Speaker
Description
Keywords: price sensitivity, food service, sustainability, meat consumption, consumer behaviour
Introduction: Enhancing food service represents a crucial step towards transitioning to healthier and more sustainable food systems. Within this context, university canteens hold significant potential to instigate positive transformations in dietary patterns, particularly by advocating for reduced meat consumption. The implementation of price adjustments for meat dishes emerges as a viable strategy for curbing their consumption, as substantiated by a body of empirical research elucidating the correlation between product price and demand. This observed phenomenon is underpinned by the economic principle of price elasticity of demand, wherein increased prices deter consumption due to heightened cost sensitivity among consumers. The implementation of such strategies within university canteens, where students typically exhibit a heightened awareness of prices, may encounter resistance. Thus, ensuring consumer acceptance of proposed changes is imperative to effecting sustainable alterations within university canteens.
Our study explores potential avenues to mitigate this resistance by testing consumer responses to justifications for price increases. Specifically, we investigate how consumers in university canteens might be more accepting of higher prices for meat dishes if they are informed that the increase is justified by sourcing meat from suppliers adhering to high animal welfare standards or by reducing subsidies for meat dishes. These justifications appeal to ethical and economic considerations, offering a rationale that aligns with consumer values and concerns. By providing transparent and morally resonant reasons for price adjustments, canteen operators can potentially foster greater acceptance of changes in pricing structures, thereby facilitating shifts towards more sustainable and socially responsible food consumption habits.
Objective: Our objective was to employ a participatory approach to assess the level of support and resistance to potential justifications for increasing the price of meat dishes, alongside evaluating their impact on the frequency of canteen visits.
Methods: We conducted a survey among students and employees of three large German universities across two cities. Employing a vignette approach, we presented four scenarios regarding justifications for a price increase of meat dishes and variations in the price increase. Each participant evaluated two scenarios.
Scenarios were diversified across three attributes, each with two different levels: justification type (high animal welfare standards and subsidy), proportions applied (proportion of meat meeting high animal welfare standards: part and totality, and proportion of subsidy given: partial or absent), and dish price increase (25% and 70% more expensive). The percentage of price increases was calculated based on the disparity between student, staff, and guest prices, considering governmental subsidies. For each scenario presented, participants rated their level of support and resistance from none (0) to maximum (100) and how often they would continue eating at the canteen.
Findings: The valid sample comprised 3,521 respondents (80% students; 58% meat eaters). At the aggregate level, the scenario presenting a 25% price increase due to a proportion of meat meeting high animal welfare standards garnered the highest support (77 points), the lowest resistance (19 points), and a 4% increase in visit frequency. Conversely, the worst scenario comprised a 70% price increase due to the absence of subsidies for meat dishes, resulting in a support level of 54 points, a resistance level of 37 points, and a 12% decrease in visit frequency intention. The other two scenarios had the following results: a 70% increase in meat dishes due to all meat coming from high animal welfare standards exhibited a support level of 70 points, resistance level of 27 points, and a 4% decrease in visit frequency, while a 25% increase in meat dishes due to partial subsidies resulted in a support level of 63 points, resistance level of 31 points, and a 4% decrease in visit frequency. The scores were consistent across the two cities.
When considering only meat eaters, the pattern remained consistent, albeit with lower acceptance, higher resistance, and more substantial declines in visit frequency intention. The best-performing scenario (25% price increase due to high animal welfare standards) elicited superior acceptance with 69 points support, 28 points resistance, 4% visit frequency decrease compared to the worst-performing scenario (70% price increase due to no subsidies for meat dishes) with 35 points support, 57 points resistance, and a 34% visit frequency decrease. The other two scenarios also demonstrated varying degrees of support, resistance, and visit frequency changes among meat eaters.
Conclusions: Our study elucidates the nuanced interplay of consumer perceptions regarding potential price adjustments in meat-based offerings within university canteens. Our findings demonstrate that rationales grounded in ethical and economic principles, such as sourcing meat from suppliers adhering to elevated animal welfare standards or diminishing subsidies for meat dishes, exert a substantial impact on consumer receptivity. Notably, scenarios entailing a modest 25% price increment, accompanied by a proportion of meat aligning with high animal welfare standards, elicited the highest levels of endorsement and minimal resistance, further prompting an inclination towards increased visitation. Conversely, instances involving a pronounced 70% price surge owing to the withdrawal of subsidies for meat dishes exhibited diminished support, heightened resistance, and a conspicuous decline in visitation intentions. Additionally, our results underscore the pivotal role of animal welfare considerations in shaping consumer inclinations within such settings. Intriguingly, even a considerable 70% price escalation attributed to sourcing all meat from suppliers upholding stringent animal welfare standards garnered superior acceptance compared to a mere 25% price elevation stemming from partial subsidies. This highlights consumers' substantial valuation of ethical sourcing practices and their willingness to endorse initiatives promoting humane treatment of animals. These findings underscore the mounting significance of animal welfare standards as a determinant of consumer decision-making, not solely confined to individual purchasing behaviours but extending to institutional dining services like university canteens. Consequently, integrating measures to uphold animal welfare standards emerges as a pivotal strategy for augmenting consumer satisfaction and catalysing positive shifts towards more ethical and sustainable dietary patterns. The results add to ongoing stakeholder discussion on how to design university canteens to help the transition to more sustainable and healthy diets.
