ISSN 2280-6180 (print) © Firenze University Press ISSN 2280-6172 (online) www.fupress.com/bae Bio-based and Applied Economics 1(2): 213-229, 2012 Consumers’ Awareness and Attitudinal Determinants of European Union Quality Label Use on Traditional Foods Wim Verbeke1, ZuZanna Pieniak1, Luis Guerrero2, marGrethe hersLeth3 1 Ghent University, Department of Agricultural Economics, Belgium 2 IRTA-Monells, Finca Camps i Armet, Spain 3 Nofima, Norway Abstract. This study analyses European consumers’ awareness and determinants of use of PDO, PGI and TSG labels in six European countries (Italy, Spain, France, Bel- gium, Norway and Poland) using data from a cross-sectional survey with 4,828 par- ticipants. The study confirms a higher awareness of PDO (68.1%) as compared to PGI (36.4%) and TSG (25.2%). Awareness is higher among men and people aged above 50 years. Consumers’ use of a PDO, PGI or TSG label is triggered by the belief that the label signals better product quality. Quality beliefs are shaped by an interest in getting information about product quality through the quality label. Interest in the origin of foods is a stronger direct and indirect driver of label use than interest in support for the local economy, but both motivations are not directly related to TSG-label use. Dif- ferences in the role of determinants are small between the three labelling schemes and between countries with versus without a strong tradition of quality labels in their agri- cultural and food quality policies. Apart from building general awareness and favour- able quality perceptions of the quality schemes and their respective labels, efforts to stimulate consumers’ interest in origin and getting information about product quality through EU quality labels are recommended. Keywords. Consumer, EU food quality policy, PDO, PGI, Traditional food products, TSG JEL-codes. D12; D83; Q13; Q18 1. Introduction “A constantly increasing number of consumers attach greater importance to the quality of foodstuffs in their diet than to quantity.” This statement as mentioned in the European Council Regulation EC 510/2006 (European Commission, 2006: L 93/12) was one of the main justifications for introducing the three European Union (EU) quality schemes related to geographical indications and traditional specialities as the cornerstone of the EU agricultural product quality policy. The three quality schemes are common- ly known with their acronyms PDO (Protected Designation of Origin), PGI (Protected 1 Corresponding author: Wim.Verbeke@UGent.be. 214 W. Verbeke, Z. Pieniak, L. Guerrero and M. Hersleth Geographical Indication) and TSG (Traditional Speciality Guaranteed), from which the PDO and PGI (geographical indications) schemes are the most widely used with more than 500 registered products each by the end of 2011 (European Commission, 2011). The PDO scheme covers agricultural products and foodstuffs which are produced, pro- cessed and prepared in a specific geographical area using recognised know-how. For PGI, at least one of the stages of production, processing or preparation has to take place in a specific geographic area. TSG highlights the traditional character of products, either in their composition or means of production, and hence, does not strictly refer to geo- graphical origin (European Commission, 2012). The three schemes are used as a means of product differentiation for otherwise often unbranded or generic agricultural prod- ucts (Verbeke and Roosen, 2009) and have built on a long history of regional and tra- ditional specialities, especially in southern European countries (Teuber, 2010). Belletti and Marescotti (2011) stress the positive rural development potential of origin products – if well-embedded in a comprehensive rural development policy – through the fact that these create favourable economic, social, cultural and environmental effects. According to Sylvander and Barham (2011), geographical indications have gradually become part of the global economy and managed to become firmly embedded in it. Food and agricultural quality policies are quite diverse across Europe. Becker (2009) identified several European regional clusters based on the focus in their food quality- enhancing policies, which included geographical indications as well as collective quality marks, quality assurance schemes and organic production. Specifically, France, Italy and Spain were classified as countries that are clearly PDO/PGI oriented, in contrast with Belgium, Norway and Poland, which were classified as rather food-quality-assurance scheme oriented, and “catching up with respect to PDO/PGIs” (Becker, 2009: 128). The three quality schemes aim at providing consumers with clear and succinct infor- mation regarding the product origin or speciality character, in order to enable consumers to make the best possible choices, i.e. choices in line with their preferences. Many stud- ies have focused on consumer issues related to geographical indications (for an overview, we refer to Carpenter and Larceneux (2008), Verbeke and Roosen (2009) and Aprile et al. (2012) or traditional specialities (e.g. Guerrero et al., 2010; Vanhonacker et al., 2010; Almli et al., 2011). Whereas several studies support the idea that consumers value geo- graphical indications and the traditional character as quality signals on food products (e.g. Caporale and Monteleone, 2001; van der Lans et al., 2001; Espejel et al., 2008; Her- sleth et al., 2011), several others report that consumer valuation cannot be taken for granted (e.g. Bonnet and Simioni, 2001; Loureiro and Umberger, 2007) and is often lim- ited to particular market segments (Tregear and Giraud, 2011). Although an increasing trend towards consumer awareness of and interest in PDO/PGI/TSG food products has been acknowledged (Arfini et al., 2011), further consumer research aiming at improving our understanding of consumer reactions towards geographical and traditional speciality labels in Europe has been recommended (Chrysochou et al., 2012). The objective of the present study is, first, to describe European consumers’ aware- ness and second, to investigate attitudinal determinants of European consumers’ inter- est in and use of geographical (PDO, PGI) and traditional speciality (TSG) labels when purchasing traditional foods. The data for this study have been collected through a cross- sectional pan-European consumer survey in six countries, namely Italy, Spain, France, 215Consumers’ awareness and determinants of EU quality label Belgium, Poland, and Norway. The choice of countries was informed by their geographi- cal location across southern, central and northern Europe, and by the differences in those countries’ focuses in terms of agricultural and food quality policies, most notably the different importance of products with a geographical indication or a traditional char- acter in their policies. This paper will first develop and present the research framework for the study based on insights from previous consumer research with respect to qual- ity labels. Next, materials and methods will be presented, including data collection and modelling approaches. Finally, findings will be presented and discussed, based on which conclusions and policy implications are set forth. 2. Research framework The study validates a research framework with consumers’ use of quality labels as the behavioural response or outcome variable of interest (Figure 1). The assumption is that quality labels fail to have an impact on behaviour and food choice unless they are used by consumers (Verbeke, 2005; Grunert and Wills, 2007), which makes it relevant to gain more insight in determinants of quality label use. The framework of the study is informed by a classical stage model of consumer decision-making (Solomon et al., 2006) in which interest in getting information about product quality through a PDO/PGI/TSG quality label is hypothesised to trigger attitude formation (i.e. perceived quality and distinctive- ness in this study) and a subsequent behavioural response (i.e. label use in this study). Two motivations are assumed to fuel consumers’ interest in getting information, namely interest in the origin of foods and interest in support for the local economy in food production (e.g. Lusk et al., 2006). The first motivation refers to the fact that con- sumers might prefer products from certain regions or countries since they are believed to be simply better (i.e. more tasty, safer, healthier, more sustainable) (e.g. Loureiro and Umberger, 2007; Resano et al., 2007; Dekhili et al., 2011). The second motivation refers to consumer ethnocentrism or a so-called economic support dimension as identified by van Ittersum et al. (2007). Consumers might prefer products from their own region or coun- try, e.g. because of loyalty to it and/or animosity towards others, or because of a related preference to support the local economy rather than remote or foreign economies. Interests or motivations are hypothesised to influence label use both directly and indirectly through perceived quality as signalled by and inferred from the label informa- tion (van der Lans et al., 2001). Quality has been identified as one of the explicit goals of traditional food chains (together with traditionalism) that effectively matter to consum- ers (Molnar et al., 2011). Quality labels may generate positive associations or beliefs about product quality (Carpenter and Larcenaux, 2008; Resano et al., 2007). Two perceptions of product quality are included in the study, namely the belief that the quality label signals better or superior quality, and the belief that the quality label signals a distinct product character (perceived distinctiveness). The hypothesis is that a quality label as an informa- tion cue may perform better in triggering label use if it communicates something mean- ingful and relevant from the consumer perspective, such as better or superior quality and/ or distinctiveness. The research framework is operationalised for PDO, PGI and TSG sep- arately. The overall study was performed within the broader context of traditional food consumption (Guerrero et al., 2009, 2010). 216 W. Verbeke, Z. Pieniak, L. Guerrero and M. Hersleth Figure 1. Conceptual framework: determinants of use of quality labels (PDO, PGI, TSG) Interest  in  origin of  foods Interest  in  getting   information  about   product  quality   through  a (PDO,  PGI,  TSG)  label Interest  in  support  for   the  local  economy in  food  production Use  of  the (PDO,  PGI,  TSG) label Belief  that  the  quality   label  signals  better   quality Belief  that  the  quality   label  signals  a  distinct   product  character Note: the thickness of arrows indicates a consensus on the strengths of paths as obtained from the SEM analyses performed in this study 3. Materials and Methods 3.1 Research approach and sampling Quantitative descriptive data were collected through a cross-sectional consumer sur- vey with samples representative for age, gender and region in Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, Poland, and Norway. The age range of the population was defined as 20-70 years. Total sample size was 4,828 with around 800 participants in each of the six considered Europe- an countries. Participants were randomly recruited from the representative TNS European Online Access Panel in line with the national population distributions with respect to age, gender and region. All contact and questionnaire administration procedures were electron- ic and web-based. Data collection was performed during the period from October 25 until November 9, 2007, as part of the pan-European TRUEFOOD (EU FP6) consumer study (Vanhonacker et al., 2010). Participants were asked to complete a self-administered structured electronic question- naire. The master questionnaire was developed in English and translated in the national lan- guages using the procedure of back-translation. Following back-translation, the questionnaire was extensively pre-tested by the researchers through personal interviews with 15-20 partici- pants in each of the countries in order to identify and eliminate potential problems and to ensure linguistic equivalence. Fieldwork started after editing, correcting, electronic program- ming and additional pre-testing of the electronic version of the questionnaire. The average time for completing the total questionnaire ranged from 29’33” in France to 33’36” in Poland. Detailed socio-demographic characteristics of the national and pooled samples are provided in Table 1. Gender is equally distributed, which reflects that the population was 217Consumers’ awareness and determinants of EU quality label intentionally not restricted to the main responsible person for food purchasing. Age dis- tributions, mean age and mean household sizes match closely with the national census data for the respective countries. Table 1 also presents a proxy of socio-economic class, which was a subjective assessment (self-estimate) of the household’s financial situation reported on a 7-point interval scale ranging from “1 = difficult” over “4 = moderate” to “7  =  well off ”. The sample is slightly biased towards higher education and towards par- ticipants who reported to belong to the ‘moderate-well off ’ socio-economic classes, which may be attributed to the use of an electronic survey method. Table 1. Selected socio-demographic characteristics of the pooled and national samples Pooled sample n=4,828 Norway n=798 Belgium n=826 France n=801 Spain n=800 Italy n=800 Poland n=803 Gender (%) Female Male 49.2 50.8 49.1 50.9 49.4 50.6 51.9 48.1 47.4 52.6 47.3 52.7 50.2 49.8 Age (years) < 35 35-55 >55 Mean S.D. 34.1 46.4 19.5 41.5 12.8 34.1 47.5 18.4 41.4 12.5 28.5 46.4 25.1 43.7 13.3 33.7 46.4 19.9 41.4 12.8 35.5 47.4 17.1 40.7 12.3 35.0 45.8 19.2 41.2 12.8 37.9 44.8 17.3 40.6 12.8 Household size (number) Mean S.D. 2.9 1.3 2.6 1.3 2.7 1.3 2.7 1.2 3.1 1.3 3.2 1.3 3.0 1.4 Financial situation (%) Difficult Moderate Moderate - well off Education Lower secondary Upper secondary Higher education 24.6 32.1 43.3 8.6 38.8 52.6 24.8 31.5 43.7 9.8 47.9 42.3 17.8 28.6 53.6 8.1 35.2 56.6 35.5 32.5 32.0 9.0 37.5 53.5 18.9 36.2 44.9 9.4 24.4 66.2 29.8 32.8 37.4 12.4 61.4 26.2 21.3 31.0 47.7 2.6 26.7 70.7 3.2 Measurement and scaling Consumers’ awareness of the European food quality certification schemes was mea- sured by asking the question “Have you ever heard of food products with PDO (Protected Designation of Origin)/PGI (Protected Geographical Indication)/TSG (Traditional Spe- ciality Guaranteed)?” on three separate binary “yes”/“no” scales. Interest in getting information about product quality through a PDO, PGI and TSG label as an information cue was measured by asking participants “To what extent would you like to be informed about the specific quality of a traditional food through a PDO- label (Protected Designation of Origin)/a PGI-label (Protected Geographical Indication)/a 218 W. Verbeke, Z. Pieniak, L. Guerrero and M. Hersleth TSG-label (Traditional Speciality Guaranteed)?” on a 7-point interval scale ranging from “1 = not at all” to “7 = very much”. Belief that PDO, PGI and TSG signals better quality on a food product was measured using the question “To what degree do you consider a PDO-label (Protected Designa- tion of Origin)/a PGI-label (Protected Geographical Indication)/a TSG-label (Traditional Speciality Guaranteed) as signalling better quality food?”, which was to be answered on a 7-point interval scale ranging from “1 = not at all” to “7 = very much”. Belief that PDO, PGI, TSG signals a distinct character of a food product was mea- sured by asking participants “To what degree do you consider a PDO-label/a PGI-label/a TSG-label as signalling a distinctive character of traditional food?” on a 7-point interval scale ranging from “1 = not at all” to “7 = very much”. Use of PDO, PGI and TSG as an information cue in consumers’ food purchasing decision-making was measured using the question: “To what extent do you consider a PDO-label (Protected Designation of Origin)/PGI-label (Protected Geographical Indi- cation)/TSG-label (Traditional Speciality Guaranteed) when making food purchasing decisions?” to be answered on a 7-point interval scale ranging from “1  =  not at all” to “7 = very much”. The questions probing for awareness, interest in getting information, beliefs and label use were asked for PDO, PGI and TSG in this order without randomising question items or label schemes. Finally, interest in the origin of foods was measured by the statement “It is important to me that the food I eat on a normal weekday has the country or region of origin clearly marked”, whereas interest in support for the local economy in food produc- tion was assessed by the statement “It is important to me that the food I eat on a normal weekday has been produced while supporting the local economy”, both on a 7-point Lik- ert scale ranging from “1=I totally disagree” to “7=I totally agree”. 3.3 Statistical analyses Completed questionnaires were edited by the field research agency in order to ensure accuracy and precision of the response prior to coding and transcription of the data in SPSS 16.0. Given the large sample sizes and very low numbers of missing responses, pair- wise deletion was used as the method for treating missing values. The research frame- work has been tested for PDO, PGI and TSG using structural equations modelling (SEM) by means of LISREL 8.72. With the use of SEM the examination of all the relationships between constructs and items is performed simultaneously, which is a substantial advan- tage compared with single equation modelling (Bollen, 1989). Due to the large sample size the χ² may not be the most appropriate measure of goodness-of-fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1993). Therefore, three other indices will be reported: the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI). Values below 0.08 for RMSEA (Browne and Cudeck, 1993) and above 0.90 for GFI and CFI (Bollen, 1989) suggest an acceptable fit of the model. Given the differences in food quality policies and marketplace provenance of products with geographical and traditional speciality labels in the different countries involved in the study, we will empirically validate the model separately for the countries with a strong tra- dition of using this type of quality labels (Italy, Spain and France) versus the countries 219Consumers’ awareness and determinants of EU quality label without a strong emphasis on using these quality labels in their agricultural and food quality policies (Belgium, Poland and Norway). 4. Empirical findings 4.1 Consumers’ awareness of PDO, PGI and TSG Two thirds (68.1%) of the total sample reported to be aware of PDO, whereas the claimed awareness of PGI and TSG amounted only to 36.4% and 25.2%, respectively (Figure 2). Relatively more men to women were aware of PDO, PGI and TSG (Table 2). In line with the market presence of the quality schemes, French, Italian and Spanish consumers were significantly more aware of PDO, whereas relatively few Belgian, Nor- wegian and Polish consumers claimed to be aware of PDO. Additionally, relatively more Italian and relatively few Belgian and Polish consumers claimed to be aware of PGI. Rel- atively more Italian and Polish consumers were aware of TSG, in contrast with Belgian and French consumers. Consumers above 50 years of age were significantly more aware of PDO, PGI and TSG than the younger ones. No significant differences in the awareness of PDO were found between people with different education levels, whereas relatively more consumers with upper secondary school education claimed to be aware of PGI and TSG. Household size did not significantly associate with the awareness of PDO, PGI or TSG on food prod- ucts. Associations between self-reported financial situation and awareness of quality labels are statistically significant (0.01 5 5 yr M ea n ag e (y ea rs ) 32 .3 49 .0 18 .7 41 .9 8 37 .7 47 .0 15 .4 40 .5 2 16 .0 7 1. 46 <0 .0 01 <0 .0 01 30 .1 49 .2 20 .1 42 .8 36 .3 47 .5 16 .2 40 .8 23 .8 2 2. 10 <0 .0 01 <0 .0 01 29 .3 48 .2 22 .5 43 .7 35 .7 48 .4 15 .9 40 .8 33 .6 1 4. 32 <0 .0 01 <0 .0 01 34 .0 48 .3 17 .6 Ed uc at io n (% ) L ow er se co nd ar y U pp er se co nd ar y H ig he r e du ca tio n 9. 1 38 .6 52 .3 7. 6 39 .1 53 .4 3. 24 0. 19 8 9. 0 42 .7 48 .3 8. 3 36 .6 55 .1 21 .5 7 <0 .0 01 9. 2 42 .0 48 .7 8. 3 37 .7 53 .9 9. 92 0. 00 7 8. 6 38 .8 52 .7 H ou se ho ld si ze (# ) M ea n 2. 89 2. 87 2. 37 0. 67 2. 92 2. 86 1. 46 0. 15 2. 94 2. 86 0. 10 9 0. 09 2 2. 88 Fi na nc ia l s itu at io n (% ) D iffi cu lt- M od er at e M od er at e M od er at e - W el l o ff 25 .7 31 .8 42 .5 22 .3 32 .7 44 .9 6. 59 0. 03 7 22 .7 32 .2 45 .1 25 .7 32 .1 42 .2 6. 18 0. 04 5 22 .4 31 .2 46 .4 25 .4 32 .4 42 .2 7. 3 0. 02 6 24 .7 32 .1 43 .3 *T es t st at is tic s us ed : C hi -s qu ar e as so ci at io n te st fo r G en de r, Co un tr y, A ge c at eg or y, E du ca tio n, F in an ci al s itu at io n; In de pe nd en t sa m pl es t -t es t fo r M ea n ag e an d M ea n ho us eh ol d si ze 221Consumers’ awareness and determinants of EU quality label 4.2 Determinants of consumers’ use of PDO, PGI and TSG Three multi-group analyses have been performed in order to identify the determi- nants of use of the three quality labels. Participants who were not aware of the PDO label (n = 1,541), the PGI label (n = 3,071) and the TSG label (n = 3,612) have been excluded from the SEM analyses. As a result, the Lisrel model analyses were performed with a sample of n = 3,287 participants who were aware of PDO; n = 1,757 who were aware of PGI; and n  =  1,216 who were aware of TSG. First, inter correlations between the constructs of the research model were checked, as for example presented in Table 3 for the PDO model. All correlation coefficients across the three models were significant but below 0.80, thus (severe) multicollinearity is not a concern in the present data (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). Table 3. Construct correlation matrix for PDO (n = 3,287) Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Use of the PDO label 1.00 2. Interest in getting information through PDO 0.50 1.00 3. Belief that PDO signals better quality 0.64 0.49 1.00 4. Belief that PDO signals distinct character 0.62 0.50 0.74 1.00 5. Interest in support for the local economy 0.28 0.30 0.20 0.21 1.00 6. Interest in origin of foods 0.33 0.37 0.23 0.25 0.53 1.00 Note: All correlations are statistically significant at p<0.01 (two-tailed) The proposed model performed relatively well for the three schemes. The PDO model fitted the data best with χ² = 91.89 and 14 degrees of freedom (p<0.001); the RMSEA val- ue of 0.058; the GFI 0.99 and the CFI 0.99, which are satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices (Table 4). Additionally, the goodness-of-fit statistics indicated that the presented research framework was acceptable as well for the PGI model (Satorra-Bentler χ² = 85.09, df = 14; RMSEA=0.076; Table 5) and tentatively acceptable for the TSG model (Satorra-Bentler χ² = 78.23, df = 14; RMSEA = 0.087; Table 6). Consistent results are obtained across the three models and two sets of countries. First, interest in the origin of foods fuels consumers’ interest in getting information about product quality through a PDO/PGI/TSG-label. This motivation is much stronger associ- ated with interest in getting information through a label than the relationship with inter- est in support for the local economy in food production. A notable exception is the PGI- model for Belgium, Norway and Poland, where the relation of both motivations with con- sumers’ interest in getting information through a PGI-label is nearly equal. Second, direct relations between interest in origin or support for local economy and label use are small for PDO and PGI, and insignificant for TSG. Also the direct relation between interest in getting information through the labels and label use is rather small. Third, consumers’ 222 W. Verbeke, Z. Pieniak, L. Guerrero and M. Hersleth Ta bl e 4. D et er m in an ts o f c on su m er s’ us e of P ro te ct ed D es ig na tio n of O rig in (P D O ) l ab el Pa th fr om to Ita ly, S pa in , F ra nc e (n =2 ,3 08 ) Be lg iu m , N or w ay , P ol an d (n =9 79 ) M ot iv at io ns In te re st in o rig in o f f oo ds In te re st in g et tin g in fo rm at io n th ro ug h PD O 0. 31 0. 24 In te re st in su pp or t f or th e lo ca l e co no m y In te re st in g et tin g in fo rm at io n th ro ug h PD O 0. 13 0. 14 In te re st in o rig in o f f oo ds U se o f t he P D O la be l 0. 10 0. 11 In te re st in su pp or t f or th e lo ca l e co no m y U se o f t he P D O la be l 0. 07 0. 06 In te re st in g et tin g in fo rm at io n th ro ug h PD O Be lie f t ha t P D O si gn al s b et te r q ua lit y 0. 49 0. 42 In te re st in g et tin g in fo rm at io n th ro ug h PD O Be lie f t ha t P D O si gn al s d ist in ct c ha ra ct er 0. 15 0. 20 In te re st in g et tin g in fo rm at io n th ro ug h PD O U se o f t he P D O la be l 0. 15 0. 14 Pe rc ei ve d qu al ity Be lie f t ha t P D O si gn al s b et te r q ua lit y Be lie f t ha t P D O si gn al s d ist in ct c ha ra ct er 0. 67 0. 62 Be lie f t ha t P D O si gn al s b et te r q ua lit y U se o f t he P D O la be l 0. 30 0. 40 Be lie f t ha t P D O si gn al s d ist in ct c ha ra ct er U se o f t he P D O la be l 0. 29 0. 22 G oo dn es s- of -fi t s ta tis tic s: χ ²(1 4) = 9 1. 89 , p <0 .0 01 ; R M SE A = 0 .0 58 ; N N FI = 0 .9 82 ; C FI = 0 .9 92 ; G FI = 0 .9 88 . O nl y si gn ifi ca nt c oe ffi ci en ts (p <0 .0 5) a re s ho w n; re po rt ed c oe ffi ci en ts a re d ire ct e ffe ct s on ly . 223Consumers’ awareness and determinants of EU quality label Ta bl e 5. D et er m in an ts o f c on su m er s’ us e of P ro te ct ed G eo gr ap hi ca l I nd ic at io n (P G I) la be l Pa th fr om to Ita ly, S pa in , F ra nc e (n =1 ,1 48 ) Be lg iu m , N or w ay , P ol an d (n =6 09 ) M ot iv at io ns In te re st in o rig in o f f oo ds In te re st in g et tin g in fo rm at io n th ro ug h PG I 0. 37 0. 24 In te re st in su pp or t f or th e lo ca l e co no m y In te re st in g et tin g in fo rm at io n th ro ug h PG I 0. 12 0. 20 In te re st in o rig in o f f oo ds U se o f t he P G I l ab el ns 0. 07 In te re st in su pp or t f or th e lo ca l e co no m y U se o f t he P G I l ab el 0. 10 0. 13 In te re st in g et tin g in fo rm at io n th ro ug h PG I Be lie f t ha t P G I s ig na ls be tte r q ua lit y 0. 55 0. 47 In te re st in g et tin g in fo rm at io n th ro ug h PG I Be lie f t ha t P G I s ig na ls di st in ct c ha ra ct er 0. 13 0. 16 In te re st in g et tin g in fo rm at io n th ro ug h PG I U se o f t he P G I l ab el 0. 17 0. 10 Pe rc ei ve d qu al ity Be lie f t ha t P G I s ig na ls be tte r q ua lit y Be lie f t ha t P G I s ig na ls di st in ct c ha ra ct er 0. 69 0. 66 Be lie f t ha t P G I s ig na ls be tte r q ua lit y U se o f t he P G I l ab el 0. 39 0. 34 Be lie f t ha t P G I s ig na ls di st in ct c ha ra ct er U se o f t he P G I l ab el 0. 27 0. 29 G oo dn es s- of -fi t s ta tis tic s: χ ²(1 4) = 8 5. 09 , p <0 .0 01 ; R M SE A = 0 .0 76 ; N N FI = 0 .9 85 ; C FI = 0 .9 87 ; G FI = 0 .9 88 . O nl y si gn ifi ca nt c oe ffi ci en ts (p <0 .0 5) a re s ho w n; n s = no t s ig ni fic an t; re po rt ed c oe ffi ci en ts a re d ire ct e ffe ct s on ly . 224 W. Verbeke, Z. Pieniak, L. Guerrero and M. Hersleth Ta bl e 6. D et er m in an ts o f c on su m er s’ us e of T ra di tio na l S pe ci al ity G ua ra nt ee d (T SG ) l ab el Pa th fr om to Ita ly, S pa in , F ra nc e (n =6 17 ) Be lg iu m , N or w ay , P ol an d (n =5 99 ) M ot iv at io ns In te re st in o rig in o f f oo ds In te re st in g et tin g in fo rm at io n th ro ug h TS G 0. 33 0. 25 In te re st in su pp or t f or th e lo ca l e co no m y In te re st in g et tin g in fo rm at io n th ro ug h TS G 0. 14 0. 16 In te re st in o rig in o f f oo ds U se o f t he T SG la be l ns ns In te re st in su pp or t f or th e lo ca l e co no m y U se o f t he T SG la be l ns ns In te re st in g et tin g in fo rm at io n th ro ug h TS G Be lie f t ha t T SG si gn al s b et te r q ua lit y 0. 55 0. 53 In te re st in g et tin g in fo rm at io n th ro ug h TS G Be lie f t ha t T SG si gn al s d ist in ct c ha ra ct er 0. 14 0. 15 In te re st in g et tin g in fo rm at io n th ro ug h TS G U se o f t he T SG la be l 0. 09 0. 10 Pe rc ei ve d qu al ity Be lie f t ha t T SG si gn al s b et te r q ua lit y Be lie f t ha t T SG si gn al s d ist in ct c ha ra ct er 0. 71 0. 69 Be lie f t ha t T SG si gn al s b et te r q ua lit y U se o f t he T SG la be l 0. 42 0. 34 Be lie f t ha t T SG si gn al s d ist in ct c ha ra ct er U se o f t he T SG la be l 0. 28 0. 34 G oo dn es s- of -fi t s ta tis tic s: χ ²(1 4) = 7 8. 23 , p <0 .0 01 ; R M SE A = 0 .0 87 ; N N FI = 0 .9 65 ; C FI = 0 .9 83 ; G FI = 0 .9 82 ; n s = no t s ig ni fic an t O nl y si gn ifi ca nt c oe ffi ci en ts (p <0 .0 5) a re s ho w n; n s = no t s ig ni fic an t; re po rt ed c oe ffi ci en ts a re d ire ct e ffe ct s on ly 225Consumers’ awareness and determinants of EU quality label belief that PDO/PGI/TSG signal better quality emerges as the strongest driver of label use. On one hand, this quality perception is strongly influenced by interest in getting informa- tion about product quality through the label, and its relationship with label use on the other hand is further reinforced by a strongly associated belief that the quality label sig- nals a distinct product character. Fourth, the role of perceived distinctiveness as modera- tor and determinant of label use is significant but somewhat weaker. Only few differences between both sets of countries are observed. The path from inter- est in the origin of foods, over interest in getting information through a quality label, to label use is stronger in countries with a tradition of quality labels (Italy, Spain, France). Paths involving interest in support for the local economy are similar – whether significant or not – across countries for the PDO and TSG model, but somewhat stronger in the PGI model for countries without a tradition of quality labels (Belgium, Norway, Poland). Finally, there is also a tendency that the role of perceived distinctiveness is more prominent in countries without a tradition of quality labels, which is most apparent for the PGI and TSG models. 5. Discussion and conclusions The present study assessed European consumers’ awareness of PDO/PGI/TSG and it proposed and validated a research framework for analysing consumers’ use of those labels when making food purchasing decisions. The study faces specific strengths owing to its quantitative and cross-cultural approach with large consumer samples, but also some limita- tions owing to the use of single item constructs, the non product-specific nature of the study and the sampling procedure (on-line consumer panel). Framing was limited to traditional foods, which is a very broad product category (Guererro et al., 2009). It remains to be inves- tigated whether the framework holds equally for quality labels on meat or dairy products versus olive oil versus alcoholic drinks, for example. Despite the use of nationally representa- tive samples with respect to age, gender and region, the use of an online survey method may have introduced some bias towards higher educated and financially better off participants. First, consumers’ awareness of geographical indications, especially PDO, is very high in the countries with a strong tradition of using this quality scheme. Awareness of PGI is at a comparable high level as PDO in Italy, but much lower than PDO in France and Spain. This finding is remarkable since the market presence of PGI in terms of the num- ber of registered products is at a comparable level as for PDO in France and Spain, where- as the number of registered PDO products largely outweighs the number of PGI products in Italy (Arfini et al., 2011). Apparently, the PGI products have been much more success- ful in building consumers’ awareness in Italy than in France and Spain. Awareness about products with TSG is highest in Poland, which coincides with the fact that Poland has the largest number (nine by the end of 2011) of registered TSGs among the countries in the study. Despite the fact that France and Norway had no registered TSGs at that time, awareness levels around 20-25% are reported. Our findings confirm a high level of con- sumers’ awareness of PDO in the countries with a tradition of geographical indications, which in our study are located in Southern (Italy and Spain) and Western (France) Europe (Arfini et al., 2011), but also indicate a considerable gap with consumers’ awareness of PGI and TSG, as well as substantial differences in awareness between countries with ver- sus without a tradition of geographical indications in their agricultural and food quality 226 W. Verbeke, Z. Pieniak, L. Guerrero and M. Hersleth policies. While some of the observed differences corroborate with market presence and quality policies in the respective countries, others are not straightforward in their inter- pretation and may require additional research. In addition, it should be noted that objec- tive knowledge about the attributes guaranteed by geographical indications is low, even among Italian consumers (Aprile et al., 2012). Second, with respect to socio-demographics, a higher awareness is reported among men and older consumers for each of the schemes. In comparison, Dekhili et al. (2011) reported a higher use of official cues including the French AOC (Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée) among women and older consumers, versus a higher use of origin cues (coun- try and region of origin) among men for the case of olive oil. Bonnet and Simioni (2001) found a positive age and income effect on willingness-to-pay for Camembert cheese. Lou- reiro and Umberger (2003) reported stronger support in terms of willingness-to-pay for country-of-origin labelled beef among female and wealthier consumers. Income effects are small in our sample where income was measured as a self-estimate of wealth. If willing- ness-to-pay for products with quality labels is effectively higher among females, wealthier and older consumers, it is paramount to ensure that also awareness of these cues is higher within these consumer segments. However, the findings from our study do not suggest patterns that are consistent with this logic. Hence, additional targeted efforts towards cre- ating higher consumers’ awareness of PDO/PGI/TSG among segments with a higher pos- sible willingness-to-pay are recommended. Third, findings from this study confirm the prominent role of motivations and quality perceptions in shaping consumers’ use of the respective labels in food purchasing decisions. The structure of attitudinal determinants of label use is consistent across the three labelling schemes. The exception of non-significant direct paths from origin and local economy sup- port in the TSG-model is consistent with the positioning of the TSG scheme, which is not directly related to geographical origin or local produce. Apart from a potentially stronger role of consumer ethnocentrism in the case of TSG in countries without a strong tradition of quality labels, only minor differences are detected between the motivational structures of consumers in countries with a different emphasis on quality labels in their agricultural and food quality policies. The study herewith indicates that similar triggers (e.g. product posi- tioning and marketing communications) can be used to stimulate consumer interest in and use of PDO, PGI and TSG across Europe. Apart from building general awareness, highest success can be expected from policy and communication efforts that: stimulate consumers’ interest in the origin of foods, trigger interest in getting information about product quality through the quality schemes and labels, and build favourable perceptions about quality and distinctiveness of products with PDO, PGI or TSG labels. Acknowledgement This study was supported by TRUEFOOD (Traditional United Europe Food), an Inte- grated Project financed by the European Commission under its Sixth Framework Pro- gramme (EU PF6 contract no. FOOD-CT-2006-016264). The information in this docu- ment reflects only the authors’ views and the European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. 227Consumers’ awareness and determinants of EU quality label References Almli, V.L., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Naes, T. and Hersleth, M. (2011). General image and attribute perceptions of traditional food in six European countries. Food Quality and Preference, 22: 129-138. Aprile, M.C., Caputo, V. and Nayga, R. (2012). Consumers’ valuation of food quality labels: the case of European geographic indication and organic farming labels. Inter- national Journal of Consumer Studies, 36: 158-165. Arfini, F, Albisu, L.M. and Giacomini C. (2011). Current situation and potential develop- ment of geographical indications in Europe: In: Barham, E. and Sylvander, B. (eds.), Labels of origin for food: Local development, global recognition. Wallingford: CAB International: 29-44. Becker, T. (2009). European food quality policy: The importance of geographical indi- cations, organic certification and food quality assurance schemes in European countries. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 10: 111-130. Belletti, G. and Marescotti, A. (2011). Origin products, geographical indications and rural development. In: Barham, E. and Sylvander, B. (eds.), Labels of origin for food: Local development, global recognition. Wallingford: CAB International: 75-91. Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Bonnet, C. and Simioni, M. (2001). Assessing consumer response to Protected Designa- tion of Origin labelling: a mixed multinomial logit approach. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 28: 433-449. Browne, M. and Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, K. and Long, J. (eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage: 136-162. Caporale, G. and Monteleone, E. (2001). Effect of expectation induced by information on origin and its guarantee on the acceptability of a traditional food: olive oil. Sciences des Aliments, 21: 243-254. Carpenter, M. and Larceneux, F. (2008). Label equity and the effectiveness of values-based labels: an experiment with two French protected geographic indication labels. Inter- national Journal of Consumer Studies, 32: 499-507. Chrysochou, P., Krystallis, A., and Giraud, G. (2012). Quality assurance labels as drivers of customer loyalty in the case of traditional food products. Food Quality and Pref- erence, 25: 156-162. Dekhili, S., Sirieix, L. and Cohen, E. (2011). How consumers choose olive oil: The impor- tance of origin cues. Food Quality and Preference, 22: 757-762. Espejel, J., Fandos, C. and Flavian, C. (2008). Consumer satisfaction: A key factor of con- sumer loyalty and buying intention of a PDO food product. British Food Journal, 110: 865-881. European Commission (2006). Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agri- cultural products and foodstuffs. Official Journal of the European Union, 31.3.2006: L93/12-25. European Commission (2011). DOOR Database, , accessed 24 December 2011. 228 W. Verbeke, Z. Pieniak, L. Guerrero and M. Hersleth European Commission (2012). Geographical indications and traditional specialities, , accessed 21 June 2012. Grunert, K.G. and Wills, J. (2007). A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. Journal of Public Health, 15: 385-399. Guerrero, L., Claret, A., Verbeke, W., Enderli, G., Zakowska-Biemans, S., Vanhonacker, F., Issanchou, S., Sajdakowska, M., Granli, B.S., Scalvedi, L., Contel, M. and Hersleth, M. (2010). Perception of traditional food products in six European countries using free word association. Food Quality and Preference, 21: 225-233. Guerrero, L., Guàrdia, M.D., Xicola, J., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Zakowska-Biemans, S., Sajdakowska, M., Sulmont-Rossé, C., Issanchou, S., Contel, M., Scalvedi, L.M., Granli, B.S. and Hersleth, M. (2009). Consumer-driven definition of traditional food products and innovation in traditional foods. A qualitative cross-cultural study. Appetite, 52: 345-354. Hersleth, M., Lengard, V., Verbeke, W., Guerrero, L. and Naes, T. (2011). Consumers’ acceptance of innovations in dry-cured ham: Impact of reduced salt content, pro- longed aging time and new origin. Food Quality and Preference, 22: 31-41. Loureiro, M.L. and Umberger, W.J. (2003). Estimating consumer willingness to pay for coun- try-of-origin labelling. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 28: 287-301. Loureiro, M.L. and Umberger, W.J. (2007). A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-ori- gin labelling and traceability. Food Policy, 32: 496-514. Lusk, J.L., Brown, J., Mark, T., Proseku, I., Thompson, R. and Welsh, J. (2006). Consumer behavior, public policy, and country-of-origin labelling. Review of Agricultural Eco- nomics, 28: 284-292. Molnar, A., Gellynck, X., Vanhonacker, F., Gagalyuk T and Verbeke, W. (2011). Do chain goals match consumer perceptions? The case of the traditional food sector in select- ed European Union countries. Agribusiness, 27: 221-243. Resano, H., Sanjuan, A.I. and Albisu, L.M. (2007). Consumers’ acceptability of cured ham in Spain and the influence of information. Food Quality and Preference, 18: 1064-1076. Solomon, M., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S. and Hogg, M.K. (2006). Consumer behaviour. A European perspective. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Sylvander, B. and Barham, E. (2011). Introduction. In: Barham, E., Sylvander, B. (eds.), Labels of origin for food: Local development, global recognition. Wallingford: CAB International: ix-xviii. Tabachnick, B. and Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Teuber, R. (2010). Geographical indications of origin as a tool of product differentiation: The case of coffee. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, 22: 277-298. Tregear, A. and Giraud, G. (2011). Geographical indications, consumers and citizens. In: Barham, E., Sylvander, B. (eds.), Labels of origin for food: Local development, global recognition, Wallingford: CAB International: 63-74. van der Lans, I.A., van Ittersum, K., De Cicco, A. and Loseby, M. (2001). The role of region of origin and EU certificates of origin in consumer evaluation of food prod- ucts. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 28: 451-477. 229Consumers’ awareness and determinants of EU quality label van Ittersum, K., Meulenberg, M.T.G., van Trijp, H.C.M. and Candel, M.J.J.M. (2007). Consumers’ appreciation of regional certification labels: A pan-European study. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58: 1-23. Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Guerrero, L., Claret, A., Contel, M., Scalvedi, L., Zakowska- Biemans, S., Gutkowska, K., Sulmot-Rossé, C., Raude, J., Gransli, B.S. and Hersleth, M. (2010). How European consumers define the concept of traditional food: Evi- dence from a survey in six countries. Agribusiness, 26: 453-476. Verbeke, W. (2005). Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32: 347-368. Verbeke, W. and Roosen, J. (2009). Market differentiation potential of country-of-origin, quality and traceability labelling. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 10: 20-35.