brazil, which possess the natural

resources, as well as the workforce to produce in big scales. Imports related to the inability to

cope with the demand of production, and as a result of the benefits from international prices,

have also increased in developed countries such as Belgium.

Food marketing seems to have a great influence in consumers purchase, and as a result of

that, changing legislations around food safety and food origin in Europe have been changing and

improved, in order to protect consumers from misleading information, but also to give the

choice to the consumer to get to know deeper the quality attributes of the food product they

are purchasing.

We investigated this issue with regard to chicken meat in a consumer survey directed to

Dutch speaking citizens in Belgium (Flanders and Brussels Capital Region, further referred to as

Flanders). The results of our investigation are the subject of this contribution. To estimate

consumers’ importance attached to country of origin and ethnocentrism influence we used a

survey with categorical and continuous variables (dichotomous and Likert scale). The sample

selection in our approach was based on the consumer’s purchase option of chicken meat in

pg. 7

Flanders. Survey data was gathered through self-administered web-based questionnaires,

respondents were members of a panel managed by Thesistools.

This study will profile consumer’s segments (quartiles) that differ in (relative value)

importance of country of origin as a food product attribute. The specific focus on the poultry

sector is motivated by the significance of the sector in the study area, Flanders (northern region

of Belgium); also by its significant higher production of chicken meat in Belgium. Brazil was

chosen as comparative country due the importance of its contribution in the world poultry

production, but also because it is the first non-EU (developing) country from where chicken

meat is imported to Belgium.

The segmentation is a necessary tool in order to form groups with specific characteristics

and to compare them with the variables that are relevant to the influence of country of origin as

a food product attribute. Distinct consumer profiles can be established providing insights as to

how to target, communicate and convince these distinct groups to purchase different countries

of origin’s products. We will use country of origin importance as an indicator for the market

opportunities of imported chicken meat, while the relative value of country of origin, as a

product attribute, will be considered for the ethnocentric positioning of Belgian consumers.

The increasing consumption of chicken meat and processed chicken products in Europe is

of interest to local and international markets. The relationship between constituents of meat

and a healthy diet, (concerns related to saturated fat in animal products, illness and weight),

lower cost increasing production in developing countries, and sustained demand for protein

origin food products has been related to it. Negative association with red meat consumption

and the debate around use of hormones, BSE, food safety, animal welfare, and global price

changes can be considered as factors influencing the shifting to the increasing chicken meat

consumption at the expenses of red meat and other poultry.

It is believed that the influence of the labeling of the country of origin seems to have an

impact in consumer’s preferences. It is important, therefore, to understand how consumers

perceive chicken meat attributes (such as country of origin, price, appearance, freshness,

environmental friendliness and animal welfare, among others), and how these affect the

consumption and purchase intentions with respect to domestic and imported products.

pg. 8

Little consumer research has been done specifically with respect to perception of country

of origin labeling from Belgian consumers for chicken meat and their processed products

imported from developing countries. Hence, the scarcity of insights in consumer perception

towards chicken meat provenance, support the motion of the present master’s research.

pg. 9

1.1 Objective of the thesis

The overall objective of the present research is to obtain insights in the role of COO as a

food product attribute among Flemish consumers related to domestic versus Brazilian chicken

meat . More specifically, the following four specific research objectives are hereby set forth:

The main objectives of the paper were:

1. Verify the importance of different food product attributes in food purchasing

decisions of chicken meat (and the ranking of COO in that list)

2. Profile groups with different levels of interest in COO in terms of socio-

demographics, responsibility for food purchase, meat consumer profile, and

consumption frequency.

3. Verify whether theory of COO is also applicable in food product preference for the

case study of Belgian versus Brazilian chicken meat in the context of:

- Country Image; it is expected that the perception that consumers have regarding

the image of Brazil would have an effect in the quality evaluation of its products

- Ethnocentrism; studies support a positive relationship between a favorable

perception of domestic products and the preference for products of an equal

level of economic development, as well as similarity with respondents' cultural

and belief systems.

- Interest for foreign cultures; Consumers with a strong interest in foreign cultures

appear to rate imported food products more highly than consumers who are less

interested.

- Perceived similarity; Food products from countries with similar cultural

backgrounds and belief systems tend to be evaluated more positively than

products from countries with dissimilar belief systems, the halo effect of a

country’s image also influence products evaluation.

The present research focuses on chicken meat evaluation as one product category, and

narrows down to processed food which as main ingredient contain chicken meat.

pg. 10

1.2 Thesis outline

This thesis consists of a literature review related to chicken meat consumption and trade,

country of origin labeling, ethnocentrism, socio-demographics characteristic´s influence in

consumer´s preference and food quality attributes, among the most important. Chapter 1,

provides the introduction, lists of abbreviations and acronyms, tables and figures for a better

guide to the reader, and objectives of the present research.

Chapter 2, provides literature findings from concepts of interest related to the subject of

the thesis. In the first subdivision of this part chicken trade is underlined, including world and

local production (Brazilian and Belgian), imports, exports and consumption. In the second

subdivision country of origin importance as a food product attribute is described. An overview

of important related concepts, such as country image, ethnocentrism and socio-demographics

characteristics are also described. In the third subdivision food attributes considered in the

questionnaire used are briefly discussed. In the fourth subdivision the relationship between

COO labeling and consumer’s response is underlined.

Chapter 3, this chapter describes the materials and methods used in the present research

to evaluate the effect of COO in consumer’s perception of credence attributes. Also this section

describes the study design and socio-demographics characteristics of the subjects, the

questionnaire and scales, the segmentation profiling and the statistical analysis.

Chapter 4, provides a descriptive analysis of the results of the effect of COO on

consumers’ attitudes. This section describes the results obtained for the positioning of COO

compared to others food attributes, as well as it influence when computed as a Relative value

when evaluating preference of BR. Vs. BE chicken meat. A description of the results of the

relationship between COO and country image, ethnocentrism, interest in foreign cultures and

perceived similarity is also commented in this section.

Chapter 5, provides the general conclusion, the most important findings, and

recommendations for further research are set forth.

pg. 11

1.3 Hypothesis

The present research attempts to investigate the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Segments with a different level of importance attached to COO differ in terms of

socio-demographics characteristics, meat consumption type and frequency of meat

consumption

Hypothesis 2: Differences exist between consumers' evaluation of Belgian and Brazilian chicken

meat and chicken meat production

Hypothesis 3: Importance attached to COO is positively related to consumer preference for

domestic chicken.

Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between importance attached to COO and level of

ethnocentrism.

Hypothesis 5: Consumers are willing to pay more for domestic products/developed country

products than for foreigner/developing country products.

Hypothesis 6: Products from countries with similar cultural backgrounds or belief systems will be

evaluated more positively than products from countries with dissimilar belief systems.

Hypothesis 7: Importance of COO will be less important for processed chicken meat as

compared to chicken breasts

pg. 12

CHAPTER 2

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Shifting trade patterns, and the emergence of developing countries as significant

exporters of fresh and processed goods, have resulted in a resurgence of markets protectionism

over the past few decades. To protect consumers and domestic manufacturers, governments in

industrial nations have undertaken measures that range from imposing import barriers, to

legislations that mandate a number of public information by labeling. Advertisement pursuing

consumers to “buy domestic” and increasing varieties of imported food products have

generated differences in evaluating the importance of food attributes, and therefore food

purchase (Papadopoulus & Heslop, 1990).

The globalization of markets and food production within the last two decades have

underscored the need for greater proficiency in understanding the impact of product’s

attributes and country image on cross-national consumer’s behaviour. Research on country-of-

origin (COO) effects, for example, has shown that such proficiency can contribute to the

development of effective global marketing programs by synthesizing the attitudinal constructs

observed in different national markets with strategy formulation (Baughn & Yaprak, 1993). In

the present chapter we will find a literature review related to chicken meat trade and

consumption; evaluation of food attributes, being the main focus COO, and concepts related to

consumer’s food preferences.

2.1 Chicken Meat

2.1.1 Poultry consumption and Trade

The evolution of production of poultry as source of edible animal protein has increased in

the last years. The consumption of meat in developed countries has increased from 76.3

kg/person/year in 1980 to 82.1 kg/person/year in 2005 (FAO, 2009). This tendency has

maintained relatively stable but varying respect to the source of meat, with an increase of

pg. 13

chicken meat (within the poultry category) consumption and decrease of cattle meat. By 2010

the average Belgian citizen consumed 9.5 kg/person/year of fresh chicken meat, by 2011 this

increased to 10 kg/person/year (VLAM, 2012). According to some revision, the consumption of

cattle meat have decreased not only due the price (Fulginiti, 1996) but also due an imago factors

(Rozin, Fischler, Imada, Sarubin, & Wrzesniewski, 1999), concerns of health (Stafleu, de Graaf, &

van Staveren, 1994) and credence issues such as proportion of saturated fat (Valsta,

Tapanainen, & Männistö, 2005), food safety issues such as link to use of hormones (Alfnes &

Rickertsen, European Consumers’ Acceptance of US Hormone-Treated Beef, 2003), bovine

spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), dioxin contamination (Verbeke, Viaene, & Guiot, Health

Communication and Consumer Behavior on Meat in Belgium: From BSE until Dioxin, 1999), and

environment of production, among others (Lusk, Roosen, & Fox, 2001).

At a global level, and as response to the demand, total poultry meat production has

increased from 69 in 2000 to 94 million tons in 2008, corresponding to an augmentation of 35%

of the production, 86% represented by chicken (FAO, 2010). Global markets have focused on the

production of broiler, known as the type of chicken specially bred for meat production (Gallus

domesticus) because it grows much faster than an egg breed of chicken (FAO, 2010). In this

thesis we will focus only in the definition of EU that specifies that broiler or chicken “is the fowl

in which the tip of the sternum is flexible (not ossified)” (EU, No 543/2008).

Estimation of poultry production reports show differences according to the source,

sometimes presenting overestimation/underestimation, difficult to discriminate. According to

the USDA, for 2010, the United States of America was the first producer in quantity and value of

broiler chicken, followed by China and Brazil (see Table 1).

The forecast of the global production for 2012 is to increase, driven by strong domestic

demand in China and Brazil, however, growth will be slower than the previous years, given the

rising cost of feed and a slowdown in U.S. production (USDA, 2011).

During the last decade, Brazil has increased remarkably its meat production, being the

quantity of poultry meat exports fivefold. In nominal value, Brazil’s net export of livestock

products has gone from US$435 million in 1995 to US$7280 million in 2006. Brazil has

pg. 14

increasingly taken advantage of low feed production costs for its livestock industry and it seems

to remain as an important producer of feedstuffs (FAO, 2009), (see Figure 1).

Table 1. Major Producers of Broiler Meat. 2010

Producers 2010 MMT

United States of America 16.6

China 12.6

Brazil 12.3

EU-27 9.1

Mexico 2.8

World 76.0

Million Metric Tons/MMT Ready-to-cook Equivalent

Source: USDA. http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/CP2011/Broilers-2011-Final.pdf

Figure 1. Major Producers of Broiler Meat in Quantity (ready-to-cook-equivalent)

Source: USDA-FAS attached reports, official statistics, and results of office research. * Forecast ciphers

Notes: Chicken paws are excluded

Since 2000, the amount of imported poultry has increased in Europe (7.5 million kg in

2008, primarily from the EU, Brazil and Thailand), but is mostly used in the convenience food

industry as well as in restaurants and institutional catering units (FAO, 2010). The preference for

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 *(f) 2012

Area

USA

China

Brazil

UE-27

Mexico

pg. 15

broilers already cut and prepared (processed in meals or products) have also increased in

comparison with the whole chicken sales (VLAM, 2012). Factors such as the increased price of

chicken feeding and geographical availability for livestock production, have beneficiated

countries like Brazil, where soy and corn production have increased in the last years, and where

natural-resource endowments influence positively the output of chicken production, allowing it

to become the first exporter of the world of broilers (see Table 2), and the primary country non

EU that export broilers to Belgium (FAO, 2009; FAO, 2010; ABEF, 2010). In 2010, Brazil was

responsible for the 49% of the imports of fresh meat coming from non-EU countries in Belgium,

by the third trimester of 2011 this increased to 69%.

Table 2. Major Exporters from Broilers in the World, 2010

Major Exporters 2010 MMT

Brazil 3.2

United States of America 3.1

EU-27 1.0

Thailand 0.4

China 0.4

World 8.8

Million Metric Tons/MMT Ready-to-cook Equivalent

Source: USDA. http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/CP2011/Broilers-2011-Final.pdf

By 2009, according to the reports of VLAM, broilers chicken production in Belgium

accounted for 91% of the total poultry category that includes rabbit and wild animals (see Table

3). It is however important to comment on the difficulties presented to interpret and compared

production, when figures are published in terms of slaughtering per piece, tones (kilograms) of

actual meat (sometimes including fowls), carcass weight, and the discrimination of chicken meat

and laying eggs hens within the poultry category.

pg. 16

Table 3. Belgian neto production* of poultry meat (in tones, carcass weight1 (kg))

Category 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Rabbit meat (incl. wild)

27838 34965 27517 34734 34838 39394 43845 44196 43179 41836

Chicken meat 400360 406172 459076 423590 460611 446835 458000 446203 422252 477359

Other poultry 6866 6815 8594 5729 7328 7328 7132 5769 11689 4826

Total 435064 447952 495187 464053 502777 493557 508977 496168 477120 524021

Source: CLE and NIS (VLAM, 1999-2009) *Refers to real slaughtered pieces without counting the losses

Flanders represents the strongest contributor for livestock production in Belgium,

therefore its selection as sample region for our research (Figure 2). For 2010, 84% of the poultry

meat in Belgium was produced in the Flemish region, while 16% in the Wallonia region,

increasing for 2011, being 85/15% respectively for both regions, denoting a decrease of the

production in the Wallonia region.

Figure 2. Production of broilers chicken in Belgium by region*, 2000-2011 (pieces)

Source: http://statbel.fgov.be FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie. a. Preliminary results *Includes loses

1 For poultry it is the weight of the cold body of the slaughtered farmyard poultry after being bled, plucked and

eviscerated. The weight includes poultry offal, with the exception of foie gras. For other species, 'carcass weight' is considered to be the weight of the slaughtered animal’s cold body (EC).

0

5000000

10000000

15000000

20000000

25000000

Flemish Region Wallonie Region Brussels Region

pg. 17

The trade of poultry has fluctuated among EU countries for the last ten years, with a

tendency of decreasing production growth (FOD Economie, K.M.O), and decreasing of exports

within the EU region and to third countries (no members of EU region).

The quantity of broilers grow-out farms have decreased in Belgium (Viaene & Verheecke,

2008; Bernaerts & Demuynck, 2009), and although the ability to cope with difficulties,

technology and other factors that have allowed production to increase their output by farm,

during the year 2010-2011 there were less slaughtered chickens (see Figure 5). By 2009 there

were 3710 grow-out firms while for 2010 were 3642 in Belgium (-1.8%), production fluctuates

between 5000-50.000 broilers/farm.

Differently to Belgium, Brazilian chicken farms have increased not only in number but also

in density of production; improvement in genetics, feeding and management had contributed to

this. There are farms from 2550 m2, with 15m of length and 150 of broad, working with 30.000

birds, having approximately 14 birds per square meter (Rural, 2009). According to the Secretary

of Agriculture from Parana State (SEAB), by October 2011 was reported a growth of 7,9%, going

from 14.059 registered farms in October 2010 to the current 15.177 existing (Aveworld, 2011).

Figure 3. Composition of Poultry Livestock in Belgium, in pieces (2000-2010)

Source: VLAM. http://www.vlam.be/marketinformationdocument/files/Samenstellingveestapel2000-2010.pdf

0

5000000

10000000

15000000

20000000

25000000

30000000

Pie

ces

Small chicken/eggs producers

Broiler chicken

Others

pg. 18

2.2 Country of Origin

Country of origin and the importance given to it, represent the main subject from interest

for the present research.

The country of origin (COO) of a food product has become an important marketing tool in

the last decades. After studying different characteristics of importance from a food product,

researchers started to notice that the country of origin of a product and the image that

consumers have about countries, may influence their preferences (Roth & Romeo, 1992; Juric &

Worsley, 1998; Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999; Chryssochoidis, Krystallis, & Perreas, 2007; Ehmke,

Lusk, & Tyner, 2008; Schnettler, Vidal, Vallejos, & Sepúlveda, 2009; Pouta, Heikkilä, Forsman-

Hugg, Isoniemi, & Mäkelä, 2010; Yeh, Chen, & Sher, 2010).

Dichter (1962) was the first to argue that a product’s country origin might influence

consumer’s acceptance of products (Dichter, 1962). One of the first empirical test found

significant differences in the evaluation of products that were identical in all respects, except for

the name of the country specified on a “made in” label (Schooler, 1965). Since then, the

evaluation of COO effect as a food cue has been the subject of a large number of studies.

It has been affirmed that COO has a great impact on product evaluations when

consumers are less motivated to process available information (Maheswaran, 1994) therefore is

an extrinsic cue from high interest to be study.

COO is a complex term to define since the manufacturing can take place in different

locations. Consumers can see the brand where the product has been manufactured but actually

is impossible for consumers to determine where the raw material is coming from and which

ingredients from a food product have been produced in which country. COO represent an

extrinsic quality cue, those are related to everything that is product-related, such as price or

packaging, while intrinsic quality cues, are part of the physical product, such as color or fat

content, (Jacoby & Olson, 1977; Bredahl, 2004; Bilkey & Nes, 1982).

Researchers such as Verlegh and Steenkamp (1999) made a distinction between

cognitive, affective and normative aspects of COO. He proposed that the cognitive aspect of

COO might be regarded as an extrinsic cue for product quality. The affective aspect is related to

pg. 19

symbolic and emotional associations with COO, and the normative aspects are related to

customer preference and to the decision to purchase or avoid a country’s products being this

also related to a pro or contra attitude to the policies and practices of a country. However

different studies have shown that COO is not only a cognitive cue. Some researchers (Hong &

Wyer Jr., 1989; Hong & Wyer, 1990; Li & Wyer Jr., 1994) showed that the impact of COO cannot

be explained entirely by a quality interpretation process. Besides being used as a quality cue,

COO has a symbolic and emotional meaning to consumers, by associating a product with status,

authenticity and exoticness, moreover, it relates a product to a rich product-country image, with

sensory, affective and ritual connotations and is also related to national identity, which can

result in a strong emotional attachment to certain brands and products (Verlegh & Steenkamp,

1999).

The COO may have a positive or negative effect according to the category of the product;

this is known as Domestic Country Bias (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2004). It has been also

discussed that there is an interaction between product category and product origins (Erickson,

Johansson, & Chao, 1984; Roth & Romeo, 1992). Therefore, consumer evaluations of, or

preferences for foreign products can be product, origin, or product/origin-specific.

The importance of COO has been studied in different types of products and as an

exclusive product attribute, as well as related to another food attributes, different findings have

been reported. During an evaluation from different attributes, Pouta et al (2010) observed that

price had a significant negative effect, as most of the times expected, but that country of origin

had a significant positive impact on the probability of choice. When compared to Thailand as the

reference level, the products originating from all other countries (Finland, Denmark and Brazil)

were preferred by Finnish consumers. Broiler fillets from Denmark were closest to the Finnish

alternative in terms of the country of origin. Moreover, the probability that broiler fillets from

Brazil were chosen was also higher than for Thailand (this may be also explained by the avian

influenza epidemic by the moment when the study was performed).

Many of these studies concluded that COO should not be studied as an exclusive cue,

and that citizens from developed countries might have a different response when evaluating

products from a developed country compared to developing countries. It is therefore from

pg. 20

interest to further investigate about this matter (Juric & Worsley, 1998; Verlegh & Steenkamp,

1999; Bolliger & Réviron, 2008; Ehmke, Lusk, & Tyner, 2008).

2.3 Influencing Factors of COO

2.3.1 Socio Demographics Characteristics Influence

Through the years researches have proved that it is necessary to consider the

heterogeneity of the cultures and the different characteristics among them. Consumer

behaviour can not only be predictive by one or few socio-demographic characteristics. It has

been found a relationship between COO´s evaluation and characteristics related such as age,

gender, and education level (Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Wall, Liefeld, & Heslop, 1991; Alfnes, 2004;

Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Mourali, 2005). Schooler (1971), for example, found that

older, male, less educated and white consumers were more likely to rate foreign products from

less developed countries less favorably, while females rated foreign products more highly than

males, Dornoff et al. (1974) could not confirm this for products made in more developed

countries (Schooler, 1971; Anderson & Cunningham, 1972; Dornoff, Tankersley, & White, 1974).

Researchers have found that persons with more education tended to rate foreign

products more highly than persons with limited education (Schooler, 1971; Anderson &

Cunningham, 1972). It has also been reported that higher income persons tended to have a

more favorable acceptance of foreign products in general than did lower income persons

(Wang, 1978).

There is evidence that subcultures within a population with different cultural

characteristics, such as difference of language, may influence culture identification and

subsequently create differences in their consumer related behaviour (Laroche & Brisoux, 1989;

Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Bergeron, 2003).

Socio-economic and demographic groups have been also studied in relation to food

willingness to pay and purchase, being COO a determinant that changes according to different

groups. For example, in the study of Juric and Worsley (1989) they observed that New

pg. 21

Zealanders from higher socio-economic groups tend more to accept foreign products and that

this might be related to their attitude to experiment with foreign cuisine, but also that they

accept easily products from less developed countries due their low prices.

It is important to consider the development of effective international marketing

strategies that are sensitive to subcultural differences within a country to succeed in the

marketplace (Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Bergeron, 2003).

2.3.2 Quality and Food Attributes

Attribute importance is defined as a person's general assessment of the significance of an

attribute for products of a certain type. Attributes often play a determinant role in the outcome

due their relation with product beliefs in the evaluation process (MacKenzie B., 1986).

Whereas beliefs are the cognitive knowledge that consumers have for attributes, attitudes

are the feelings or affective responses. The standard learning hierarchy or high involvement

theory (being high involved those who have knowledge about the products and apply it in their

assessment) indicates that beliefs go first, followed by affects, and at last by consumer’s

behaviour. In other words, the consumer´s ‘belief’ (i.e: quality of the product produce in a

developed country) will be determinant, if these beliefs cope with the product, the next step in

the evaluation will be how do consumers ‘feel’ about this product (i.e: do they feel identify with

it because is manufactured in their own country?) and if this condition is fulfilled, consumer’s

behaviour will be the result with purchase of the product. However, some researchers are

skeptical that attitudes can be a good predictor of consumer’s behaviour (Verbeke, Viaene, &

Guiot, 1999).

There is general agreement that quality has an objective and a subjective dimension.

Objective quality refers to the physical characteristics built into the product and is typically

define by engineers and food technologists. Subjective quality is the quality as perceived by

consumers (Grunert K. , 2005). Quality perception can be evaluated through specific food

attributes, or as a single overall cue, it is determined by different factors, one of the most

important are sensory properties due they contribute to a product’s aesthetics, being related to

pg. 22

shelf-life, conformance and reliability (Issanchau, 1996). The overall quality evaluation is based

upon the perceptions of the product with regard to the quality attributes (Grebitus, 2008).

The categorization of cues of the product, intrinsic (e.g. appearance, colour, shape,

presentation) or extrinsic (e.g. price, brand name, stamp of quality, country of origin, store,

production information and nutritional information) was described by Steenkamp (1989). Two

types of quality attributes are distinguished, experience quality attributes, such as convenience,

freshness and sensory characteristics that can be experienced at the time of consumption, and

credence quality attributes, such as healthiness, naturalness and wholesomeness that cannot be

experienced directly. Finally, the overall quality evaluation is hypothesized to be based upon the

perceptions of the product with regard to the quality attributes (Becker, 2000). Freshness has

been pointed out as the most important credence quality attribute cue used as indicator of

quality safety by consumers (Becker, 2000).

One of the most important attributes looked at by a consumer influenced by the

information is how safe a food is. Consumers expect governments regulate and assure food

safety; they expect all food offered in the market to be intrinsically harmless and safe. In normal

conditions consumers are not as worried about this food characteristic as they are about others,

however the occurrence and publicity about food safety incidents can influence food

preferences and consumer behavior towards this characteristic (Lusk, Roosen, & Fox, 2001;

Alfnes & Rickertsen, 2003; Verbeke & Ward, 2003; Loureiro & Umberger, 2007).

Different food safety incidents, and exposure to meat crisis (diseases and effects on the

meat consumption) have influenced meat consumption negatively, particularly in Europe, and

the food industry and governments have reacted taking measures and working towards

restoring consumer confidence in meat as a safe food product. Traceability systems, quality and

origin labeling schemes have been used as a good instrument for addressing the problem, COO

has been associated to these, improving consumer’s confidence, however, it has been said that

consumers seem to present selectivity in paying attention to information cues, and that

sometimes an overload of information may mislead the attention and have adverse effects on

consumers attitude (Verbeke & Ward, 2006). For example, in groups of food such as meat and

pg. 23

fish, has been demonstrated that consumer pay more attention to cues such as expiration date,

species name, weight and price than health and nutrition information.

Animal welfare is other food attribute that has been used to evaluate quality. It has been

noticed that depending on their socio-demographic characteristics, consumer seek for

information and have different perceptions of attributes such as animal welfare. Welfare quality

is based on; good housing, good feeding, good health, and appropriate behavior of animals

(Vanhonacker, Van Poucke, Tuyttens, & Verbeke, 2010). Consumer’s perception of animal

welfare has been considered to influence food choice due the believe that livestock growth

conditions and standards in developing countries, are less optimal that in developed countries,

being from interest in consumer’s preference (Carlsson, Frykblom, & Lagerkvist, 2005), however,

some others have found that is often evaluated with a less priority compared to primary

attributes of a food product, such as general quality, health, and safety (Vanhonacker, Van

Poucke, Tuyttens, & Verbeke, 2010).

2.3.3 Country image

The images that consumers have of countries have been acknowledged to have an

impact on their propensity to purchase products from those countries (Papadopoulos, 1993).

In 1992, Roth & Romeo proposed that: country image is the overall perception

consumer’s form of products from a particular country, based on their prior perceptions of the

country's production and marketing strengths and weaknesses. These definitions attempt to

explain that the image that consumers have towards a country, the goods produced and their

manufacturing ability may be only a perception without objective knowledge, and this

perception will influence the consumers’ behaviour.

Nagashima (1970) defined country image as the picture, the reputation, the stereotype

that business men and consumers attach to products of a specific country. This image is created

by such variables as representative products, national characteristics, economic and political

background history, and traditions. Narayana's (1981) defined country image as "the aggregate

pg. 24

image for any particular country's product that refers to the entire connotative field associated

with that country's product offerings, as perceived by consumers".

Researchers have studied how the image of a country that produces specific products

can influence positively or negatively the perception about other products from the same

country of origin (Usunier & Cestre, 2007). It has also being said that unlike brands and

corporate images, those of nations and other places, are not directly under the marketer’s

control. It is important therefore, to consider consumer’s perception of strengths (or

weaknesses) among competing countries across products (Papadopoulus & Heslop, 1990;

Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Bergeron, 2003) and the interaction of the different

factors that may influence the country image, willingness to pay, consumer preferences, and

final purchase. It has also been studied that consumers use the country image to infer the

quality of a product, this is due they are unable to detect a product quality before purchase,

which also suggest that consumers use country attitude to evaluate products that they have not

purchased before but that they infer have the same quality as other products from the same

country of origin (Erickson, Johansson, & Chao, 1984; Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999; Bredahl,

2004; Pouta, Heikkilä, Forsman-Hugg, Isoniemi, & Mäkelä, 2010). From a consumer perspective,

quality research derives from perceived quality and not from quality in an objective sense . This

effect of country image might influence the perception of the objective evaluation of attributes

from food imported from developing countries (compared to developed countries), due the

relationship inferred from economical development and quality standards (Juric & Worsley,

1998; Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2004).

2.3.4 Ethnocentrism

According to various studies, the cause of the appearance of COO effect can be found in

consumer ethnocentrism (CE) (Lantz & Loeb, 1996). The concept of ethnocentrism started from

the concept we-group feelings, where the in-group is the focal point and all out-groups are

judged in relation to it (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2004). The origin of this concept was

introduced by William Graham Sumner (1906) who referred to ethnocentrism as “the technical

pg. 25

name for the view of things in which one’s own group is the centre of everything, and all others

are scaled and rated with reference to it” (Graham Sumner, 1906).

According to Shimp & Sharma (1987), consumer’s ethnocentrism serves as an important

motivation for the decision to purchase domestic products. It acts as a reference and influence

consumers’ judgments of the morality of purchasing foreign made products. Consumer

ethnocentrism has been positively related to consumer preference for domestic products, and

negatively related to preference for foreign products (Shimp & Sharma, 1987). This indicates

that the perceived morality of purchasing foreign (vs. domestic) products has an impact on

consumers’ product attitudes. Researchers such as Juric and Worsley (1998) suggest that

ethnocentrism, should be included as an important characteristic in studies regarding consumer

choice of foreign products, but that other independent or moderating variables should be

included as predictors of consumers' perceptions of foreign food products in future research-

variables such as consumers' perceptions of people from a particular country, familiarity with

that country and that country's products, their personal values, political convictions or risk

attitudes.

Ehmke et al. (2008) found that subjects do prefer food from their own country, but the

importance of own COO is relative to other product attributes and is not consistent across

locations, and these preferences can be influenced by the information given to the public and

in accordance with the government’s regulation.

Juric and Worsley (1998) affirmed that consumers use general country attitudes to

evaluate taste of the unfamiliar products and that consumers' ethnocentrism may have a

significant role in the purchase of foreign products compared to domestic ones. Choice

experiments (Juric & Worsley, 1998; van der Lans, van Ittersum, De Cicco, & Loseby, 2001;

Alfnes, 2004; Ehmke, Lusk, & Tyner, 2008) as well as other studies (Orth & Firbasová, 2003) have

demonstrated that consumers tend to prefer food from culturally similar countries of origin,

indicating ethnocentric tendencies.

In the present study we will refer to CE in a context of the beliefs from Belgian

consumers about the economic environment and product’s quality similarities as result of

beliefs held about appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made products.

pg. 26

Country of origin, as an information cue, has been related to activate ethnocentric

behaviour and the antecedent knowledge of consumers, which subsequently affect the

interpretation and evaluation of product attributes, it is therefore of importance to understand

these relationships (Chryssochoidis, Krystallis, & Perreas, 2007).

2.4 Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for meat commodity: Legal Framework

Nutrition labeling is one example of a population-based approach aimed at helping to

make the food selection environment more conducive to healthy choices by providing

information to consumers about the nutrient content of a food (Cowburn & Stockley, 2004). In

the European Union the organism in charge to regulate labeling the country of origin of a food

are the European Council and Parliament, together with the Commission the European Food

Safety Agency.

The Regulation of the EU No. 1169/2011 indicates that the country of origin or the place

of provenance of a food should be provided whenever its absence is likely to mislead consumers

as to the true country of origin or place of provenance of that product. Such criteria should not

apply to indications related to the name or address of the food business operator (EU, No.

1169/2011).

The EU legislation is clear about the case labeling COO of pre-packaged poultry meat and

fresh poultry meat, being mandatory when imported from third countries (EU, No 543/2008).

During the research of legislation for poultry meat in EU we could found specifications for

imported poultry meat, but not knowing if COOL is mandatory for domestic poultry meat, either

specification other type of poultry.

There is a new proposal of legislation (Regulation EU 1169/2011) that imposes that by 13

December 2013, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the

Council regarding the mandatory indication of COO or place of provenance for meat used as an

ingredient. This regulation imposes that: (a) the COO or place of provenance of the primary

ingredient in question shall also be given; or (b) the COO or place of provenance of the primary

ingredient shall be indicated as being different to that of the food. This regulation impose that

pg. 27

will be mandatory to indicate the place of birth; the place of rearing; and the place of slaughter,

being applied for all agricultural products and foodstuffs, including chicken meat as poultry. This

will apply for all origins, domestic and imported.

To be able to compare current food legislations, we look at legislation from other

developed country. We found that in USA the Agricultural Marketing Agency is the organism in

charge of the administration and enforcement of COOL. In 2007 was released the latest final

rule for all food commodities combined (CFR 60 and 65), in this regulation is described who has

to label and how has to be labeled different food commodities. However is not an easy task for

consumers to discriminate through this information.

For example Country of Origin Notification for Muscle Cuts. “Under the August 1, 2008,

interim final rule, if an animal was born, raised, and/or slaughtered in the United States and was

not imported for immediate slaughter as defined in § 65.180, the origin of the resulting meat

products derived from that animal could have been designated as product of the United States,

Country X, and/or (as applicable) Country Y, where Country X and Country Y represent the actual

or possible countries of foreign origin” (Fig. 4). As European Union does, the USDA also has

attempt to label and identify food that is been produced or not in their territory, however when

is written that if the animal is slaughter in the USA territory but not if imported for slaughtering,

becomes a confusing identification of the food product, how many months do the animal has to

enter in the territory in order to be consider as USA product, and even if the product is

identified as requested with several (if necessary) countries of origin, how is this going to affect

food preferences and consumer behaviour. It is due all of these factors that several studies are

needed in order to estimate the effect that these regulations have in different countries and in

the global market.

pg. 28

Figure 4. Example of Country of Origin Labeling in a Food Product

2.4.1 Communication and consumers

Communication and information provision efforts can have an impact in terms of

changing consumers’ knowledge, shaping their attitudes and redirecting their decision making,

including food choices and dietary preferences. Due to the high demand of information by the

consumers, food industry has to seek ways to offer guarantee concerning food quality and food

safety, but consumers are not only looking for a guarantee of food safety, they also are looking

for a better health, price-quality relation, to know about the origin of the product and the way

of how is been produced and processed, and all these factors are as well, under the influence of

the quantity and quality of information consumers receive through the public media, but as well

through their own governments or official reports. Some of the labeling information is used

some of the time, but circumstances dictate which details are used at one time, different people

look for different things, and buying decisions are less to be swayed by labeling than by factors

such as quality, value and price (Turner, 1995; Knight, Holdsworth, & Mather, 2007).

2.4.2 Consumer’s Responses

The present master thesis attempt to investigate and confirm through hypothesis and

results the importance given by the consumer to COO as food attribute.

pg. 29

Selling and purchasing food, one of the most basic commodities, used to be an everyday

social experience, but because of the development of the industries and the scarcity of time it

has become an anonymous process with minimal personal interaction, even without any face-

to-face contact when shopping on the internet. Most of the purchases for food items and other

products, at least in urbanized areas in developed and some developing countries, are done in

supermarkets where there is little interaction between staff and customers and where the

consumers have no much time to invest about the origin and method of production from the

food they purchase. Food attributes then, can be determinant in de final purchase decision.

COO labeling can provide consumers with additional information to make informed

choices about the food they wish to purchase and consume (TACD, 2008). To understand

consumer’s behaviour, it is needed an analysis that interprets the conduct occurring at the

intersection of the individual’s learning history and the consumer setting, as well as the signals,

utilitarian and informational consequences associated with consumption-related responses

(Foxall, Oliveira-Castro, James, & Schrezenmaier, 2011), it is important therefore to pay

attention to marketing research.

pg. 30

CHAPTER 3 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Study Design and Subjects

Survey data were collected through self-administered web-based questionnaires during

November 2011 in Flanders. Questionnaires were pretested. Participants were randomly

selected from consumer access panel “thesistools”. The master questionnaire was developed in

English and translated to Flemish.

The total sample consisted of 542 respondents (Table 4). The sample comprised a wide

socio-demographic variety. Compared to census data, our sample consists of a higher share of

males (+5%) (Belgium, 2012). The age of the respondents ranged from 20 to 84 years, with an

average age of 48.84 years (SD = 13.31), which is somewhat above the population’s average age

(43.6 years). With regard to household size an oversampling of families with 2-3 members was

encountered. Concerning living environment, we created three categories measured on a Likert

scale that went from 1, closest to rural, and 7, closest to urban, obtaining two main groups,

where closer to urban population predominated. Equal sampling of the provinces Flemish

Brabant, Antwerp, West Flanders, East Flanders, and Brussels Capital Region were presented.

Regarding nationality of parents, the sample presented a predomination of both Belgian

parents. With regard to family financial situation and educational level, an oversampling of

higher educated people with a better than average financial situation was found in the sample.

Regarding food purchase responsibility, the majority of the sample participated in these

activities, while only 12.9% was not participating in food purchase.

In addition, the percentage of vegetarians in the study is reported. Strictly speaking,

vegetarianism is the practice of following a diet that excludes meat (including slaughtered by-

products; fish, shellfish, other sea animals; and poultry). However, vegetarianism has several

variants, some of which are more flexible and include fish (pescetarianism) or stricter and

exclude eggs and dairy products on top of the meat (veganism). In this study, vegetarians are

referred as to the three previous categories (veganism, pescetarianism, vegeterianism). Given

pg. 31

the study purpose, it will be important to consider this group separately, especially for analyses

concerning the consumption of chicken meat.

Table 4. Selected socio-demographic characteristics of the sample (n=542)

Structure of the Sample Census*

Gender (%) Male 53,7

Female 46,3

Age (%) 20-30 12,0 31-40 14,6 41-50 23,5 51-60 30,9 >60 18,9

Household size (%) Single household 11,3 Family with 2-3 members 55,2 Family with 4-5 members 29,4 Family with 6-7 members 4,1 Mean (SD) 2,92 (1,36)

Residence (%) Closer to rural 48,0 Middle category 9,7 Closer to urban 42,4 Mean (SD) 3,92 (2,10)

Province (%) Brussels Capital Region 3,7 10 Flemish Brabant 15,8 10 Antwerp 31,5 16 Limburg 8,9 8 West Flanders 16,2 11 East Flanders 23,8 13

Nationality of parents (%) Both parents were Belgian 92,8 At least one parent was foreigner 7,2

Financial Situation (%) Below average 7,8 Average 32,2 Better than average 60,0

Educational Level (%) Primary school 3,1 High school 23,8 Higher education (no universitary) 40,1 Higher education (university) 32,9

Responsible for food purchase (%) Main responsible 44,3 Shared responsibility 42,8 Other person does the food purchase 12,9

Meat consumer profile (%) Vegetarian 5,2 Mostly Vegetarian 12,0 Mostly meat 58,9 Almost always meat 24,0

Chicken Consumption frequency (%) Never 5,0 Less than Monthly 4,6 Monthly 14,4 Weekly 59,8

pg. 32

2-4 times per week 15,3 Daily 0,9

*Source: FOD Economie. Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie, Structuur van de bevolking.

3.3 Questionnaire and Scales

First, variables representing the socio-demographic characteristics were included.

Respondents were asked about their gender, age, number of household members and zipcode.

Within demographics variables living environment was assessed by a seven-point interval scale

ranging from “rural” to “urban”. Education level was assessed by a 4 categories scale that

included: “Diploma from primary school”, “Diploma from High School”, “Diploma College (no

University)”, and “University Diploma”. Nationality of parents was assessed by three open

questions that participants had to fill in related to own, father and mother nationalities. The

variables exposed in the previous three parts contributed to profiling segments for the further

analysis. Self-perceived financial situation was probed by a 7 categories scale, with value 1 as

“difficult”, value 4 “average” and value 7 “wealthy”.

Second, meat consumption was assessed of seven categories starting from “vegetarian”

(those who eat no animal products, those who eat no meat but eggs, dairy and milk, and those

who ate no meat but fish, dairy and milk), followed by those who are “mostly vegetarian” (but

eat meat sometimes), who “mostly eat meat”, and those who “eat meat almost always”.

Frequency of chicken meat consumption was assessed by a frequency scale with six categories,

as following: “never”, “less than monthly”, “monthly”, “weekly”, “2 to 4 times per week”, “daily

or almost daily”. Responsibility for the food purchase within the family was assessed by three

categories possibilities: “I am the main responsible”, “I share responsibility”, and “Other people

in my family are responsible”.

Third, 10 product attributes were probed for their perceived importance (PI) in the food

purchasing decision process of chicken on a seven-point interval scale ranging from “totally

unimportant” to “very important”. The product attributes were: quality, taste, origin (domestic

or imported), price, appearance, freshness, environmental friendliness, availability, animal

welfare, and easy to prepare. PI reflects the individuals’ reaction from a consumer perspective,

i.e. someone who has to weigh and evaluate different product attributes before coming to a

pg. 33

purchase decision. The PI contributed to assess the importance given by consumers to intrinsic

(quality, taste, freshness, appearance) and extrinsic (origin, price, environmental friendliness,

availability, animal welfare, and easy to prepare) food attributes.

Fourth, a measurement for preference between Belgian vs. Brazilian chicken meat was

assessed by a seven categories scale, starting from “Strong preference for Brazilian chicken

meat”, “preference for Brazilian chicken meat”, “Light preference for Brazilian chicken meat” to

“No preference”.

Fifth, comparison in terms of product attributes was measured through the following

statement: “Compared to Belgium, how would you evaluate the chicken meat imported from

Brazil in respect to the following attributes: nutrition value, safety, quality, taste, price, value for

money, freshness, availability” was used. This item was measured on a seven-point interval scale

anchored at the left pole by “much worse” and at the right pole by “much better”, with “equal”

as the mid-point of the scale. This third measure is much more a public opinion, which is

presumed to be held rather independent of the consumption decisions. These statements

provided information relevant to assess the importance of country of origin in relation to

perception of extrinsic and intrinsic food attributes from a domestic vs. an imported product.

Sixth, comparison in terms of production characteristics was evaluated through the

following statement: “Compared to chicken production in Belgium, how would you evaluate the

chicken meat production in Brazil in respect to the following conditions: animal welfare, working

conditions, hygiene, quality standards, environment friendliness, use from hormones and

antibiotics” was used. This was scored on a seven-point interval scale anchored at the left pole

by “much worst in Brazil” and at the right pole by “much better in Brazil”, with “equal” as the

mid-point of the scale. Fourth, a scale that assessed to evaluate the perception of Belgian

consumers about the scale of operation from Brazilian chicken compared to Belgian, this was

scored on a seven-point interval scale anchored at the left pole by “much smaller” and at the

right pole by “much bigger”. This evaluation provided information about perception of

similarities in production practices.

Seventh, similarities in consumer’s willingness to pay for chicken meat of the following

countries was assessed: Brazil, Belgium, France, Sweden, China and USA, using a seven-point

pg. 34

interval scale anchored at the left pole by “totally not prepared” and at the right pole by

“strongly prepared”. This question aimed to compare consumer´s perception

similarities/disparities among countries. Similarities in WTP between BR vs. BE chicken meat was

assessed by the question ‘how much would you be prepared to pay for the following products’:

“Chicken from Brazil instead chicken from Belgium”, “Processed chicken products from Brazil

instead processed products from Belgium (ex. grounded)”, “Chicken meat with a label ‘produced

in Belgium’ instead a not labeled chicken meat”; this was scored on a seven-point interval scale

anchored at the left pole by “Much Less” and at the right pole by “Much more”. This question

contributed to evaluate social similarities and ethnocentric preferences.

Eight, political, economic and cultural similarities among both countries, BE vs. BR was

assessed on a 7 levels two-pole scale, going from “No similarity” to “Strong similarity”. Economic

development perception was assessed using two relevant items on a 7 levels two-pole scale,

going from “Low grade of economic development” to “High grade of economic development”,

for both countries, Belgium and Brazil. It has been found that when there is higher similarity

between countries of origin there is less difference in preference of products from the same

group, these questions attempt to assess the relationship between COO similarities and

consumer’s perception.

Ninth, ethnocentric attitude to Belgian products were assessed by 4 statements, “It is

always better to buy Belgian products”, “Even if it is more expensive, I still choose to buy Belgian

products”, We should buy products from other countries only if we cannot get them in our

country”, “The quality of local products is equal to the imported products”, “Local food products

are safer”. This was assessed by a on a 7 levels two-pole scale, going from “Totally disagree” to

“Totally agree”. Several studies have found that consumer’s preference might be influenced by

their cognitive, normative and affective mechanism towards products, giving as result

preference to domestic above foreigner products (known as ethnocentric behaviour). This

question contributed to assess ethnocentric preferences.

Tenth, consumer interest toward foreign cultures was assessed through the following

affirmations: “I read a lot about other cultures”, “I have a lot of friends from other countries”, “I

travel a lot”, “I follow the international news”, this was done on a 7 levels two-pole scale, going

pg. 35

from “Totally disagree” to “Strongly agree”. Previous research have found that there is a

relationship between interest and contact with foreign cultures and consumer’s evaluation

towards foreign products. This information attempts to relate ethnocentric preferences and

COO theory.

Eleventh, awareness of presence of Brazilian chicken meat on the Belgian market was

assessed by a three possibilities category, as following: “no idea”, “no” and “yes”, followed by

an open question; “percentage if answered ‘yes’”. Familiarity Brazil was assessed by a 7 levels

two-pole scale, going from “Totally not confident” to “A lot of confidence”. This information

contributed to assess awareness of consumers.

Twelfth, willingness to pay for food labeling from BR and BE chicken products was

assessed by a 7 categories scale with the following question “How much would you be ready to

pay for the next chicken products”: with the following options, “chicken from BR instead chicken

of BE”, “processed chicken products from BR instead processed chicken products from BE” and

“chicken filet with a label ‘produced in BE’ instead a non-labeled chicken filet.

3.4 Analyses procedures

Data were analyzed using SPSS 19.0. Bivariate analyses including cross-tabulation with

Chi2-statisitics, Independent Samples T-test and One-Way ANOVA comparison of means with

Tukey post hoc tests at 95% confidence were used to profile the segments in terms of socio-

demographics, and interval-scaled attitudinal questions. Exploratory factor analysis was applied

to find underlying dimensions in the data. Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure the reliability

of the factor analysis outcome.

Given the large sample size and very low numbers of missing responses, pairwise deletion

was used as the method for treating missing values in some variables.

pg. 36

CHAPTER 4

4. RESULTS

4.1 Data Editing

Before starting the analysis, different computations were performed in order to make the

data appropriate for testing the hypotheses. Data set variables were grouped by adding values

to dichotomal variables, such as gender, and for nationality, different nationality than Belgian,

was characterized as foreigner. In order to analyse importance of COO a relative value was

computed. Missing values were not taken into account in the statistical analysis of general

importance given to food attributes, but they were substituted by mean values in the evaluation

of the relative value for COO.

Exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis was performed on the pooled sample to

group similar variables in constructs. Factor 1 includes the items that refer to the importance

attached to the consumption of domestic products over imported products, and will further be

referred as “Ethnocentrism”. Factor 2 includes to the evaluation of political, economical and

cultural similarities between BE and BR, will be further referred as “Similarity index” (Table 5).

Factor 3, further referred as “interest in foreign cultures” grouped self reported evaluation of

respondents about affirmation such as ‘I read over other cultures’, ‘I have foreign friends’, ‘I

travel a lot’ and ‘I follow international news’ (Table 6). The reliabilities of the ethnocentrism,

similarity index and interest in foreign cultures were assessed using Cronbach’s α. The three of

them, ethnocentrism (α = 0.79), similarity index (α = 0.80) and interest in foreign cultures (α =

0.79) had sufficient internal reliability consistency. Consequently, respondent’s aggregate scores

on the three factors were calculated to be used as classification (segmentation) variables in

subsequent quartiles analysis (see 4.3 and 4.4)

In order to compute the relative importance of COO an equation was calculated and the

sample was split in four quartiles.

pg. 37

A new variable that reflects the perceived difference in economic development between

Belgium and Brazil was computed by substracting the perceived score for the level of economic

development in Brazil from the percevied score for the level of economic development in

Belgium.

Table 5. Factor loading from principal components analysis for evaluation of knowledge and

ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism Similarity index

Political knowledge -0.11 0.85 Economical knowledge -0.07 0.85 Cultural knowledge -0.03 0.81 Is always better to buy BE products 0.89 0.00 Even if more expensive, 0.90 0.03 I rather to buy BE products We should buy only imported products 0.79 -0.12 when we cannot produce them The quality of the local products is 0.42 -0.07 the same as the imported products Local food products are more safe 0.68 -0.10 % Variance explained 37.72 24.97 Cronbach’s α internal reliability 0.79 0.80

Table 6. Factor loading from principal components analysis for evaluation of interest in foreign

cultures

Interest in foreign culture

I read over other cultures 0.86 I have foreigners friends 0.81 I travel a lot 0.78 I follow international news 0.70 % Variance explained 62.05 Cronbach’s α internal reliability 0.79

pg. 38

4.2 Profiling Variables

After respondents were asked about the importance of a list of chicken meat attributes

means and standard deviation were classified and presented in descendent order, finding as the

three most important freshness, quality and taste. Country of origin on the other hand ranked

last (see Table 7). According to literature, it is often found that different cues are considered

relatively unimportant to the consumer while others are extremely important (Verbeke & Ward,

2003). Those cues that directly address to the quality consistently receive the highest scores

(such as freshness, quality, taste, appearance). The findings of the importance given to intrinsic

attributes (e.g. appearance, colour, leanless, shape, presentation), suggest that consumers will

use these attributes to infer quality of a product among the most important, while extrinsic

attributes (e.g. price, brand name, stamp of quality, country of origin, store, production

information, nutritional information) will only be determinant for final purchase when extra

information is sought. (Issanchau, 1996; Becker, 1999; Becker, 2000; Dransfield, et al., 2005;

Grunert & Wills, 2007). In the general evaluation of quality’s food attributes, freshness

constituted the most important. This is correlated with findings that show that food safety

represents the most important food attribute for meat products (Verbeke & Viaene, 1999),

being freshness related to safety. COO has been found to play a determinant role in consumer’s

preferences when studied as single product attribute (Roosen, Lusk, & Fox, 2003; Bolliger &

Réviron, 2008; Becker, 1999; Steenkamp, ter Hofstede, & Wedel, 1999; Pouta, Heikkilä,

Forsman-Hugg, Isoniemi, & Mäkelä, 2010), but it has also been found that this value tend to

decrease when studied together with other attributes, which is confirmed in our findings (Juric

& Worsley, 1998; Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999).

pg. 39

Table 7. Mean scores and standard deviation on a 7 point scale that ranged from (1) ‘Totally

unimportant’ to ‘Strictly important’

Product attributes Mean SD

Freshness 6,45 1,01 Quality 6,14 1,08 Taste 6,10 1,07 Appearance (color, texture, etc.) 5,66 1,34 Environmental friendliness 5,18 1,59 Animal Welfare 5,17 1,62 Availability 4,96 1,44 Preparation (ex. Easy to prepare) 4,81 1,53 Price 4,64 1,53 Country of Origin (domestic vs. imported) 4,52 1,89

4.2 Segmentation of variables

First, we created a new variable based on the original variables that measured the

importance of ten (10) different food products attributes. This new variable represents the

importance of COO relative to other food product attributes. Based on the ranges obtained

from Relative Importance of Country of Origin (RICOO), quartile splitting was performed. RICOO

was computed using the following formula:

Since perceived importance has little meaning in absolute terms, a relative score was

also computed for each of the 9 other product attributes assessed by the respondents. An RI

score below the value of 1 indicates that the specific product attribute ranks among the less

important product attributes, while a score above 1 corresponds with a relatively important

product attribute. As the focus will be on the relative perceived importance of COO, we will use

the abbreviation RICOO in further discussion as reference for the relative perceived importance

score assigned to the attribute COO. RICOO ranges from 0.18 to 2.06 within the sample, with a

mean score of 0.98 (SD=0.23) for the pooled sample.

Second, to create ‘segments’ we used RICOO value as reference, allowing us to split the

sample in 4 segments (quartiles) of equal size. Quartile 1 (Q1); ranging from 0.18-0.60, was

pg. 40

represented by 24,0% of the sample corresponding to respondents who are, when ranked

according to their RICOO value, among the 0-25 percent lowest. Quartile 2 (Q2); ranging from

0.61-0.85, represent 24,7% of the sample corresponding to respondents who are, when ranked

according to their RICOO value, among the 25-50 percent lowest. Quartile 3 (Q3); ranging from

0.86-1.04, represented with 25,6% of the sample, corresponding to respondents who are, when

ranked according to their RICOO value, among the 0-25 percent highest. Quartile 4 (Q4;) ranging

from 1.05-2.06, represent 25,6% of the sample, corresponding to respondents who are, when

ranked according to their RICOO value, among the 25-50 percent highest.

Mean values and SD for RICOO quartiles are presented in table 8.

Table 8. Relative Importance of Country of Origin for Quartiles

RICOO Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Range 0.18-0.60 0.61-0.85 0.86-1.04 1.05-2.06 Mean 0,39 0,75 0,96 1,18 SD 0,14 0,70 0,55 0,13

Third, the socio-structural profiling of quartiles segmentation variables correspond to

socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age, education, household size, living environment,

province, nationality of parents, financial situation, and educational level), as well to variables

related to meat consumption profile, chicken consumption frequency, responsibility for food

purchase and preference for BR vs. BE chicken meat (Table 9). With regard to gender variable

(Chi2=9.24 p-value=0.03), we found that gender distribution was not equal among all quartiles.

In Q1 relative to the others we found more males. Q2, Q3 and Q4 presented minor deviation

among gender, females slightly more present in Q2 and Q4.

For the distribution of age groups we found that not all groups were equally distributed

(Chi2=26.95 p-value=0.01). Q1 is composed of a significant low amount of people aged >60,

while we found a slight overrepresentation of the 51-60 age categories. For Q2, we found a

slightly lower representation in the age category 30-40 and 51-60, while slightly

overrepresented in the age category below 30 and above 60 . For the Q3 we found relatively

low amount of people for the category <30 and a slight overrepresentation of 51-60 years old

category. For the Q4 we found a lower representation in the 2 youngest categories.

pg. 41

Regarding meat consumer profile we found that Q4 presented the highest percentage of

vegetarians and mostly vegetarian respondents respect to the distribution for the whole

sample. All four (4) quartiles were highly represented by percentages of consumers that eat

mostly meat.

Differences among quartiles Q1, Q2, and Q3 were found for frequency of chicken meat

consumption, no differences were encountered between Q3 and Q4. With respect to household

members and living environment no significant differences were found among quartiles.

With respect to the distribution of provinces within quartiles, for Q1 we found a slightly

higher representation of Flemish Brabant inhabitants. For Q2 we found a slight higher

representation for Antwerp province and slight lower representation of Limburg province. In Q3

we found a slight lower representation of Brussels Capital Region. In Q4 a significant higher

representation of Brussels Capital Region was found, a less significant but also higher

representation of Limburg and West Flanders provinces, while a slight lower representation of

Antwerp province. For nationality of parents, as expected, the highest percentage of

respondents had both parents Belgians.

Regarding financial situation, we found a high percentage of self-perceived better than

average financial situation, only Q3 presented a slight lower representation and a slight greater

representation of self-perceived average financial situation. With respect to educational level

also for Q3 a slight lower representation was found for higher education, while a slight higher

representation for basic education, for Q1, Q2 and Q4 higher education predominated as

educational level. Regarding responsibility for food purchase Q1 presented a slight lower

representation of main responsibility, and a slight higher representation of other person doing

the food purchase. Q4, presented the opposite as Q1, slight higher representation of main

responsibility and slight lower representation for other person doing the food purchase.

Differences among quartiles were found for preference of BR vs. BE chicken meat,

ascending values found that Q1 preferred less BE chicken meat while Q4 preferred it the most.

pg. 42

Table 9. Socio-demographic profiling of Quartiles

Socio-structural Sample Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value Location

Gender (%) 0.03 Male 53.7 63.8 47.0 55.5 48.9

Groups of age (%) 0.01 Age<30 12.0 14.7 16.4 6.5 10.8 30-40 14.6 18.6 11.2 15.2 13.7 41-50 23.5 22.5 22.4 22.5 26.6 51-60 30.9 36.4 26.1 36.2 25.2 >60 18.9 7.8 23.9 19.6 23.7

Meat consumer profile (%) 0.00 Vegetarian 5.2 4.6 3.7 3.6 8.6 Mostly Vegetarian 12.0 5.4 9.0 10.8 22.3 Mostly meat 58.9 61.5 67.2 59.0 48.2 Almost always meat 24.0 28.5 20.1 26.6 20.9

Mean Frequency of chicken 3.79(+0.96) 4.03

a(+0.93) 3.87

b(+0.93) 3.72

c(+0.85) 3.54

c(+1.06) 0.00

meat consumption

Mean Household members 2.92(+1.37) 2.99(+1.33) 2.99(+1.44) 2.91(+1.43) 2.79(+1.27) 0.58

Mean Living environment 3.92(+2.1) 3.87(+1.97) 4.14(+2.16) 3.93(+1.99) 3.75(+2.27) 0.47

Province (%) Sample(%) Census(%)1

Brussels Capital Region 3.7 3.1 2.3 1.5 7.9 10 Flemish Brabant 15.8 20.3 16.5 12.4 14.4 10

Antwerp 31.5 29.7 39.8 32.8 23.7 16 Limburg 8.9 8.6 4.5 9.5 12.9 8

West Flanders 16.2 15.6 12.0 18.2 18.7 11 East Flanders 23.8 22.7 24.8 25.5 22.3 13

Nationality of parents (%) Sample 0.46 Both parents Belgians 92.8 86.9 91.8 92.1 90.6 At least one foreigner 7.2 13.1 8.2 7.9 9.4 parent

Financial Situation (%) Sample 0.45 Below average 7.8 6.2 9.8 7.2 8.0 Average 32.2 31.5 27.1 39.1 30.7 Better than average 60.0 62.3 63.2 53.6 61.3

Educational Level(%) Sample 0.34 Basic Education 27.0 23.1 26.1 32.6 25.9 Higher Education 73.0 76.9 73.9 67.4 74.1

Responsible for food Sample 0.09 Purchase (%) Main responsible for 44.3 34.6 46.3 44.6 51.1 food purchase Shared responsibility 42.8 46.9 40.3 43.2 41.0 In food purchase Other person does 12.9 18.5 13.4 12.2 7.9 the food purchase

BR vs. BE preference Mean

pg. 43

Preference BR vs. BE Chicken meat 5.64(+1.23) 4.97

a(+1.09) 5.33

b(+1.15) 6.05

c(+1.13) 6.17

c(+1.15) 0.00

a-b-c Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05 (1-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey multiple comparison test). 1 Source: FOD Economie. Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie, Structuur van de bevolking.

As summary from socio-demographic profiling we found that Q4 correspond the group

that give the highest score when evaluating RICOO, presenting a bigger percentage in the 2

older age categories, as well as main responsibility for food purchase and higher education,

which has been found to be relevant to COO preferences.

While evaluating consumer’s preferences several researchers have found that in order to

establish a more specific link is important to identify groups with similar characteristics, because

these similarities may explain favoritism towards products. For example, in their review Bilkey

and Nes (1982) found that there were differences between groups (eg, students versus non-

students, end-consumers versus industrial buyers) towards products of a specific country, as

well as differences among groups when methodological settings vary (eg, single vs. multiple cue

studies). Baughn and Yaprak (1993) reported that age is often associated with foreign product

acceptance, with younger consumers demonstrating more positive attitudes towards foreign

products. In our findings the group that score higher for preference of BE over BR chicken meat

was composed mostly for people older than 41 years old. This could be explained by the fact

that people from these ages categories are mostly in control of the type of food they purchase,

they may have bigger concerns about food safety and might be less world minded than younger

consumers who display a lower level of prejudice towards foreign products (Rawwas, Rajendran,

& Wuehrer, 2002). It has been also discussed that consumers with a better financial situation

and level of education seek for further information when selecting food products, and that COO

could be a positive or negative determinant when purchasing products (Han & Terpstra, 1998;

Ahmed & d’Astous, 2002). The same quartile also correlate to these findings, the level of their

preference for BE vs. BR chicken meat could be explained by the fact that these consumers

rather to consume a local product already known (assuming quality standards of BE) than an

imported product that they may consider unknown, and from which is difficult to evaluate due

the lack of information about the product, relaying in made in BE. The previous findings support

pg. 44

our Hypothesis 1: Segments with a different level of importance attached to COO differ in terms

of socio-demographics characteristics, meat consumption type and frequency of meat

consumption

Attributes were evaluated according to their absolute scores and listed in descendent

way. Means were compared among quartiles and differences of perception of importance for

each attribute were obtained. We noticed that there is a higher similarity in the perception of

the importance of these attributes among Q3 and Q4, which may be also correlated to the

similarity in their socio-demographics (Table 10). Our findings are a reflection of previous

results that confirm that attitudes toward COO are influenced by cultural and areal proximity

(Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Juric & Worsley, 1998; Bolliger & Réviron, 2008).

Table 10. Comparison among quartiles of RI scores of food attributes of BE vs. BR chicken

meat

Food product attributes Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value

Quality 5,85a 6,12a 6,23b 6,32b 0.00

Taste 5,88a 6,10a 6,16b 6,25b 0.03 Price 4,12a 4,63b 4,72b 5,11c 0.00 Appearance 5,35a 5,56a 5,81b 5,91b 0.00 Environmental friendliness 4,10a 5,09b 5,56c 5,90c 0.00 Animal Welfare 4,35a 5,20b 5,48b 5,58b 0.00 Facility to make 4,41a 4,93b 4,94b 4,98b 0.00 a-b-c-d Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05 (1-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey multiple comparison test).

4.3 COO and Country image

4.3.1 Product perception BE vs. BR

In order to evaluate perception of the product, eight (8) different food attributes from BR

vs. BE chicken meat were evaluated, finding that the attributes that received the highest scores

were price, nutrition value, value for money and taste. This means that respondents perceived

Belgian chicken meat to be better on these attributes as compared to Brazilian chicken meat,

being evaluated to be worse in terms of food safety and freshness (Fig 5). These results are

pg. 45

supported by previous findings that affirm that as an extrinsic attribute, COO has an influence

on consumers’ perceptions of a product’s quality and of its attributes, providing a heuristic basis

for inferring the quality of the product without (sometimes) considering other attributes

information. It appears that subjects transfer the product's COO to its specific attributes

increasing the influence of COO on product evaluations (Schooler, 1971; Bilkey & Nes, 1982;

Hong & Wyer Jr., 1989; Wall, Liefeld, & Heslop, 1991; Ahmed & d’Astous, 2002).

Figure 5. Evaluation of product attributes of Brazilian versus Belgian meat

4.3.2 Production methods perception BE vs. BR

Respondents were asked about their perception of chicken meat production conditions

in Brazil compared to Belgium. Results show that all attributes evaluated scored lower for

Brazilian than the average for chicken meat production within this scale, being the lowest

(perceived as worse) working conditions (mean = 2.4 + 1.17) (table 4).

3.68

2.96

3.37

3.64

4.37

3.66

3

3.38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Nutrition

Safety

Quality

Taste

Price

Value/money

Freshness

Availability

Values

Qu

alit

y at

trib

ute

s

BE BR

much worse bit equal bit better much worse worse better better

pg. 46

Figure 6. Evaluation of Brazilian Chicken Meat Production (means)

Appears to be that consumers evaluate attributes based on the country image, but this

evaluation is also related to the country image perception depending of product categories.

Pouta et al. (2010) studied COO and production methods for meat, finding that although

production methods were significant, compared to COO was minor since consumers prefered

domestic or neighbour countries products, denoting a bigger influence from COO, which

correspond to same findings that we have (Pouta, Heikkilä, Forsman-Hugg, Isoniemi, & Mäkelä,

2010). Respect to product categories, for example, Nagashima (1970) and Narayana (1981)

found differences in country image perception between Japanese and USA consumers, which

positioned USA products always in the first place. It is possible that Brazilian meat does not

belong to a category well known by Belgian consumers, and that stereotyping categories could

explain how consumers react to COO information and to the evaluation of products from

foreign countries affecting the cognitive processing of other product-related cues. (Nagashima,

1970; Narayana, 1981; Roth & Romeo, 1992; Knight & Calantone, 2000; Ahmed & d’Astous,

2002). It has been discussed that COO seems to have an effect in the perception of the risk and

perceived value of the product (Ahmed & d’Astous, 2002). Our findings correlate positively with

2.76

2.4

2.67

2.84

2.71

2.91

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Welfare

Working conditions

Hygiene

Quality Std.

Enviromental Friendly

Use of Hormones/Antib.

Values

Pro

du

ctio

n C

on

dit

ion

s

Much worst in BR

Much better in BR

pg. 47

the findings that affirm that consumers tend to evaluate attributes based on the country image,

relating the degree of development where this product has been produced/manufactured, and

that when a product comes from a less developed than their own, they may evaluate these

products with lower scores (Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Erickson, Johansson, & Chao, 1984) (Erickson,

Johansson, & Chao, 1984). The previous findings support our Hypothesis 2: Differences exist

between consumers' evaluation of Belgian and Brazilian chicken meat and chicken meat

production.

4.3.3 Perception of broiler chicken farms size BE vs. BR

Perception of broiler chicken farm size was assessed obtaining a mean of 5.03 (SD+ 1.6)

for the whole sample, indicating that respondents believed Brazilian chicken farms to be bigger

It is possible that consumers beliefs are related to the high score given by respondents to BR

broiler chicken farms. It has been discussed that beliefs can be descriptive (direct experience

with the product, physical characteristics with product perceptions), informational (influenced

by outside sources of information such as advertising, friends, relatives), and/or inferential

(what consumers inferred, whether correctly or not) (Erickson, Johansson, & Chao, 1984) and

this may explain why consumers perceive that BR broiler farms are bigger, possibly because

they have information about geographical extension compared to BE, because they have

received information through friends, media, etc., or because they infer that due the proportion

compared to BE, BR farms are bigger. No significant difference was found among quartiles (p-

value = 0.34).

4.4 COO and Ethnocentrism

Preference for chicken meat from BR vs. BE origin was assessed obtaining a mean of 5,64

(+1,23) for the full sample, denoting with this a strong preference for BE over BR chicken meat.

Regarding assessment of preference for BR vs. BE chicken meat among quartiles, we

found that quartiles Q1, Q2 and Q3 appeared to have different preference for BR chicken meat

pg. 48

going from more to less. On the other hand no significant difference was encountered between

Q3 and Q4, presenting the higher preference for BE chicken meat (Table 11). None of the

quartiles score higher for BR chicken meat, corresponding on a positive way to COO theory that

propose that consumers prefer domestic to imported products.

Different works have stated that ethnocentric consumers tend to reject people, symbols,

values and products that are culturally dissimilar, while those of one’s own culture may become

objects of attachment and pride. Therefore, it is possible that members of a subculture would

tend to evaluate more favorably products from foreign countries with which they have cultural

ties. These preferences may be explained by similar traditions, lifestyles, customs, language and

even law systems (Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Bergeron, 2003). For example Heslop

et al. (1989), found that English Canadian preferred British products more than French

Canadian, confirming their hypothesis over ethnically affiliated origins, meaning this that

ethnocentrism may have a significant role in the purchase of foreign products compared to

domestic ones. Schooler (1971) postulated that with some consumers the negative

predisposition against a foreign product was of sufficient intensity to make the product totally

unacceptable, and that with other consumers the bias simply resulted in a lowering of perceived

quality, in which case a compensating price concession might reestablish the value comparable

to that offered by the domestic good. (Schooler, 1971; Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Papadopoulus &

Heslop, 1990; Juric & Worsley, 1998). Klein et al. (1998), exposed that although Chinese citizens

have a perception of high quality of Japanese products, civilians from an specific geographic

region may not purchase Japanese products due cultural reasons (Japanese occupation). Han

(1989), in the other hand suggested that country image behave as a halo effect and affects

beliefs about tangible product attributes, which in turn affect positively or negatively the overall

product evaluation. Several studies have found that COO has a significant effect when

consumers evaluate domestic versus other countries products, and that this evaluation is not

always objective, but influenced by beliefs, patriotism and inferences of quality, but it has been

also discussed that the effect of COO in consumers evaluation can be product and country

specific (Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999; Juric & Worsley, 1998; Becker, 1999; Roosen, Lusk, & Fox,

2003; Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2004; Dransfield, et al., 2005; Chryssochoidis, Krystallis, &

pg. 49

Perreas, 2007). For example Schnettler et al. (2009), found that origin was the most important

factor in the decision-making process when purchasing beef, and that there was a marked

consumer preference for domestic beef and a rejection of imported. Yeh et al. (2010), found

that Japanese and USA groups preferred own country beer and fruits rather than other’s

countries. Ehmke et al. (2008) found that on average, subjects in each location (China, France,

Niger, USA) preferred onions from their country to onions produced anywhere else. These

findings correlate positively with our findings, supporting our Hypothesis 3: Importance

attached to COO is positively related to consumer preference for domestic chicken and

Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between importance attached to COO and level of

ethnocentrism.

Table 11. Difference among quartiles for preference of BR vs. BE chicken meat

Variable Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value

Preference for BE vs. BR 4.97a 5.33b 6.05c 6.17c 0.00 Chicken meat

a-b-c Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05

(1-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey multiple comparison test).

In order to verify which variables influenced most strongly the overall preference for

chicken meat of BR vs. BE origin, variables regarding to attributes (nutrition value, safety,

quality, taste, price, value for money, freshness, availability) and to production methods were

taken into account (animal welfare, working conditions, hygiene, quality standard,

environmental friendly production, use of hormones/antibiotics), perception of scale of broiler

and perception of chicken farms size in BR vs. BE were also used to perform a linear regression.

A linear regression analysis was applied, as result the following equation:

Y = cst -0.282*X1 -0.194*X2 -0.132*X3

Y = Preference for chicken meat BR vs. BE X1= Freshness X2= use of hormones/antibiotics X3= working conditions This results mean that if the value of freshness increase in 1 unit, then preference for BR

chicken meat versus Belgian chicken meat decrease 0.282 units, under the assumption that all

pg. 50

other variables remain the same, in other words, as higher the importance given to freshness as

less preferred BR chicken meat would be, followed in the same way by use of

hormones/antibiotics and working conditions.

A survey conducted by Verbeke and Ward (2003) explored the importance of traceability,

COO, and several beef quality cues in Belgium. They found that survey participants expressed

more interest in labeling cues denoting quality and quality standards than in labeling cues

related to traceability and origin (Verbeke & Ward, 2003). Ehmke (2008) found that COO

information was not as important as genetically modified content information (France, USA, and

Niger) or organic production (China). Becker (2000) found that on average, COO, alongside

colour and place of purchase, were regarded as most helpful in assessing both eating quality

and food safety concerns of meat. In Germany and Sweden COO was the most important factor

determining both eating quality and safety aspects. In the UK, however, colour, leanness, or

place of purchase was regarded as most important. Roosen et al., (2003) using data from

Germany, France and UK in their analysis, found that consumers (mostly from France and

Germany) place more importance on labels of origin than any other product attribute such as

brand, price, marbling or fat content; more than 90% of surveyed consumers wanted a

mandatory labeling program for beef produced from cattle fed genetically modified crops.

Thus, appears to be that for individuals with quality and food safety information needs,

COO information is relatively less important, yet when extrinsic cues are used as extra

information by consumers, COO has an effect in their final purchase decision.

4.5 COO and Willingness to Pay

To evaluate perception of economic development a new variable was created by

substracting values given to BE-BR economic development as results the values given by

consumers mean that as negative the value as better development perceived for BR and worse

perceived development for BE (from -6 to 6 . The mean value was 1.47 (+2.02), meaning that the

perception of economic development was higher for BE, although not with the highest score

(Table 12).

pg. 51

Table 12. Difference among quartiles for perception of economic development scores BE-BR

Variable Mean(SD) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value

Perception of economic 1.67(2.42) 1.50(2.16) 1.59(1.79) 2.01(1.90) 0.25 development between BE-BR

To evaluate willingess to pay for chicken meat comparing perceived similar countries we

found that consumers evaluate more favorably France and Sweden, than Brazil, USA and China

(Table 13).

Several findings suggest that the familiarity with products made in a country can be a

good predictor of COO perceptions (Ahmed & d’Astous, 2002). Consumers positive evaluation

for similar neighboring countries might be regarded to concerns about countries that are

geographically located far away, and that due the time of transport can become a risk for food

safety, as well as concerns for quality standards in less developed countries. Previous

researchers have affirmed the same, for example Juric and Worsley (1989) found that food from

neighbouring countries are perceived as being superior to food from more distant countries due

to similar cultural beliefs and areal proximity. Alfnes (2004) showed, that on average, Norwegian

consumers preferred domestic or Swedish beef to beef from more distant countries, in addition,

beef from developed countries was preferred to beef from less developed countries such as

Botswana (Alfnes, 2004). Roth and Romeo (1992) found that consumers were willing to buy

autos and watches from Japan, Germany, and the U.S. appearing this to be related to these

countries' high overall image. Likewise, respondents' unwillingness to buy these products from

Mexico and Hungary appears due to the poor overall image of these countries. These results are

similar to other studies that found that automobiles manufactured in Japan, West Germany, and

the U.S. were preferred over those from England, France, Brazil, Mexico, Taiwan, and South

Korea. Subcultural biases in preferences might lead consumers to favour products from

countries with a similar ethnical and economic situation, especially if there are intra-national

variations in culture (Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Bergeron, 2003).

pg. 52

Table 13. Willingness to pay for chicken meat of developed and developing countries

COO (%) Not willing Willing Well prepared

BE 4.3 8.9 86.8 FR 12.7 15.0 72.3 SWE 19.5 18.8 61.7 BR 58.5 22.1 19.4 USA 65.0 19.6 15.3 CHINA 85.8 9.1 5.0

Respondents were asked about their perception of similarity from political ideas,

economic situation and culture between BE and BR. An exploratory factor analysis and reliability

test was performed on the pooled sample. A new variable was computed as average of the

political, economic and cultural knowledge. The findings concerning similarity index (political,

economical and cultural similarities between Brazil and Belgium) confirm that groups that have

similar knowledge about a country, would have a bigger influence in assessing COO than groups

that differ in these ideas. Several studies have found that when evaluating information of COO

as attribute, categories of products play an important role (Han & Terpstra, 1998; Tseng &

Balabanis, 2011). In our results we found that the majority of respondents were ready to pay

more for a European country (France, Sweden) than for a non-European country (Brazil, USA or

China) and this may have sense if we take into account that freshness, quality and taste were

the attributes with a higher scores. This supports our Hypothesis 5: Consumers are willing to pay

more for domestic products/developed country products than for foreigner/developing country

products.

4.6 Interest in foreign cultures

Respondents were asked about if they read and have friends of other cultures, travel a lot

and keep updated about international news. An exploratory factor analysis and reliability test

was performed in the pooled sample, and new grouping variable as average of the 4 considered

was created and oneway-ANOVA applied to compare means from quartiles, no differences

among quartiles were found (Table 14).

pg. 53

Different researchers have investigated the interest in foreign cultures and the

relationship with products evaluation. For example, Papadopoulos and Heslop (1986) compared

Canadian consumers who had visited a country with those who had not, and found that visiting

a country reduces the gap between the more global, prevailing public image of its products and

its actual capabilities. Balabanis et al. (2002), affirmed that a greater level of direct contact with

a country or its products lead to more objective consumer product perceptions. Our findings

show that Q4 had the highest score for interest in foreign cultures, however the higher

preference for BE over BR chicken meat, which could be explained by socio-demographic that

support that older individuals tend to score less favorable foreign products, and as well that

people with a higher level of education and financial situation tend to evaluate foreigner

products less positively than those with lower educational level and financial situation.

Table 14. Difference among quartiles for interest in foreigner cultures

Variable Mean(SD) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value

Interest in foreign cultures 4.60 4.59 4.50 4.85 0.10

Awareness of BR chicken in BE market was assessed by the question “do you think that BR

chicken meat is present in BE market”, a majority of the respondents of the sample with 70.3%

“had no idea”, 3.5% said “no” and 26.2% said “yes”. These results support the COO labeling

theory, that affirm that when consumers have no access to extrinsic information the evaluation

of the perceived quality is based in intrinsic attributes, and could be explained that due their

lack of knowledge about the presence of Brazilian chicken meat in the Belgian market, they may

relay in what “they know” about quality standards of domestic products and use their beliefs

when it comes to perception of quality standards of BR, evaluating its products in a less positive

way.

pg. 54

4.6.1 COO and familiarity

To evaluate the familiarity and its relationship with the aversion of the respondents with

BR among the quartiles one way-ANOVA was applied. It was expected that as greater the

exposure of consumers to BR as less aversion, no differences were found among the quartiles.

Table 15. Difference among quartiles regarding familiarity to BR

Variable Mean Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value

Familiarity with BR 2.25 2.27 2.39 2.41 0.72

It has been proposed that attitudes are influenced by both, subjective familiarity (the

subjects think they are familiar with the stimulus, COO) and objective familiarity (actual

exposure to the stimulus, COO objective knowledge), and this could partially explain why the

respondents evaluation for preference of BE over BR chicken meat was high.

It has been described that country image is the overall perception a consumer form of

products from a particular country, based on their prior perceptions of the country's production

and marketing strengths and weaknesses. This definition brings country image closer to the

means consumers use in assessing products. What consumers know (or think they know) about

a country's manufacturing ability, flair for style and design, and technological innovativeness,

seems much more congruent with their product perception formation than do other, less

production and marketing-oriented factors. There is also a possible a link between COO labeling

and preference. Consumer’s product’s evaluation is based on the information given by

governments/marketers, and by not knowing the COO of a product they may prefer this product

based in other attributes evaluation or based in the country image and belief that they have

towards that country.

pg. 55

4.7 Influence of level of processing

To evaluate correlation between willingness to pay for chicken meat products different

options were given to the consumers. Negative correlation among the willingness to pay for BR

chicken filet and for processed chicken products from BR over BE was found (p-value=0.00).

Respect to labeling of chicken filet with a brand “made in BE” was negatively associated with

willingness to pay for chicken meat products from BR instead BE, meaning this that consumers

that prefer BE labeled chicken products are less willing to pay for BR chicken meat products. A

negative correlation between readiness to pay for processed meat products from BR over BE

was found in relationship with chicken meat labeled as “made in BE”, meaning this that

consumers whom prefer “made in BE” chicken filet are less willing to pay for chicken meat

products of BR.

Table 16. Difference among quartiles for willingness to pay for BR vs. BE chicken products

Variable Mean Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value

Willingness to pay 3.25a 3.08b 2.96b 2.46b 0.00 for chicken filet from BR over BE Willingness to pay for 3.13a 2.79b 2.79b 2.39b 0.00 Processed chicken products Willingness to pay 4.32a 4.74b 4.83b 5.14c 0.00 for a ‘made in’ BE label instead none

During the review of literature we found that Belgian consumption of chicken meat have

increased along the years, due a shift of dietetic patterns, financial reasons, health concerns,

etc., and also that imports of BR chicken meat have significantly increased, most of all, for the

frozen and processed type. It could be a link between these findings and the current absence of

a mandatory labeling of COO when food is processed, meaning this that although consumers

purchase BR chicken meat through their habitual consumption, they are not aware of it, and

when performing evaluation of preference they relay in COO and domestic products, assuming

that the standards of quality are good if domestic processed although the original food COO is

other than BE. This correlate positively with our findings that suggest that Q4 which gave the

pg. 56

highest score preferring BE chicken meat over BR, is less willing to pay for chicken filet and

processed chicken products from BR, but willing to pay more for a ‘made in Belgium’ label,

instead no label. During the review of the statistics of type of chicken meat products we found

that chicken filet is the favorite cut preferred by Belgian consumers, which seems to correlate to

our findings and COO, denoting that the segment that preferred the most BE over BR chicken

meat, Q4, gave even less score when it was an evaluation between filet and processed chicken

meat products, giving more importance to chicken filet over processed chicken meat, and

therefore scoring even lower for this type of chicken cut.

pg. 57

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The first objective of this study was to verify the importance of different food product

attributes in food purchasing decisions of chicken meat (and the ranking of COO in that list). The

results show that COO as food attribute is less important than other food attributes when an

overall evaluation of the product is done, yet a significant effect in consumer’s preference when

evaluating BR vs. BE chicken meat, being the last one significantly preferred among Belgian

consumers.

Food origin is an important product characteristic for many consumers. It affects the

significance of how consumers distinct foods.

The second objective of our master thesis was to profile groups with different levels of

interest in COO in terms of socio-demographics, responsibility for food purchase, meat

consumer profile, and consumption frequency, in order to compare groups with similar profiles

and to establish a relationship among these profiles and their level of preference or not for

domestic vs. imported products. Different authors affirm that world-minded consumers tend to

be younger, better educated and more affluent (Hett, 1993). Consumers with more income and

education accept foreign products more readily (Niss, 1996). Several authors found that

younger, wealthier and more educated consumers evaluate foreign products more favourably.

Our findings support the previous through the segmentation of quartiles and the comparison of

evaluation of these quartiles with significant higher preference for Belgian over Brazilian chicken

meat. The groups that evaluated highest this preference was composed for older, main

responsible for food purchase and highly educated respondents. Yet these findings contradict

those obtained by Niss (1996), this could be explained as well as the relatively significant low

familiarity with Brazil (and its products) and due the country image that they have over Brazil as

producer and developing economy.

Our third, and last objective was to verify whether theory of COO is also applicable in food

product preference for the case study of Belgian versus Brazilian chicken meat in the context of:

pg. 58

- Country Image

- Ethnocentrism

- Interest for foreign cultures

- Perceived similarity

The results of the present research lead us to affirm that there is an influence of country-

of-origin on these variables, and based on our sample we could conclude that Belgian

consumers prefer BE chicken meat, and that if they would have to choose, they would be able

to pay for a product that originate from a country with similar beliefs, to which they are more

familiar with and possess a similar level of economic development.

It is possible that Belgian consumers evaluate products based in countries stereotypes

(negative or positive), therefore the management of a product’s national image is an important

element in the strategic marketing decision when related to consumer’s preference.

With the expanding global economy, aspects concerning country-of-origin (COO) and its

communication are gaining in importance especially in the agro-food sector. Our findings

corroborate that for many consumers, country-of-origin is a determining purchase criterion in

food consumption.

Consumers make decisions about the quality of products based on a systematic process of

acquisition, evaluation and integration of product information or cues. For this reason it

becomes apparent why extrinsic product cues have gained importance within food products

evaluation. However, COO has been identified as well as a credence attribute, affecting

evaluation of products differently.

Appears to be that concerns over quality standards were related as well as a variable than

influenced our results, from which we concluded that origin can be considered as an important

attribute or cue in consumers’ evaluating process for food quality and safety aspects because

some consumers considered own country products more trustable because of better food

safety and production quality standards, and that is the probable reason why some consumers

are willing to pay more for domestic or labeled own country-of-origin products.

For agribusiness and marketers these insights open up positioning potentials and are

relevant for strategic marketing and communication purposes. If subjects transfer product's

pg. 59

COO to its specific attributes increasing the influence of COO on product evaluations, how could

countries change their image, improving their chance to penetrate foreign markets and gain

confidence from consumers. This means that managers would benefit by having a better

understanding of a product's COO, as well as identifying the dimensions along which country

image should be improved. One possible strategy when an unfavorable mismatch exists was

proposed by Roth and Romeo (1992), they suggested to consider a joint venture within a

favorable match country; e.g. a Hungarian car manufacturer may benefit from manufacturing

and/or marketing its cars with a German partner. This type of strategies should be considered

by countries that differ in strengths and weaknesses across products and that could benefit

from having a partner with a better country image, or with a more trustable known experience

in the market.

Evaluation country of origin as an attribute is not an easy task, and we also got to the

conclusion that international marketers should analyse subcultural differences before expanding

into targeted countries and evaluate own country image. Then the producer may need to de-

emphasise or perhaps even disguise or hide the product’s origin in order to make it more

acceptable. Finding subcultural differences would allow managers to improve the development

and implementation of marketing strategies, and could lead them to bussiness success and to

understand better which are the possible market niches to be filled.

Little consumer research was found specifically with respect to perception of country of

origin labeling from Belgian consumers and chicken meat products from domestic versus

imported origin. From theory it can be expected that consumers would have a higher preference

and a better image from countries with a similar (higher) level of development and production

specialization, however this may be cross linked to product-specific and country-specific.

The limitations of this work was that the survey was the self reported and subjective

nature of the measure by respondents. The biggest part of the sample was composed by

respondents that live in Flanders, therefore Flemish speaking. This could represent a bias when

evaluating this sample as representative for Belgian consumers without including consumers

from Wallonia, which may present different socio-demographic profile

pg. 60

Further research is needed to strength knowledge about COO perception of Belgian

consumers among other food attributes and among countries.

pg. 61

Bibliography

ABEF. (2010). The World Eats Better witn Brazilian Chicken. Brazilian Chicken Producers and

Exporters Association. Retrieved from

http://www.brazilianchicken.com.br/publicacoes/br-chicken-03.pdf

Ahmed, S., & d’Astous, A. (2002). South East Asian consumer perceptions of countries of origin.

Journal of Asia Pacific Marketing, 1(1), 19-41.

Alfnes, F. (2004). Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: application of a

mixed logit model. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(1), 19-37.

doi:10.1093/erae/31.1.19

Alfnes, F., & Rickertsen, K. (2003, May). European Consumers’ Acceptance of US Hormone-

Treated Beef. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 85(No. 2), 396-405.

doi:10.1111/1467-8276.t01-1-00128

Anderson, W., & Cunningham, W. (1972). Gauging foreign product promotion. Journal of

Advertising Research, 12(1), 29-34.

Aveworld. (2011, 10 21). Aveworld. Retrieved from Número de aviários cresce 7,9% em um ano

no Paraná: http://www.aveworld.com.br/artigos/post/numero-de-aviarios-cresce-79-

em-um-ano-no-parana

Balabanis, G., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2004). Domestic country bias, country-of-origin effects,

and consumer ethnocentrism: A multidimensional unfolding approach. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 80-95. doi:10.1177/0092070303257644

Balabanis, G., Rene, M., & T.C., M. (2002). The human values’ lenses of country of origin images.

International Marketing Review, 19(6), 582-610. doi:10.1108/02651330210451935

Baughn, C. C., & Yaprak, A. (1993). Mapping Country-of-Origin Research: Recent Developments

and Emerging Avenues. In N. G. Papadopoulos, & L. A. Heslop Binghamton, Product-

Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing (pp. 89-115). International

Bussines Press. Retrieved from

http://books.google.be/books?hl=en&lr=&id=z8PE4zEFSGkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA89&dq=Bau

ghn,+C.+C.+and+Yaprak,+A.+%281993%29+%E2%80%98Mapping+country+of+origin+res

pg. 62

earch:+Recent+developments+and+emerging+avenues%E2%80%99&ots=9AKWErn7Ka&

sig=kNEgnWHTysA-jtMT6ilFGkx8Uok&

Becker, T. (1999). Country of origin’ as a cue for quality and safety of fresh meat. Institute for

Agricultural Policies and Markets. Le Mance, France: University of Hohenheim.

Becker, T. (2000). Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: a framework. British Food Journal,

102(3), 158-176. doi:10.1108/00070700010371707

Becker, T. (2000). Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: a framework for analysis. British

Food Journal, 102(3), 158-176.

Belgium, S. (2012). Statistieken & Cijfers . Retrieved May 09, 2012, from

http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/statistieken/cijfers/bevolking/structuur/leeftijdgeslacht/pyrami

de/

Bernaerts, E., & Demuynck, E. (2009). Pluimvee. Flemish Ministery of Agriculture and Fishing.

Retrieved from

http://lv.vlaanderen.be/nlapps/data/docattachments/LARA_Sectoren_H3_Pluimvee.pdf

Bilkey, W. J., & Nes, E. (1982). Country-of-Origin Effects on Product Evaluations. 13(1), 89-99.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/154256

Bolliger, C., & Réviron, S. (2008). Consumer Willingness to Pay for Swiss Chicken Meat: An In-

store Survey to Link Stated and Revealed Buying Behaviour. 12th Congress of the

European Association of Agricultural Economists . EAAE .

Bredahl, L. (2004). Cue utilisation and quality perception with regard to branded beef. Food

Quality and Preference, 15(1), 65-75. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00024-7

Buhr, B. L. (2003). Traceability and Information Technology in the Meat Supply Chain:

Implications for Firm Organization and Market Structure. Journal of Food Distribution

Research, 34(3), 12-26.

Bureau, J.-C., & Valceschini, E. (2003). European Food-Labeling Policy: Successes and Limitations.

Journal of Food Distribution Research, 34(3), 70-76. Retrieved from

http://purl.umn.edu/27048

Cai, H., Fang, X., & Yang, Z. (2012). Implicit Consumer Animosity: A Primary Validation. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00911.x

pg. 63

Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2005). Consumer Preferences for Food Product

Quality Attributes from Swedish Agriculture. Ambio, 34(4/5), 366-370. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/207673611?accountid=11077

Chryssochoidis, G., Krystallis, A., & Perreas, P. (2007). Ethnocentric beliefs and country-of-origin

(COO) effect: Impact of country, product and product attributes on Greek consumers'

evaluation of food products. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11-12), 1518-1544.

doi:10.1108/03090560710821288

Cowburn, G., & Stockley, L. (2004). Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a

systematic review. Public Health Nutrition, 8(1), 21-28. doi:10.1079/PHN2004666

Dichter, E. (1962). The world customer. Harvard Business Review, 40(4), 113-122.

doi:10.1002/tie.5060040415

Dornoff, R., Tankersley, C., & White, G. (1974). Consumers′ perceptions of imports. Akron

Business and Economic Review, 5(2), 26-29.

Dransfield, E., Ngapo, T., Nielsen, N., Bredahl, L., Sjödén, P., Magnusson, M., . . . Nute, G. (2005).

Consumer choice and suggested price for pork as influenced by its appearance, taste and

information concerning country of origin and organic pig production. Meat Science,

69(1), 61–70. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.06.006

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). Psychology of Attitudes. Wadsworth.

EC. (n.d.). Eurostat. Retrieved from

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Carcass_weig

ht

Ehmke, M. D., Lusk, J. L., & Tyner, W. (2008). Measuring the relative importance of preferences

for country of origin in China, France, Niger, and the United States. Agricultural

Economics, 38(3), 277-285. doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00299.x

EMBRAPA. (2003, January). Sistemas de Produção de Frangos de Corte. Retrieved from

Instalações:

http://sistemasdeproducao.cnptia.embrapa.br/FontesHTML/Ave/ProducaodeFrangodeC

orte/Pe-direito.html

pg. 64

Erickson, G. M., Johansson, J. K., & Chao, P. (1984). Image Variables in Multi-Attribute Product

Evaluations: Country-of-Origin Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(2), 694-699.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488975

EU. (1978). Council Directive 79/112/EEC. EU.

EU. (2011). Food: from farm to fork statistics. EUROSTAT, 170. doi:10.2785/13787

EU. (No 543/2008). COMMISSION REGULATION. EU. Retrieved from http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:157:0046:0087:EN:PDF

EU. (No. 1169/2011). REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. 25

October 2011: EU.

FAO. (2009). The State of Food and Agriculture. Livestock in the balance. Food and Agriculture

Organization from the United Nations, Rome. Retrieved from

http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0680e/i0680e.pdf

FAO. (2010). Agribussines Handbook: Poultry, meat and eggs. Rome, Italy: FAO. Retrieved from

http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/al175e/al175e.pdf

FOD Economie, K.M.O. (n.d.). Middenstand en Energie Algemene Directie Statistiek en

Economische Informatie. .

Foxall, G., Oliveira-Castro, J., James, V., & Schrezenmaier, T. (2011). Consumer behaviour

analysis and the behavioural perspective mode. Durham Research Online, 1-10.

Fulginiti, L. E. (1996). The Change from Red to White Meat: The Role of Technology. University of

Nebraska - Lincoln, Agricultural Economics Department. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ageconfacpub/7

Graham Sumner, W. (1906). Fundamental Notions of the Folkways and of the Mores. In W.

Graham Sumner, Folways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners,

Customs, Mores, and Morals. Ginn.

Grebitus, C. (2008). Food Quality from the Consumer’s Perspective: An Empirical Analysis of

Perceived Pork Quality. Cuvillier Verlag Göttingen. Retrieved from

http://books.google.be/books?id=lSZ3zH0fsjEC&pg=PA31&dq=steenkamp+1989&hl=en

&sa=X&ei=Ypa_T6aELc_oOdf96OwJ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=steenkamp%201989&f

=false

pg. 65

Grunert, K. (2005). Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand. European

Review of Agricultural Economics, 32(3), 369-391.

Grunert, K. G., & Wills, J. M. (2007). A review of European research on consumer response to

nutrition information on food labels. Journal of Public Health, 15(5), 385-399.

doi:10.1007/s10389-007-0101-9

Haley, M. m. (2001). Changing Consumer Demand for Meat: The U.S Example, 1970 - 2000. In A.

Regmi (Ed.), Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Agriculture and Trade Report. WRS-01-1. (pp. 41-48).

Washington, DC: Economic Research Service/USDA. Retrieved from

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs011/

Han, M., & Terpstra, V. (1998). Country-of-Origin Effects for Uni-National and Bi-National

Products. Journal of International Business Studies, 18(2), 235-255. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/155024 .

Hett, E. (1993). The development of an instrument to measure global-mindedness. Dissertation

Abstracts International.

Hong, S.-T., & Wyer Jr., R. S. (1989). Effects of Country-of-Origin and Product-Attribute

Information on Product Evaluation: An Information Processing Perspective. Journal of

Consumer Research, 16(2), 175-187. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489316

Hong, S.-T., & Wyer, J. R. (1990). Determinants of Product Evaluation: Effects of the Time

Interval between Knowledge of a Product's Country of Origin and Information about Its

Specific Attributes. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 277-288. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2626795

Issanchau, S. (1996). Consumer Expectations and Perceptions of Meat and Meat Product

Quality. Meat Science, 43(1), 5-19. doi:10.1016/0309-1740(96)00051-4,

Jacoby, J., & Olson, J. C. (1977). Consumer reaction to price: An attitudinal, information

processing perspective. In Y. Wim, & M. Greenberg, Moving Ahead With Attitude

Research. American Marketing Association.

pg. 66

Juric, B., & Worsley, A. (1998). Consumers' attitudes towards imported food products. Food

Quality and Preference, 9(6), 431-441. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00027-5

Kim, K., & O'Cass, A. (2001). Consumer brand classifications: an assessment of culture-of-origin

versus country-of-origin. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(2), 120-136.

doi:10.1108/10610420110388672

Knight, G. A., & Calantone, R. J. (2000). A flexible model of consumer country-of-origin

perceptions: A cross-cultural investigation. International Marketing Review, 17(2), 127-

145. doi:10.1108/02651330010322615

Knight, J. G., Holdsworth, D. K., & Mather, D. W. (2007). Country-of-origin and choice of food

imports: an in-depth study of European distribution channel gatekeepers. Journal of

International Business Studies, 38, 107-125. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400250

Knight, J. G., Holdsworth, D. K., & Mather, D. W. (2008). GM food and neophobia: connecting

with the gatekeepers of consumer choice. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,

88(5), 739–744. doi:10.1002/jsfa.3168

Koschate-Fischer, N., Diamantopoulos, A., & Oldenkotte, K. (2012). Are Consumers Really Willing

to Pay More for a Favorable Country Image? A Study of Country-of-Origin Effects on

Willingness to Pay. Journal of International Marketing, 20(1), 19-41.

Kubberød, E., Ueland, Ø., Rødbotten, M., Westad, F., & Risvik, E. (2002). Gender specific

preferences and attitudes towards meat. Food Quality and Preference, 13(5), 285-294.

doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00041-1

Lagerkvist, C. J., Carlsson, F., & Viske, D. (2006). Swedish Consumer Preferences for Animal

Welfare and Biotech: A Choice Experiment. AgBioForum, 9(1), 51-58.

Lantz, G., & Loeb, S. (1996). Country of Origin and Ethnocentrism: An Analysis of Canadian and

American Preferences Using Social Identity Theory. Advances in Consumer Research,

Vol.23(Issue 1), 374-378. Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=62b79842-615f-42aa-bbff-

31db8b7667a4%40sessionmgr14&vid=11&hid=126

pg. 67

Laroche, M., & Brisoux, J. (1989). Incorporating competition into consumer behaviour models:

the case of the attitude-intention relationship. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(3),

343-362. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(89)90029-9

Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. A., & Mourali, M. (2005). The influence of country

image structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products. International Marketing

Review, 22(1), 96-115. doi:10.1108/02651330510581190

Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L., & Bergeron, J. (2003). Effects of subcultural

differences on country and product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2(3),

232-247. doi:10.1002/cb.104

Li, W.-K., & Wyer Jr., R. S. (1994). The role of country of origin in product evaluations:

Informational and standard-of-comparison effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(2),

187-212. doi:10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80004-6

Liefield, J. P. (1993). Experiments of Country-of-Origin-Effects: Review of Meta Analysis of Effect

Size. In N. Papadopoulus, & L. A. Heslop, Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in

International Marketing (pp. 117-156). The Haworth Press. Retrieved from

http://books.google.be/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=z8PE4zEFSGkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA117&dq=liefi

eld+1993+Experiments+on+country+of+origin+effects:+Review+and+meta-

analysis&ots=9ALYIoi2G7&sig=nz5QeLz3mUuBN-hwu8DXL-

SMqG4#v=snippet&q=Experiments%20on%20country%20of%20origin%

Lone, B. (2003). Cue utilisation and quality perception with regard to branded beef. Food Quality

and Preference, 15, 65-75.

Loureiro, M. L., & Umberger, W. J. (2005). Assessing Consumer Preferences for Country-of-

Origin Labeling. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 37(1), 49-63. Retrieved

from http://purl.umn.edu/43712

Loureiro, M. L., & Umberger, W. J. (2007). A choice experiment model for beef: What US

consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin

labeling and traceability. Food Policy, 32(4), 496-514. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.11.006

Lusk, J. L., Roosen, J., & Fox, J. A. (2001). Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth

Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France,

pg. 68

Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural

Economics, 85(1), 16-29. doi:10.1111/1467-8276.00100

Lusk, J., & Anderson, J. D. (2004). Effects of Country-of-Origin Labeling on Meat Producers and

Consumers. Journal ofAgricultura1 and Resource Economics 29(2): 185-205, 29(2), 185-

205. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40987215

MacKenzie B., S. (1986). The Role of Attention in Mediating the Effect of Advertising on

Attribute Importance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 174-195. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489225

Maheswaran, D. (1994). Country of Origin as a Stereotype: Effects of Consumer Expertise and

Attribute Strength onProduct Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 354-365.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489826

Mangen, M., & Burrel, A. (2001). Decomposing Preference Shift for Meat and Fish in the

Netherlands. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52(2), 16-28. doi:10.1111/j.1477-

9552.2001.tb00922.x

Moynagh, J. (2000). EU Regulation and consumer demand for animal welfare. Agriculture

BioForum, 3(2 & 3), 107-114.

Nagashima, A. (1970). A comparison of Japanese and U.S. attitudes towards foreign products.

Journal of Marketing, 34(1), 68-74. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1250298

Narayana, C. L. (1981). Aggregate images of American and Japanese products: Implications on

international marketing. Columbia Journal of World Business, 16, 31-35.

Niss, H. (1996). Country of origin marketing over the product life cycle: A Danish case study.

European Journal of Marketing, 30(3), 6-22. doi:10.1108/03090569610107409

Orth, U. R., & Firbasová, Z. (2003). The role of consumer ethnocentrism in food product

evaluation. Agribusiness, 19(2), 137-153. doi:10.1002/agr.10051

Papadopoulos, N. (1993). What Product and Country Images Are and Are Not. In N. G.

Papadopoulos, & L. Heslop, Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International

Marketing (pp. 3-38). International Business Press.

pg. 69

Papadopoulus, N., & Heslop, L. A. (1990). A comparative image analysis of domestic versus

imported products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 7(4), 283-294.

doi:10.1016/0167-8116(90)90005-8

Pereira, A., Hsu, C.-C., & Kundub, S. K. (2005). Country-of-origin image: measurement and cross-

national testing. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 103-106. doi:10.1016/S0148-

2963(02)00479-4

Peterson, R. A., & Jolibert, A. J. (1995). A Meta-Analysis of Country-Of-Origin Effects. Journal of

International Business Studies, 26(4), 883-900. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/155303 .

Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia

in humans. Appetite, 19(2), 105–120. doi:10.1016/0195-6663(92)90014-W

Pouta, E., Heikkilä, J., Forsman-Hugg, S., Isoniemi, M., & Mäkelä, J. (2010). Consumer choice of

broiler meat: The effects of country of origin and production methods. Food Quality and

Preference, 21(5), 539-546. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.02.004

Rawwas, M. Y., Rajendran, K., & Wuehrer, G. A. (2002). The influence of worldmindedness and

nationalism on consumer evaluation of domestic and foreign products. International

Marketing Review, 13(2), 20-38. doi:10.1108/02651339610115746

Roosen, J., Lusk, J. L., & Fox, J. A. (2003). Consumer Demand for and Attitudes Toward

Alternative Beef Labeling Strategies in France, Germany, and the UK. Agribusiness, 19(1),

77-90. doi:10.1002/agr.10041

Roth, M. S., & Romeo, J. B. (1992). Matching Product Catgeory and Country Image Perceptions:

A Framework for Managing Country-Of-Origin Effects. Journal of International Business

Studies, 23(3), 477-497.

Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Imada, S., Sarubin, A., & Wrzesniewski, A. (1999). Attitudes to Food and

the Role of Food in Life in the U.S.A.,Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: Possible

Implications for the Diet–Health Debate. Appetite, 33(2), 163-180.

doi:10.1006/appe.1999.0244,

Rural, R. (2009, Junho). Avicultura - Criação de Primero Mundo. Rev 136. Retrieved from

http://www.revistarural.com.br/Edicoes/2009/Artigos/rev136_%20frango.htm

pg. 70

Schnettler, B., Ruiz, D. R., Sepúlveda, O., & Néstor, S. (2008). Importance of the country of origin

in food consumption in a developing country. Food Quality and Preference, 19(4), 372–

382. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.11.005

Schnettler, B., Vidal, R., Vallejos, L., & Sepúlveda, N. (2009). Consumer willingness to pay for

beef meat in a developing country: The effect of information regarding country of origin,

price and animal handling prior to slaughter. Food Quality and Preference, 20(2), 156-

165. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.07.006

Schooler, R. (1965, Nov.). Product Bias in the Central American Common Market. Journal of

Marketing Research, 2(4), 394-397 .

Schooler, R. (1971). Bias Phenomena Attendant to the Marketing of Foreign Goods in the U. S.

Journal of International Business Studies, 2(1), 71-80. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/154727

Sharma, S., Shimp, T. A., & Shin, J. (1995). Consumer ethnocentrism: A test of antecedents and

moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(1), 26-37.

doi:10.1007/BF02894609

Shimp, T., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the

CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24(3), 280-289. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151638

Stafleu, A., de Graaf, C., & van Staveren, W. A. (1994). Attitudes Towards High-Fat foods and

Their Low-Fat Alternatives: Reliability and Relationship with Fat Intake. Appetite, 22(2),

183-196. doi:10.1006/appe.1994.1018

Steenkamp, J.-B. E., ter Hofstede, F., & Wedel, M. (1999). A Cross-National Investigation into the

Individual and National Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness. American

Marketing Association, 63(2), 55-69. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251945

TACD. (2008). Recommendation Report and European Commission Service's Responses.

Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue.

pg. 71

Tseng, T.-H., & Balabanis, G. (2011). Explaining the product-specificity of country-of-origin

effects. International Marketing Review, 28(6), 581-600.

doi:10.1108/02651331111181420

Turner, A. (1995). Prepacked food labelling: past, present and future. British Food Journal, 97(5),

23-31. doi:10.1108/00070709510091047

USDA. (2011). Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade. United States Department of

Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.fas.usda.gov/livestock_arc.asp

USDA, D. o. (January 15 2009). Department of Agricultural Marketing Service. 7 CFR Parts 60 and

65. Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, Chicken, Goat Meat, Wild

and Farm-Raised Fish and Shellfish, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts,

Pecans, Ginseng, and Macadamia, Nuts, Department of Agriculture, Federal Register.

Usunier, J.-C., & Cestre, G. (2007). Product Ethnicity: Revisiting the Match Between Products and

Countries. Journal of International Marketing, 15(3), 32-72. doi:10.1509/jimk.15.3.32

Valceschini, E., & Bureau, J.-C. (2003). European Food Policy: Successes and Limitations. Journal

of Food Distribution Research, 34(3), 69-76. Retrieved from http://purl.umn.edu/27048

Valsta, L., Tapanainen, H., & Männistö, H. (2005). Meat fats in nutrition. 70(3), 525-530.

doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.12.016

van der Lans, I. A., van Ittersum, K., De Cicco, A., & Loseby, M. (2001). The role of the region of

origin and EU certificates of origin in consumer evaluation of food products. European

Review of Agricultural Economics, 28(4), 451-477. doi:10.1093/erae/28.4.451

Vanhonacker, F., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F., & Verbeke, W. (2010). Citizens’ Views on Farm

Animal Welfare and Related Information Provision: Exploratory Insights from Flanders,

Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23(6), 551-569.

doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9235-9

Verbeke, W. (2008, May 23). Impact of communication on consumers’ food choices. Proceedings

of the Nutrition Society, 67, 281–288. doi:10.1017/S0029665108007179

Verbeke, W., & Jacques, V. (2000). Ethical Challenges for Livestock Production: Meeting

Consumer Concerns About Meat Safety and Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and

Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 141-151. doi:10.1023/A:1009538613588

pg. 72

Verbeke, W., & Viaene, J. (1999). Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat

consumption in Belgium: empirical evidence from a consumer survey. Food Quality and

Preference, 10(6), 437-445. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00031-2

Verbeke, W., & Ward, R. W. (2003). Importance of EU Label Requirements: An Application of

Ordered Probit Models to Belgium Beef Labeling. Montreal, Canada: Paper Presented at

the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual. Retrieved from

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/22077/1/sp03ve02.pdf

Verbeke, W., & Ward, R. W. (2006). Consumer interest in information cues denoting quality,

traceability and origin: An application of ordered probit models to beef labels. Food

Quality and Preference, 17(6), 453-467. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.05.010

Verbeke, W., Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J., & De Brabander, H. F. (2007). Why consumers behave

as they do with respect to food safety and risk information. Analytica Chimica Acta,

586(1-2), 2-7. doi:10.1016/j.aca.2006.07.065

Verbeke, W., Viaene, J., & Guiot, O. (1999). Health Communication and Consumer Behavior on

Meat in Belgium: From BSE until Dioxin. Journal of Health Communication, 4(4), 345-357.

doi:10.1080/108107399126869

Verlegh, P. W., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. (1999). A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin

research. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(5), 521-546. doi:10.1016/S0167-

4870(99)00023-9

Verlegh, P. W., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & Meulenberg, M. T. (2005). Country-of-origin effects in

consumer processing of advertising claims. International Journal of Research in

Marketing, 22(2), 127-139. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2004.05.003

VLAM. (1999-2009). Belgische netto productie* van gevogelte- en konijnenvlees (in ton

karkasgewicht). Retrieved from

http://www.vlam.be/marketinformationdocument/files/productie1999-2009.pdf

VLAM. (2012). De categorie ‘gevogelte, konijn en wild’ verstevigt haar positie. Marketingdienst.

Vukasovič, T. (2009, March). Consumer perception of poultry meat and the importance of

country of origin in a purchase making process. World's Poultry Science Journal, 65, 65-

74. doi:10.1017/S0043933909000005

pg. 73

Wall, M., Liefeld, J., & Heslop, L. A. (1991). Impact of country-of-origin cues on consumer

judgments in multi-cue situations: a covariance analysis. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 19(2), 105-113. doi:10.1007/BF02726002

Wang, C. (1978). “The effect of foreign economic, political and cultural environment on

consumers’ willingness to buy foreign products. Texas A&M University. PhD dissertation.

Warren, B. J., & Nes, E. (1982). Country-of-Origin Effects on Product Evaluations. Journal of

International Business Studies, 13(1), 89-99. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/154256

Watson, J. J., & Wright, K. (2000). Consumer ethnocentrism and attitudes toward domestic and

foreign products. Journal of Marketing, 34(9), 1149-1166.

doi:10.1108/03090560010342520

Yeh, C.-H., Chen, C.-I., & Sher, P. J. (2010). Investigation on perceived countryimage of imported

food. Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 849-856. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.005