Cross-country comparison of strategies for building consumer trust in food

Author:

Wilson Annabelle M1,Tonkin Emma1,Coveney John2,Meyer Samantha B3,McCullum Dean4,Calnan Michael5,Kelly Edel6,O’Reilly Seamus6,McCarthy Mary6,McGloin Aileen7,Ward Paul R1

Affiliation:

1. College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042, Australia

2. College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042, Australia

3. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada

4. Food and Controlled Drugs Branch, Public Health Services, Public Health and Clinical Systems, SA Health, 11 Hindmarsh Square, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia

5. School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, Cornwallis East, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NF, UK

6. Cork University Business School, Food Business and Development, University College Cork, College Road, Cork T12 K8AF, Ireland

7. safefood, Block B, Abbey Court, Lower Abbey Street, Dublin D01 XK84, Ireland

Abstract

Summary Consumer trust in the modern food system is essential given its complexity. Contexts vary across countries with regard to food incidents, regulation and systems. It is therefore of interest to compare how key actors in different countries might approach (re)building consumer trust in the food system; and particularly relevant to understanding how food systems in different regions might learn from one another. The purpose of this paper is to explore differences between strategies for (re)building trust in food systems, as identified in two separate empirical studies, one conducted in Australia, New Zealand and the UK (Study 1) and another on the Island of Ireland (Study 2). Interviews were conducted with media, food industry and food regulatory actors across the two studies (n = 105 Study 1; n = 50 Study 2). Data were coded into strategy statements, strategies describing actions to (re)build consumer trust. Strategy statements were compared between Studies 1 and 2 and similarities and differences were noted. The strategy statements identified in Study 1 to (re)build consumer trust in the food system were shown to be applicable in Study 2, however, there were notable differences in the contextual factors that shaped the means by which strategies were implemented. As such, the transfer of such approaches across regions is not an appropriate means to addressing breaches in consumer trust. Notwithstanding, our data suggest that there is still capacity to learn between countries when considering strategies for (re)building trust in the food system but caution must be exercised in the transfer of approaches.

Funder

Australian Research Council

Food Standards Australia New Zealand

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health(social science)

Reference38 articles.

1. Reweaving the food security safety net: mediating entitlement and entrepreneurship;Allen;Agriculture and Human Values,1999

2. Building consumer trust in the food system;Arnot;Food Technology,2011

3. Consumers' confidence, reflections and response strategies following the horsemeat incident;Barnett;Food Control,2016

4. Trust in food in modern and late-modern societies;Bildtgard;Social Science Information,2008

5. Food, consumer concerns, and trust: food ethics for a globalizing market;Brom;Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics,2000

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Medical Sociology;Handbook of Social Sciences and Global Public Health;2023

2. Medical Sociology;Handbook of Social Sciences and Global Public Health;2022-12-28

3. Consumer Behavioral Intention of Adopting Emerging Healthcare Technology;IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management;2022

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3