Consumer Psychology on Food Choice Editing in Favor of Sustainability

Fred A. Yamoah, Adnan ul Haque () and David Eshun Yawson
Additional contact information
Fred A. Yamoah: Birkbeck College, University of London, Malet St, London WC1E 7HX, UK
Adnan ul Haque: Business and Management, Yorkville University, 2000 Steeles Avenue West, Concord, ON L4K 1N4, Canada
David Eshun Yawson: GIMPA Business School, Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), Achimota, Accra P.O. Box AH 50, Ghana

Sustainability, 2022, vol. 14, issue 16, 1-12

Abstract: This article examines rationale behind consumers’ vote for or against choice editing (reducing food choice) in favor of sustainable consumption to inform marketing communication strategies and sustainability policies. Based on a Qualitative analysis of free-text comments in a UK nationwide survey on sustainable healthy food consumption using inductive thematic analysis, we found that the majority (55.4%) disagreed with governments being given the right to minimize food choice options available to consumers by requesting that food industry players supply only sustainable food products whereas only 44.6% agreed with the idea. In-depth thematic analysis revealed that those who disagreed with it expressed the reasons to be “Freedom of choice”, “Individual choice to decide and responsibility”; “Producers to be encouraged to develop sustainable products”; “Need for education”; “Consumers have power”; “Consumers should be made to fund health conditions they develop from unhealthy food.”; “Government should fund production of sustainable foods”; and “this will lead to less competition within the market”. On the other hand, the agreement expressed by respondents gave reasons such as, “Food industry’s notorious for selling unhealthy food”; “Need to keep the price of sustainable products down.”; “Government should legislate.”; “All food sold should be whole natural food.”; “Retailers should produce more healthy food as obesity is a problem.”; “Healthy food is good for us.”; “Government’s obligation.”; and “GMO foods, foods grown using artificial methods, harm the environment and humans.” Our analysis revealed that change interventions have slowly reduced the pace of growth in the food industry, partially because of consumer awareness at a gradual rate. Moreover, sustainable food products are viewed as ineffective in the short run while market share for sustainable items remains substantially low. The implications of the results include inclusive policies for sustainable consumption, government intervention by making it mandatory to consume and produce sustainable items, accountability measures for food producers, the introduction of a rebate system for sustainable production, and the monitoring of food prices ensuring organic food is affordable to all.

Keywords: consumer psychology; choice limitation; consumer ethics; marketing communication; sustainable food policy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/16/10130/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/16/10130/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:16:p:10130-:d:889041

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().