Next Article in Journal
The Role of Passion in Self-Oriented Versus Team-Oriented Decision-Making in Team Sports
Next Article in Special Issue
Sustainability of Leisure Tourism Events from a Destination Social Responsibility Perspective: Do Attribution Theory Dimensions Matter?
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on the Forestry Industry Structure Upgrading: The Moderating Effect on Labor Migration
Previous Article in Special Issue
Emotion Recognition from Large-Scale Video Clips with Cross-Attention and Hybrid Feature Weighting Neural Networks
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 3
10.3390/ijerph20032625
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Café Food Safety and Its Impacts on Intention to Reuse and Switch Cafés during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case of Starbucks

by
Yunho Ji
1,
Won Seok Lee
2 and
Joonho Moon
1,*
1
Department of Tourism Administration, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Tourism and Recreation, Kyonggi University, Seoul 03746, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(3), 2625; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032625
Submission received: 8 December 2022 / Revised: 9 January 2023 / Accepted: 31 January 2023 / Published: 1 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Satisfaction, Stress, and Mental Health in the Tourism/Hospitality Industry)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
We explored the definition of food safety in the coffee service business during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic because consumer values and decision-making may have been affected by the pandemic. The food safety dimensions are freshness, quarantine, hygiene, and healthiness. We evaluated the effects of café food safety on both the consumer intention to revisit a café and their intention to switch to other cafés. We used the Amazon Mechanical Turk system for data collection. In total, 474 individuals responded to the survey questions. We used the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) ver. 20.0 and the analysis of moment structure (AMOS) ver. 21.0. We subjected the definition of café food safety to confirmatory factor analysis and then used structural equations to test the research hypotheses. The four dimensions adequately defined food safety. The results indicated that food safety positively influenced the intention to revisit, although it had no significant impact on the intention to switch cafés. Our findings will assist managers because we identify the implications of food safety for the coffee service business.

1. Introduction

Businesses must maintain friendly relationships with customer stakeholders; this is a key element of corporate social responsibility [1,2,3]. Bad food makes people ill; food safety scandals substantially damage businesses [4,5,6,7]. The coffee service sector must carefully consider these points; café business grew globally from USD 192 billion in 2020 to USD 244 billion in 2021. Safe food is imperative. Here, we define food safety in the café context and explore the impact of safe food on business. There is a vast body of literature regarding food safety [8,9,10,11], clean food [8,12,13,14], fresh food [9,15], and healthy food [16,17]. Such foods enhance consumer health and minimize risk. The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic caused a substantial enhancement of consumer interest in food safety [18,19]. Customers were at a high risk of disease transmission when eating with others in public spaces [20,21]. Thus, we explored quarantine as an unusual dimension of café food safety during the pandemic. Despite the importance of café food safety, there has been minimal research on what constitutes such safety or what beliefs are held by consumers; the present study explored these aspects.
The outcome variable was an intention to revisit a café/switch to a new café (i.e., opposite consumer intentions). An intention to revisit retains customers [22,23,24], whereas an intention to switch loses them [25,26,27]. We selected Starbucks as the research subject because the organization holds the largest single market share (approximately 40% as of 2019) of the café business [28] associated with readily available public data. Additionally, the popularity of the chain may encourage responders to relate individual detailed experiences. The present study adds to the literature on food safety in the café sector and provides information that café business managers will find useful.

2. Review of the Literature and Research Hypotheses

2.1. Food Safety and Corporate Social Responsibility

Food safety is a food-handling protocol that prevents consumer illness (perceived by consumers as a risk) [11,29,30]. Safe food promotes health and reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease [31,32,33]. Successful businesses both serve safe food and emphasize its safety to consumers [33,34,35]. Numerous studies have emphasized the importance of incorporating food safety into corporate social responsibility; this protects the principal stakeholders (i.e., consumers) [11,36,37]. The provision of safe food builds business sustainability, ensuring that customers often revisit; food scandals substantially damage business reputations [29,37,38]. Safe food is becoming increasingly imperative; customers prioritize both their short- and long-term health [30,36,38]. Indeed, consumers tend to pay more for food they believe to be safe, encouraging businesses to focus on a safe food supply [11,36,39]. Corporate wrongdoing (poor food preparation) leads to penalties; businesses lose market share and reputation, resulting in decreased share prices [4,5,6,7]. Food businesses must maintain good relationships with customers [30,37].
The first dimension of food safety is freshness (i.e., consumer assessment of whether food is properly cooked from raw ingredients); freshness is linked to sensory appeal [8,40,41]. Freitas et al. [42] found that such appeal encouraged consumers to feel that fresh food is safe. Rotten food is completely unacceptable [14,43]. Food freshness, which protects health, is the most basic aspect of food service because the associated sensory appeal controls customer impressions [13,14,44].
Quarantine is the second dimension of food safety; workers protect consumers from infections by wearing masks, frequently using hand sanitizer [45,46], and checking customer temperatures and vaccination cards [27,47]. During the pandemic, these practices were considered essential [48,49,50]. Specifically, consumers favored businesses with strict quarantine guidelines that protected customers from infection [45,51,52]. Customers eschewed eating in crowded places and relied heavily on food delivery systems [53].
The third dimension of food safety is hygiene. Poor sanitation increases the risk of foodborne illnesses such as fever, nausea, and dehydration [54,55,56]. Good hygiene protects food against chemical and biological contamination during production [56,57]. Good hygiene protects consumers [58,59] by decreasing the risk of contamination [9,12,55].
The fourth dimension of food safety is healthiness. Bad food promotes obesity [60], diabetes [16,17], high blood pressure [16], and heart conditions [16,60]. Indeed, bad food can adversely affect mental health [60,61,62,63]. The market exhibits increased interest in healthy food, and harmful items are removed during production; genetically modified materials and undesirable organic products are carefully monitored and traced, allowing the information to be shared with consumers [64,65].

2.2. Switching and Revisiting Intentions

In the marketing literature, switching intention refers to the likelihood that consumers will buy competitors’ products or services [26,66,67]. Consumer switching decreases sales and thus market share [25,27,68]. Many efforts have been made to understand and prevent switching. Shin and Kim [27] and Peng et al. [68] explored the attributes of switching intentions in the context of mobile services. Han et al. [26] defined the determinants of switching intention in the lodging sector. Liang et al. [67] evaluated the antecedents of switching intention among Airbnb users. Jung, Han, and Oh [69] examined airline customer behaviors, using switching intention as a dependent variable. Similarly, Nikbin, Marimuthu, and Hyun [70], as well as Kim [71], used switching intention as an explained variable in the context of restaurant business. An intention to reuse (or revisit) refers to the likelihood that consumers will repeat purchases of a specific company’s goods or services [23,72,73]. Intention to reuse is a form of loyalty that improves sales, market share, and business sustainability [22,24,74]. Many studies have regarded intention to reuse as a principal attribute. For instance, Son, Bae, and Lee [75] used intention to reuse as a dependent variable when assessing service agility. Li et al. [73] studied intention to reuse in the educational context, and Park [76] examined intention to reuse among airline customers. Bao and Zhu [24] used intention to reuse as a principal element when evaluating the behaviors of individuals who ordered food deliveries.
Several studies have provided empirical evidence of the relationship between consumer intention and food safety. For instance, a meta-analysis by Lin and Roberts [77] showed that food safety was significantly associated with consumer behavioral intentions. Wang and Tsai [11] reported that food safety was an essential antecedent of customer loyalty. Lee, Tsai, and Ruangkanjanases [78] revealed that food safety positively affected an intention to repurchase; Seo and Lee [10] found the same result in a study of street food consumers. Shim et al. [27] identified food safety as an essential consideration in terms of customer reuse intention in the café domain. Zhang, Ma, and Morse [37] and Wang et al. [79] empirically demonstrated that corporate social responsibility in terms of food safety positively affected consumer decision-making. Nguyen, Yeh, and Huang [80] found that a perceived risk of food contamination caused consumers to switch. Given these data, we proposed the following research hypotheses:
Hypothesis 10 (H10).
Food safety does not significantly affect switching intention among café customers.
Hypothesis 1a (H1a).
Perceived poor food safety increases switching intention among café customers.
Hypothesis 20 (H20).
Food safety does not significantly affect revisiting intention among café customers.
Hypothesis 2a (H2a).
Perceived good food safety increases revisiting intention among café customers.

3. Methods

3.1. Research Model and Data Collection

Figure 1 illustrates the research model. The dimensions of food safety are freshness, quarantine, hygiene, and healthiness. These serve as secondary elements when testing the structural relationships among food safety, switching intention, and intention to revisit. Food safety (a second-order factor) was hypothesized to positively affect the intention to revisit and to negatively affect switching intention.
We used Amazon Mechanical Turk to recruit survey participants (http://www.mturk.com, accessed 7 December 2020). This method has been widely adopted by researchers of consumer behaviors, and many studies have demonstrated statistically significant outcomes [81,82,83,84]. Data were collected on 7 and 10 December 2020; we received 474 valid observations. The geographical area was constrained to the US. All respondents were familiar with Starbucks, which is popular in the US. Amazon Mechanical Turk adequately collects survey participants from the US.

3.2. Measurement Items

All measurement items were derived from the literature after a modification to match the aims of the current work, and all respondents rated the items on 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Freshness is the consumer rating of food taste and the ingredients used [14,41,44]. Quarantine refers to how well a business followed COVID-19 containment measures from the consumer perspective [21,47,49]; hygiene refers to operations and food preparation cleanliness from the consumer perspective [9,55,85,86]; and healthiness refers to health-promoting aspects of café food [16,17,87]. Switching intention refers to the consumer likelihood of switching to a different vendor for future purchases [25,26,68]. Intention to reuse indicates the likelihood that a consumer will use a specific brand or product again [24,73,75]. Table 1 presents the measurement items. With the exception of switching intention (three items), all constructs included four items. The derived constructs were freshness, quarantine, hygiene, healthiness, switching intention, and intention to reuse.

3.3. Data Analysis

We first performed a frequency analysis of respondent demographic characteristics. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to check convergent validity. As indicated in the literature, the convergent validities of measurement items were ensured by using multiple criteria (loading > 0.5, average value extracted [AVE] > 0.5, and construct reliability < 0.7) during confirmatory factor analysis [88,89,90]. We derived univariate statistics and engaged in structural equation modeling. Univariate statistics were used to provide general descriptions. We used the four dimensions of food safety (freshness, quarantine, healthiness, and hygiene) as second-order factors. We computed the squares of the correlation coefficients and then compared these values with the AVE. This approach ensured discriminant validity when the AVE was larger than the squared correlation coefficient.

4. Results

4.1. Demographic Information

Table 2 presents the profiles of the survey participants: 289 men and 185 women. Age analysis revealed that 78% of the participants were in their 20s or younger or in their 30s (369 of 474). In terms of monthly household income, the largest proportion (138 of 474) earned USD 2000–3999. In terms of visit frequencies, most (192 of 474) visited Starbucks once or twice per week (40.5%).

4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Correlation Matrix

Table 3 shows the results of confirmatory factor analysis. The goodness-of-fit indices indicate that the results are statistically significant. All factor loadings are greater than the threshold. Both the construct reliability and the AVE satisfied the criteria for significance. Overall, the convergent validities of measurement items were confirmed. Table 3 lists the means and standard deviations of the measured items. Among the four food safety dimensions, healthiness was rated lowest and freshness was rated highest. The mean values of switching intention and intention to reuse indicated that most Starbucks consumers planned to remain rather than leave.
Table 4 shows the correlation matrix. Food safety was positively correlated with the intention to revisit (r = 0.846, p < 0.05). Switching intention was negatively correlated with the intention to revisit (r = −0.158, p < 0.05). However, food safety was not significantly correlated with switching intention. Moreover, the squared correlation coefficients were less than the AVE, confirming the discriminant validities of the principal attributes explored.

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

Table 5 illustrates the results of hypothesis testing. The results of the structural equation model were statistically acceptable according to the goodness-of-fit indices. Food safety exerted a positive effect on the intention to revisit (β = 0.848, p < 0.05), but it had no significant impact on switching intention. Therefore, only H1 was supported by the model.

5. Discussion

We examined four dimensions of food safety (a corporate social responsibility activity) at Starbucks, as a representative of the coffee service industry. To ensure validity, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis; four attributes of food safety (freshness, quarantine, hygiene, and healthiness) were identified as relevant to cafés. In terms of means, consumers highly rated coffee freshness and hygiene. Consumers consider Starbucks products to be fresh; they presume that Starbucks food preparation and its beverage preparation are sanitary. However, the quarantine and healthiness ratings were slightly less positive. Customers may have perceived a small problem with quarantine; this was presumably because other customers did not follow guidelines in public places, although the employees wore masks and checked temperatures, and ventilation was good. Additionally, coffee consumption is controversial in terms of healthiness. In small amounts, coffee promotes health, but excessive caffeine and sugar must be avoided. The descriptive statistics indicated a moderately strong switching intention, along with a stronger intention to revisit. Café food safety positively affected the intention to revisit. Shim et al. [21] found a significant association between safe food and café loyalty. However, we found only a nonsignificant association between food safety and switching intention. Food safety did not appear to influence whether consumers may choose a different café. Unlike Nguyen et al. [80], who found a significant effect of food safety on switching intention for agricultural products, we found only a nonsignificant association between food safety and switching intention, possibly because cafés are very competitive and because consumers have many options. Thus, an emphasis on food safety alone may not be sufficient to persuade consumers to stay. In the café sector, it may be difficult (and costly) to retain all customers.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications

This study contributes to the literature by refining the definition of food safety in the context of a café. We identified four dimensions of food safety and confirmed their relevance by confirmatory factor analysis. We provided insights into the relationship between food safety and customer loyalty (i.e., the intention to revisit). Food safety exerted a substantial impact on the intention to revisit, confirming the external validity of our current research compared with the approaches in previous studies [10,78]. However, food safety did not significantly reduce switching intention, possibly because there are many cafés among which consumers can choose. By revealing this distinctive coffee-consumer characteristic, the present study contributes to the literature on the intention to revisit and switch.
This study has practical implications. First, café managers must foster safety-related attributes to increase the numbers of customers. Fresher products and ingredients in terms of both coffees and side menus are necessary. Café managers also need to offer the freshness of information to customers by revealing roasting date and producing date. For some time, mask wearing by both employees and customers, as well as temperature checks and free hand sanitizer, must continue. Kitchens must be very clean; the visibility of the kitchen needs to be elevated because it could work as physical evidence for customers to evaluate food safety. Plus, offerings high in sugar and caffeine should be optional for customers with the increasing awareness of choices regarding caffeine and sugar levels. Customer revisits would then increase, leading to greater sales and a larger market share. Furthermore, café managers should allocate more resources to quarantine and food healthiness; consumers rated these areas slightly lower than freshness and hygiene.

6.2. Suggestions for Future Research

Our work had some limitations. First, we sampled only café customers; there are other food service sectors. The use of additional dependent variables may confirm the influence of food safety. Second, the food safety definition may be refined in the future to better reflect market characteristics. Such efforts would increase the broader understanding of café customers.

Author Contributions

Y.J. writing—original draft; W.S.L., supervision; J.M., review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Brown, J.A.; Forster, W.R. CSR and stakeholder theory: A tale of Adam Smith. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 112, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cordeiro, J.J.; Tewari, M. Firm characteristics, industry context, and investor reactions to environmental CSR: A stakeholder theory approach. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 130, 833–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Golob, U.; Podnar, K. Critical points of CSR-related stakeholder dialogue in practice. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2014, 23, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Abbots, E.J.; Coles, B. Horsemeat-gate: The discursive production of a neoliberal food scandal. Food Cul. Soc. 2013, 16, 535–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Agnoli, L.; Capitello, R.; De Salvo, M.; Longo, A.; Boeri, M. Food fraud and consumers’ choices in the wake of the horsemeat scandal. Brit. Food J. 2016, 118, 1898–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Insight. Five Food Scandals That Rocked the Foodservice Industry. 2018. Available online: https://www.verdictfoodservice.com/insight/food-scandals-foodservice-industry/ (accessed on 27 December 2020).
  7. Schaefer, K.A.; Scheitrum, D.; Nes, K. International sourcing decisions in the wake of a food scandal. Food Pol. 2018, 81, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Grunert, K.G. Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2005, 32, 369–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ababio, P.F.; Lovatt, P. A review on food safety and food hygiene studies in Ghana. Food Ctrl. 2015, 47, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Seo, K.H.; Lee, J.H. Understanding risk perception toward food safety in street food: The relationships among service quality, values, and repurchase intention. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, E.; Tsai, M.C. Effects of the perception of traceable fresh food safety and nutrition on perceived health benefits, affective commitment, and repurchase intention. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 78, 103723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Clayton, D.A.; Griffith, C.J. Observation of food safety practices in catering using notational analysis. Br. Food J. 2004, 106, 211–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lang, B.; Conroy, D.M. When food governance matters to consumer food choice: Consumer perception of and preference for food quality certifications. Appetite 2022, 168, 105688. [Google Scholar]
  14. Sadílek, T. Consumer preferences regarding food quality labels: The case of Czechia. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 2508–2523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mullan, B.; Wong, C. Using the theory of planned behaviour to design a food hygiene intervention. Food Control 2010, 21, 1524–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Huang, L.; Lu, J. The impact of package color and the nutrition content labels on the perception of food healthiness and purchase intention. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2016, 22, 191–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Konuk, F.A. The impact of retailer innovativeness and food healthiness on store prestige, store trust and store loyalty. Food Res. Int. 2019, 116, 724–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cavallo, C.; Sacchi, G.; Carfora, V. Resilience effects in food consumption behaviour at the time of COVID-19: Perspectives from Italy. Heliyon 2020, 6, e05676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hirvonen, K.; De Brauw, A.; Abate, G.T. Food consumption and food security during the COVID-19 pandemic in Addis Ababa. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2021, 103, 772–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Chenarides, L.; Grebitus, C.; Lusk, J.L.; Printezis, I. Food consumption behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Agribusiness 2021, 37, 44–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shim, J.; Moon, J.; Song, M.; Lee, W.S. Antecedents of purchase intention at Starbucks in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fong, L.; Lam, L.; Law, R. How locus of control shapes intention to reuse mobile apps for making hotel reservations: Evidence from Chinese consumers. Tour. Manag. 2017, 61, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Alalwan, A.A. Mobile food ordering apps: An empirical study of the factors affecting customer e-satisfaction and continued intention to reuse. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 50, 28–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bao, Z.; Zhu, Y. Why customers have the intention to reuse food delivery apps: Evidence from China. Br. Food J. 2021, 124, 179–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Han, H.; Hyun, S.S. Image congruence and relationship quality in predicting switching intention: Conspicuousness of product use as a moderator variable. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2013, 37, 303–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Han, H.; Kim, W.; Hyun, S.S. Switching intention model development: Role of service performances, customer satisfaction, and switching barriers in the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2011, 30, 619–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Shin, D.H.; Kim, W.Y. Forecasting customer switching intention in mobile service: An exploratory study of predictive factors in mobile number portability. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2008, 75, 854–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Daily Coffee News. Nearly Four of Every Five US Coffee Shops Are Now Starbucks, Dunkin’ or JAB Brands. 2019. Available online: https://dailycoffeenews.com/2019/10/25/nearly-four-of-every-five-us-coffee-shops-are-now-starbucks-dunkin-or-jab-brands/ (accessed on 27 December 2020).
  29. Lamberti, L.; Lettieri, E. CSR practices and corporate strategy: Evidence from a longitudinal case study. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 87, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Stanco, M.; Lerro, M. Consumers’ preferences for and perception of CSR initiatives in the wine sector. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hsu, S.Y.; Chang, C.C.; Lin, T.T. Triple bottom line model and food safety in organic food and conventional food in affecting perceived value and purchase intentions. Br. Food J. 2018, 121, 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bouzembrak, Y.; Klüche, M.; Gavai, A.; Marvin, H.J. Internet of Things in food safety: Literature review and a bibliometric analysis. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 94, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liu, X.; Lin, K.L. Green organizational culture, corporate social responsibility implementation, and food safety. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 585435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Lin, Q.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, Y. How does mission statement relate to the pursuit of food safety certification by food companies? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zhang, N. How does CSR of food company affect customer loyalty in the context of COVID-19: A moderated mediation model. Int. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2022, 7, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kim, Y. Consumer responses to the food industry’s proactive and passive environmental CSR, factoring in price as CSR tradeoff. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 140, 307–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, D.; Ma, Q.; Morse, S. Motives for corporate social responsibility in Chinese food companies. Sustainability 2018, 10, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cuganesan, S.; Guthrie, J.; Ward, L. Examining CSR disclosure strategies within the Australian food and beverage industry. Account. Forum 2010, 34, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rana, P.; Platts, J.; Gregory, M. Exploration of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in multinational companies within the food industry. Queen’s Discuss. Pap. Ser. Corp. Responsib. Res. 2009, 2, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  40. Peri, C. The universe of food quality. Food Qual. Prefer. 2006, 17, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Migliore, G.; Schifani, G.; Cembalo, L. Opening the black box of food quality in the short supply chain: Effects of conventions of quality on consumer choice. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 39, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Freitas, J.; Vaz-Pires, P.; Câmara, J.S. From aquaculture production to consumption: Freshness, safety, traceability and authentication, the four pillars of quality. Aquaculture 2020, 518, 734857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wheelock, J.V. Food quality and consumer choice. Br. Food J. 1992, 94, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Prater, C.; Wagner, N.D.; Frost, P.C. Interactive effects of genotype and food quality on consumer growth rate and elemental content. Ecology 2017, 98, 1399–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Choi, M.; Choi, Y. Employee perceptions of hotel CSR activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 3355–3378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fanelli, R.M. Changes in the food-related behaviour of Italian consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Foods 2021, 10, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ramos, K. Factors influencing customers’ continuance usage intention of food delivery apps during COVID-19 quarantine in Mexico. Br. Food J. 2021, 124, 833–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kifle Mekonen, Y.; Adarkwah, M.A. Volunteers in the COVID-19 pandemic era: Intrinsic, extrinsic, or altruistic motivation? Postgraduate international students in China. J. Soc. Serv. Res. 2021, 48, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kuo, C.T.; Sue, H.J.; Chen, P.H. The impact of community housing characteristics and epidemic prevention measures on residents’ perception of epidemic prevention. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zwanka, R.J.; Buff, C. COVID-19 generation: A conceptual framework of the consumer behavioral shifts to be caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2021, 33, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Saurabh, K.; Ranjan, S. Compliance and psychological impact of quarantine in children and adolescents due to COVID-19 pandemic. Indian J. Pediatr. 2020, 87, 532–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Teng, Y.; Wu, K.; Lin, K. Life or livelihood? Mental health concerns for quarantine hotel workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 2168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Belarmino, A.; Raab, C.; Tang, J.; Han, W. Exploring the motivations to use online meal delivery platforms: Before and during quarantine. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 96, 102983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rennie, D.M. Health education models and food hygiene education. J. R. Soc. Health 1995, 115, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Baş, M.; Ersun, A.Ş.; Kıvanç, G. The evaluation of food hygiene knowledge, attitudes, and practices of food handlers’ in food businesses in Turkey. Food Control 2006, 17, 317–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Seaman, P. Food hygiene training: Introducing the food hygiene training model. Food Control 2010, 21, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Martins, R.B.; Hogg, T.; Otero, J.G. Food handlers’ knowledge on food hygiene: The case of a catering company in Portugal. Food Control 2012, 23, 184–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ghatak, I.; Chatterjee, S. Urban street vending practices: An investigation of ethnic food safety knowledge, attitudes, and risks among untrained Chinese vendors in Chinatown, Kolkata. J. Ethn. Foods 2018, 5, 272–285. [Google Scholar]
  59. Morse, T.; Tilley, E.; Chidziwisano, K.; Malolo, R.; Musaya, J. Health outcomes of an integrated behaviour-centred water, sanitation, hygiene and food safety intervention–a randomised before and after trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Provencher, V.; Polivy, J.; Herman, C.P. Perceived healthiness of food. If it’s healthy, you can eat more! Appetite 2009, 52, 340–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sánchez-Villegas, A.; Toledo, E.; De Irala, J.; Ruiz-Canela, M.; Pla-Vidal, J.; Martínez-González, M.A. Fast-food and commercial baked goods consumption and the risk of depression. Public Health Nutr. 2012, 15, 424–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rizk, M.T.; Treat, T.A. Perceptions of food healthiness among free-living women. Appetite 2015, 95, 390–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ogundijo, D.A.; Tas, A.A.; Onarinde, B.A. An assessment of nutrition information on front of pack labels and healthiness of foods in the United Kingdom retail market. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Petrescu, D.C.; Vermeir, I.; Petrescu-Mag, R.M. Consumer understanding of food quality, healthiness, and environmental impact: A cross-national perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Li, S.; Tian, Y.; Jiang, P.; Lin, Y.; Liu, X.; Yang, H. Recent advances in the application of metabolomics for food safety control and food quality analyses. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 61, 1448–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Antón, C.; Camarero, C.; Carrero, M. The mediating effect of satisfaction on consumers’ switching intention. Psychol. Mark. 2007, 24, 511–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Liang, L.J.; Choi, H.C.; Joppe, M. Exploring the relationship between satisfaction, trust and switching intention, repurchase intention in the context of Airbnb. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 69, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Peng, X.; Zhao, Y.C.; Zhu, Q. Investigating user switching intention for mobile instant messaging application: Taking WeChat as an example. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 64, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jung, J.; Han, H.; Oh, M. Travelers’ switching behavior in the airline industry from the perspective of the push-pull-mooring framework. Tour. Manag. 2017, 59, 139–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Nikbin, D.; Marimuthu, M.; Hyun, S.S. Influence of perceived service fairness on relationship quality and switching intention: An empirical study of restaurant experiences. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 19, 1005–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kim, J.H. Animosity and switching intention: Moderating factors in the decision making of Chinese ethnic diners. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2019, 60, 174–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Choi, J.; Lee, H.J.; Kim, Y.C. The influence of social presence on customer intention to reuse online recommender systems: The roles of personalization and product type. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2011, 16, 129–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Li, Y.; Duan, Y.; Fu, Z.; Alford, P. An empirical study on behavioural intention to reuse e-learning systems in rural China. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2012, 43, 933–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Malhotra, N.; Sahadev, S.; Purani, K. Psychological contract violation and customer intention to reuse online retailers: Exploring mediating and moderating mechanisms. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 75, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Son, S.C.; Bae, J.; Kim, K.H. The effect of perceived agility on intention to reuse Omni-channel: Focused on mediating effect of integration quality of Omni-channel. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2021, 12, 375–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Park, E. The role of satisfaction on customer reuse to airline services: An application of Big Data approaches. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 47, 370–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lin, N.; Roberts, K.R. Using the theory of planned behavior to predict food safety behavioral intention: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 90, 102612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lee, Y.P.; Tsai, H.Y.; Ruangkanjanases, A. The determinants for food safety push notifications on continuance intention in an e-appointment system for public health medical services: The perspectives of UTAUT and information system quality. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wang, J.; Nguyen, H.V.; Nguyen, Q.H.; Nguyen, N. A moderated mediation study of consumer extrinsic motivation and CSR beliefs towards organic drinking products in an emerging economy. Br. Food J. 2021, 124, 1103–1123. [Google Scholar]
  80. Nguyen, T.; Yeh, Q.J.; Huang, C.Y. Understanding consumer’switching intention toward traceable agricultural products: Push-pull-mooring perspective. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2021, 46, 870–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Horng, J.S.; Hsu, H. Esthetic dining experience: The relations among aesthetic stimulation, pleasantness, memorable experience, and behavioral intentions. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2021, 30, 419–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hu, Y.; Kim, H.J. Positive and negative eWOM motivations and hotel customers’ eWOM behavior: Does personality matter? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 75, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kang, J.; Jang, J. Fostering service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior through reducing role stressors: An examination of the role of social capital. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 3567–3582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kim, M.G.; Yang, H.; Mattila, A.S. The impact of customer loyalty and restaurant sanitation grades on revisit intention and the importance of narrative information: The case of New York restaurant sanitation grading system. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2018, 59, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lelieveld, H.; Gabric, D.; Holah, J. Handbook of Hygiene Control in the Food Industry; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  86. Morse, T.; Masuku, H.; Rippon, S.; Kubwalo, H. Achieving an integrated approach to food safety and hygiene—Meeting the sustainable development goals in sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Amar, M.; Gvili, Y.; Tal, A. Moving towards healthy: Cuing food healthiness and appeal. J. Soc. Mark. 2020, 11, 44–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hair, J.; Anderson, R.; Babin, B.; Black, W. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 7. [Google Scholar]
  90. Hoyle, R. Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
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.
Ijerph 20 02625 g001 550
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Ijerph 20 02625 g001
Table
Table 1. Measurement items.
Table 1. Measurement items.
ConstructCodeItem
FreshnessFR1The taste of Starbucks products is great.
FR2Starbucks offers fresh products.
FR3Starbucks products are delicious.
FR4Starbucks uses fresh ingredients.
QuarantineQR1Starbucks is good at COVID-19 quarantine.
QR2Starbucks adequately maintains COVID-19 quarantine.
QR3Starbucks employees perform well in terms of COVID-19 quarantine.
QR4COVID-19 quarantine is effectively implemented at Starbucks.
HygieneHY1Starbucks products are hygienic.
HY2Starbucks products are clean.
HY3Sanitation of Starbucks goods is effectively managed.
HY4Starbucks food is clean and hygienic.
HealthinessHE1Starbucks products are healthy.
HE2Starbucks products improve my health.
HE3Starbucks offers products that are not good for health.
HE4Starbucks products are low in calories.
Switching intentionSI1I will use other goods instead of Starbucks goods.
SI2I will buy another brand of coffee, rather than Starbucks.
SI3I intend to switch from Starbucks products.
Intention to reuseIR1I will reuse Starbucks.
IR2I will visit Starbucks again.
IR3I intend to purchase Starbucks products again.
IR4I am willing to repurchase Starbucks products.
Table
Table 2. Profile of survey participants (n = 474).
Table 2. Profile of survey participants (n = 474).
ItemFrequencyPercentage
Male28961.0
Female18539.0
Age: 20s or younger18839.6
30s18138.2
40s6012.7
50s or older459.5
Monthly household income
<USD 20009419.8
USD 2000–399913829.1
USD 4000–59999720.5
USD 6000–7999459.5
USD 8000–9999479.9
>USD 10,0005311.2
Weekly visiting frequency
<1 time16334.4
1–2 times19240.5
3–5 times9419.8
>5 times255.3
Table
Table 3. Measurement items.
Table 3. Measurement items.
Construct
(AVE)		SubdimensionCodeMeanSDLoadingCR
Food safety
(0.582)		FreshnessFR14.110.890.7100.939
FR23.930.890.723
FR34.130.860.718
FR43.870.900.721
QuarantineQR13.750.970.804
QR23.760.940.836
QR33.890.880.759
QR43.820.880.780
HygieneHY14.040.850.789
HY24.050.870.780
HY34.020.870.763
HY44.030.880.773
HealthinessHE13.321.170.859
HE23.141.230.861
HE33.331.110.752
HE43.181.210.806
Switching intention
(0.551)		 SI13.331.150.7690.783
SI23.231.220.831
SI33.181.160.608
Intention to reuse
(0.685)		 IR14.080.950.7980.897
IR24.160.910.828
IR34.160.920.848
IR44.080.950.836
Note: AVE: average value extracted, CR: construct reliability, SD: standard deviation. χ2 = 860.698, df = 223, Q (χ2/df) = 3.860, goodness-of-fit index = 0.836, normed fit index = 0.875, relative fit index = 0.859, incremental fit index = 0.905, Tucker–Lewis index = 0.891, comparative fit index = 0.904, root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.078.
Table
Table 4. Correlation matrix.
Table 4. Correlation matrix.
123
1. Food safety0.763
2. Switching intention0.067
(0.001)		0.742
3. Intention to reuse0.846 *
(0.715)		–0.158 *
(0.002)		0.828
Note: * p < 0.05. The diagonal is the square root of the AVE; values in parentheses are the squares of correlation coefficients.
Table
Table 5. Hypothesis testing.
Table 5. Hypothesis testing.
HPathStandard Betap-ValueResult
H1Food safety→Switching intention0.0040.936Not supported
H2Food safety→Intention to reuse0.848 *0.000Supported
Note: * p < 0.05, χ2 = 895.550, df = 224, Q (χ2/df) = 3.998, goodness-of-fit index = 0.828, normed fit index = 0.870, relative fit index = 0.854, incremental fit index = 0.900, Tucker–Lewis index = 0.886, comparative fit index = 0.899, root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.080.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ji, Y.; Lee, W.S.; Moon, J. Café Food Safety and Its Impacts on Intention to Reuse and Switch Cafés during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case of Starbucks. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2625. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032625

AMA Style

Ji Y, Lee WS, Moon J. Café Food Safety and Its Impacts on Intention to Reuse and Switch Cafés during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case of Starbucks. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(3):2625. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032625

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ji, Yunho, Won Seok Lee, and Joonho Moon. 2023. "Café Food Safety and Its Impacts on Intention to Reuse and Switch Cafés during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case of Starbucks" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 3: 2625. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032625

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop