Submitted:
21 April 2023
Posted:
23 April 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Cocoa powder production in DNBR
2.2. Data analysis methods
2.2.1. Descriptive statistics, Cross Tabulation, and ANOVA test
2.2.2. WTP calculation
2.2.3. PLS-SEM
2.2.4. Data collection
5. Results
5.1. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA test
5.2. Willingness to Pay
5.3. Determinants of customers’ WTP

6. Discussions, policy recommendations and conclusions
6.1. Discussions

6.2. Policy recommendations
6.3. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mertz, O.; Ravnborg, H.M.; Lövei, G.L.; Nielsen, I.; Konijnendijk, C.C. Ecosystem services and biodiversity in developing countries. Biodivers Conserv 2007, 16, 2729–2737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Ashry, M.T. Balancing economic development with environmental protection in developing and lesser developed countries. Air & Waste 1993, 43, 18–24. [Google Scholar]
- Bilali, H.E.; Callenius, C.; Strassner, C.; Probst, L. Food and nutrition security and sustainability transitions in food systems. Food and Energy Security 2019, 8, e00154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salzman, J. Informing the green consumer: the debate over the use and abuse of environmental labels. Industrial Ecology 1997, 1, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Gao, Z.; Swisher, M.; House, L.; Zhao, X. Eco-labeling in the Fresh Produce Market: Not All Environmentally Friendly Labels Are Equally Valued. Ecological Economics 2018, 154, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salladarré, F.; Brécard, D.; Lucas, S.; Ollivier, P. Are French consumers ready to pay a premium for eco-labeled seafood products? A contingent valuation estimation with heterogeneous anchoring. Agricultural Economics 2016, 47, 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonsi, R.; Hammett, A.L.; Smith, B. Eco–labels and International Trade: Problems and Solutions. World Trade 2008, 42, 407–432. [Google Scholar]
- Hameed, I.; Idrees, W. Eco Labels and Eco Conscious Consumer Behavior: The Mediating Effect of Green Trust and Environmental Concern. Management Sciences 2018, 5, 86–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruce, C.; Laroiya, A. The Production of Eco-Labels. Environ Resource Econ 2007, 36, 275–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adhe, L.; Fenesia, W.; Katriana, T. Good Practices on Applying Eco-labeling in Asia and the Pacific Biosphere Reserves. 2019, 6, 20-40. 2023. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373540 (accessed on 19 March 2023).
- Gallastegui, I.G. The use of eco-labels: a review of the literature. European Environment 2002, 12, 316–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clapp, J.; Fuchs, D. Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance. MIT Press, 2009, 328 pp.
- Fairtrade International. Cocoa. 2021. Available online: https://www.fairtrade.net/product/cocoa.
- UTZ. Cocoa. 2021. Available online: https://utz.org/what-we-offer/cocoa/.
- Chatterjee, S.; Hadi, A.S. Regression analysis by example (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, chapter 2, "Descriptive Statistics and Simple Regression Analysis, 2015.
- Hinkle, D.E.; Wiersma, W.; Jurs, S.G. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Houghton Mifflin; 5th edition, 2002, 756 pages.
- Montgomery, D.C.; Peck, E.A.; Vining, G.G. Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, 2021, 704 pages.
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Education 2010, 31, 351–352. [Google Scholar]
- Verain, M.C.D.; Bartels, J.; Dagevos, H.; Sijtsema, S.J. Exploring the gap between consumers' knowledge and behavior regarding sustainable seafood. Appetite 2014, 79, 159–166. [Google Scholar]
- Ha, V.D.; Thinh, N.A.; Anh, L.N. Eco-labeling for Green Economic Development in the Buffer Zones and Transition Areas of the World Biosphere Reserves in Vietnam. VNU Journal of Economics and Business 2021, 1, 3. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, J. Understanding the determinants of consumers' willingness to pay for eco-labeled products: an empirical analysis of the China environmental label. Service Science and Management 2012, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thøgersen, J. How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainable lifestyles? Consum Policy 2005, 28, 143–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CDC, US. People with a higher risk of food poisoning, 2022. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/people-at-risk-food-poisoning.html.
- 24. CARE. Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in the context of Food Security and Nutrition. A Scoping Paper 2020, 42 pages.
- Hirst, A.; Ashwin, I. M. Cross cultural difference between online shoppers in London and Bangkok. International Review of Business Research Papers 2009, 5, 167–191. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, X.; Gao, Z.; Zeng, Y. Willingness to pay for the “Green Food” in China. Food Policy 2014, 45, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil, J.M.; Gracia, A.; Sánchez, M. Market segmentation and willingness to pay for organic products in Spain. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 2000, 3, 207–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Didier, T.; Lucie, S. Measuring consumer's willingness to pay for organic and Fair Trade products. International Journal of Consumer Studies 2008, 32, 479–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Doorn, J.; Verhoef, P.C. Willingness to pay for organic products: Differences between virtue and vice foods. International Journal of Research in Marketing 2011, 28, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kimenju, S.C.; De Groote, H. Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food in Kenya. Agricultural Economics 2008, 38, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clemons, E.K. How information changes consumer behavior and how consumer behavior determines corporate strategy. Management Information Systems 2008, 25, 13–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 25, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonn, M.A.; Cronin, J. J.; Cho, M. Do Environmental Sustainable Practices of Organic Wine Suppliers Affect Consumers’ Behavioral Intentions? The Moderating Role of Trust. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 2016, 57, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Namkung, Y.; Jang, S. Are Consumers Willing to Pay more for Green Practices at Restaurants? Hospitality & Tourism Research 2017, 41, 329–356. [Google Scholar]
- Wong, V.; Turner, W.; Stoneman, P. Marketing Strategies and Market Prospects for Environmentally-Friendly Consumer Products. British Journal of Management 1996, 7, 263–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, P.C.; Huang, Y.H. The influence factors on choice behavior regarding green products based on the theory of consumption values. Cleaner Production 2012, 22, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gulzari, A.; Wang, Y.; Prybutok, V. A green experience with eco-friendly cars: A young consumer electric vehicle rental behavioral model. Retailing and Consumer Services 2022, 65, 102877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]





| Characteristics | Number (n = 203) |
Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 102 | 50.25 |
| Female | 101 | 49.75 | |
| Age | Under 20 | 20 | 9.85 |
| 20-25 | 66 | 32.51 | |
| 26-30 | 46 | 22.66 | |
| 31-40 | 38 | 18.72 | |
| Over 40 | 33 | 16.26 | |
| Educational level | Primary | 1 | 0.49 |
| Middle School | 10 | 4.93 | |
| High school | 37 | 18.23 | |
| Graduate | 121 | 59.61 | |
| Postgraduate | 34 | 16.75 | |
| Items | Mean | Std. Dev | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food safety concern (FS) | ||||
| The food safety of the product (FS1) | 4.65 | 0.65 | 2 | 5 |
| The quality of the product (FS2) | 4.60 | 0.62 | 2 | 5 |
| The origin of the product (FS3) | 4.47 | 0.75 | 1 | 5 |
| Agricultural environment concern (EN) | ||||
| Large-scale pesticide and chemical fertilizer contamination (EN1) | 4.38 | 0.75 | 1 | 5 |
| The consequences of agriculture environmental pollution (EN2) | 4.26 | 0.90 | 1 | 5 |
| The states of agriculture environmental pollution (EN3) | 4.18 | 0.94 | 1 | 5 |
| Pricing concern (PP) | ||||
| Compatibility with consumers' payment capabilities (PP1) | 4.04 | 0.91 | 1 | 5 |
| Cocoa powder prices reflect product value (PP2) | 3.82 | 0.92 | 1 | 5 |
| Cocoa powder prices compared to others (PP3) | 3.76 | 1.03 | 1 | 5 |
| Product expertise (PK) | ||||
| Cocoa powder product is organic (PK1) | 3.74 | 1.03 | 1 | 5 |
| Cocoa powder product is supervised by DNBR Management Board (PK2) | 3.63 | 1.09 | 1 | 5 |
| International standards verify cocoa powder quality (PK3) | 3.88 | 1.08 | 1 | 5 |
| Food safety concern (FS) |
Agricultural environment concern (EN) |
Pricing concern (PP) |
Product expertise (PK) |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| disagree | neutral | agree | disagree | neutral | agree | disagree | neutral | agree | disagree | neutral | agree | |
| Gender | ||||||||||||
| Male | 1.48 | 0.49 | 48.28 | 3.45 | 3.45 | 43.35 | 4.93 | 6.40 | 38.92 | 7.88 | 6.40 | 35.96 |
| Female | 0.49 | 0.49 | 48.77 | 0.99 | 1.97 | 46.80 | 2.46 | 4.43 | 42.86 | 1.97 | 5.42 | 41.38 |
| Total | 1.97 | 0.99 | 97.04 | 4.43 | 5.42 | 90.15 | 7.39 | 10.84 | 81.77 | 9.85 | 11.82 | 77.34 |
| Education | ||||||||||||
| Primary school | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.49 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.49 | 0.00 |
| Middle school | 0.49 | 0.49 | 3.94 | 1.48 | 0.00 | 3.45 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4.93 | 0.00 | 0.99 | 3.94 |
| High school | 1.48 | 0.00 | 17.73 | 0.49 | 0.99 | 15.76 | 1.48 | 1.48 | 15.27 | 2.46 | 0.49 | 15.27 |
| Graduate | 0.99 | 0.49 | 58.13 | 1.97 | 2.96 | 54.68 | 2.96 | 7.88 | 48.77 | 6.40 | 7.88 | 45.32 |
| Post-graduate | 0.00 | 0 | 16.75 | 0.00 | 1.48 | 15.27 | 2.96 | 0.99 | 12.81 | 0.99 | 1.97 | 13.79 |
| Total | 2.96 | 0.99 | 97.04 | 4.43 | 5.42 | 89.16 | 7.39 | 10.84 | 81.77 | 9.85 | 11.82 | 78.33 |
| Gender | Food safety concerns (FS) |
Agricultural environment concerns (EN) |
Price concerns (PP) |
Product expertise (PK) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | 202 | 202 | 202 | 202 |
| MS | 0.317 | 0.52 | 0.57 | 0.74 |
| F | 1.23 | 5.22 | 4.63 | 7.53 |
| P(F ≤ f) one-tail | 0.27 | 0.023 | 0.033 | 0.018 |
| Prob > chi2 | 0.12 | 0.185 | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Educational level | Food safety concerns (FS) |
Agricultural environment concerns (EN) |
Price concerns (PP) |
Product expertise (PK) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | 202 | 202 | 202 | 202 |
| MS | 0.32 | 0.52 | 0.57 | 0.74 |
| F | 3.74 | 2.83 | 0.69 | 1.29 |
| P(F ≤ f) one-tail | 0.006 | 0.026 | 0.598 | 0.275 |
| Prob > chi2 | 0.001 | 0.67 | 0.107 | 0.997 |
| Observed variables | Cronbach’s Alpha | Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted |
|---|---|---|
| Food safety concern (FS) | ||
| The food safety of the product (FS1) | 0.778 | 0.728 |
| The quality of the product (FS2) | 0.629 | |
| The origin of the product (FS3) | 0.748 | |
| Agricultural environment concern (EN) | ||
| Large-scale pesticide and chemical fertilizer contamination (EN1) | 0.777 | 0.770 |
| The consequences of agriculture environmental pollution (EN2) | 0.559 | |
| The states of agriculture environmental pollution (EN3) | 0.741 | |
| Price concern (PP) | ||
| Compatibility with consumers' payment capabilities (PP1) | 0.695 | 0.696 |
| Cocoa powder prices reflect product value (PP2) | 0.548 | |
| Cocoa powder prices compared to others (PP3) | 0.547 | |
| Product expertise (PK) | ||
| Cocoa powder product is organic (PK1) | 0.733 | 0.598 |
| Cocoa powder product is supervised by DNBR Management Board (PK2) | 0.700 | |
| International standards verify cocoa powder quality (PK3) | 0.640 | |
| WTP for the product (Y) | ||
| WTP for the organic labeled product (Y1) | 0.874 | 0.898 |
| WTP for the Tier 1 eco-labeled product (Y2) | 0.804 | |
| WTP for the Tier 2 eco-labeled product (Y3) | 0.769 | |
| WTP for the Tier 3 eco-labeled product (Y4) | 0.858 |
| Observed variables | Components | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Willingness to pay for the Tier 2 eco-labeled product (Y3) | 0.939 | ||||
| Willingness to pay for the Tier 1 eco-labeled product (Y2) | 0.872 | ||||
| Willingness to pay for the Tier 3 eco-labeled product (Y4) | 0.861 | ||||
| The quality of the product (FS2) | 0.880 | ||||
| The food safety of the product (FS1) | 0.800 | ||||
| The origin of the product (FS3) | 0.745 | ||||
| The consequences of agriculture environmental pollution (EN2) | 0.928 | ||||
| The states of agriculture environmental pollution (EN3) | 0.806 | ||||
| Large-scale pesticide and chemical fertilizer contamination (EN1) | 0.723 | ||||
| Cocoa powder product is organic (PK1) | 0.805 | ||||
| International standards verify cocoa powder quality (PK3) | 0.802 | ||||
| Cocoa powder product is supervised by DNBR Management Board (PK2) | 0.796 | ||||
| Cocoa powder prices reflect product value (PP2) | 0.830 | ||||
| Compatibility with consumers' payment capabilities (PP1) | 0.779 | ||||
| Cocoa powder prices compared to others (PP3) | 0.708 | ||||
| Parameter | SE | SE-SE | Mean | Bias | SE-Bias | CR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Y ← FS | 0.205 | 0.006 | -0.003 | 0.004 | 0.009 | 0.444 |
| Y ← EN | 0.133 | 0.004 | 0.038 | -0.002 | 0.006 | -0.333 |
| Y ← PK | 0.155 | 0.005 | 0.389 | -0.001 | 0.007 | -0.142 |
| Y ← PP | 0.185 | 0.006 | -0.114 | 0.002 | 0.008 | 0.250 |
| Y3 ← Y | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Y2 ← Y | 0.048 | 0.002 | 0.588 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 1.000 |
| Y4 ← Y | 0.059 | 0.002 | 0.766 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.666 |
| FS2 ← FS | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| FS1 ← FS | 0.153 | 0.005 | 0.909 | 0.010 | 0.007 | 1.428 |
| FS3 ← FS | 0.144 | 0.005 | 1.014 | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.166 |
| EN2 ← EN | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| EN3 ← EN | 0.140 | 0.004 | 0.847 | 0.011 | 0.006 | 1.833 |
| EN1 ← EN | 0.107 | 0.003 | 0.627 | -0.003 | 0.005 | -0.600 |
| PK1 ← PK | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| PK3 ← PK | 0.171 | 0.005 | 0.961 | 0.021 | 0.008 | 2.625 |
| PK2 ← PK | 0.143 | 0.005 | 0.832 | -0.003 | 0.006 | 0.500 |
| PP2 ← PP | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| PP1 ← PP | 0.140 | 0.004 | 0.745 | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.833 |
| PP3 ← PP | 0.209 | 0.007 | 1.366 | 0.024 | 0.009 | 2.666 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
