Next Article in Journal
Investigating the Effectiveness of Endogenous and Exogenous Drivers of the Sustainability (Re)Orientation of Family SMEs in Slovenia: Qualitative Content Analysis Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Long-Term Variation Patterns of Precipitations Driven by Climate Change in China from 1901 to 2022
Previous Article in Special Issue
Factors Influencing Consumption of Animal-Based Dairy and Plant-Based Milk Alternatives in Australia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 17
10.3390/su16177284
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite 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

Behavioral Intention to Purchase Sustainable Food: Generation Z’s Perspective

by
Dominika Jakubowska
1,*,
Aneta Zofia Dąbrowska
2,
Bogdan Pachołek
3 and
Sylwia Sady
4
1
Faculty of Economic Sciences, Department of Market and Consumption, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Oczapowskiego 2, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland
2
Faculty of Food Science, Department of Dairy Science and Quality Management, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Oczapowskiego 7, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland
3
Institute of Marketing, Department of Product Marketing, Poznań University of Economics and Business, al. Niepodleglosci 10, 61-875 Poznan, Poland
4
Institute of Quality Science, Department of Natural Science and Quality Assurance, Poznań University of Economics and Business, al. Niepodleglosci 10, 61-875 Poznan, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(17), 7284; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177284 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 28 June 2024 / Revised: 11 August 2024 / Accepted: 18 August 2024 / Published: 24 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Consumer Behaviour and Food Choice)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sustainable food consumption is critical for addressing global environmental challenges and promoting health and ethical practices. Understanding what drives sustainable food choices among younger generations, particularly Generation Z, is essential for developing effective strategies to encourage sustainable consumption patterns. Using the Theory of Planned Behavior as the theoretical framework, this study aims to explore how the variables of the theory (personal attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control), along with consumer knowledge, trust, and health concerns, affect Generation Z’s intentions to buy sustainable food. The research was carried out in Poland via the online interview method (CAWI), with 438 users ranging between the ages 18 and 27. The results show that attitudes and knowledge are significant predictors of sustainable food consumption among Generation Z, while subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, health consciousness, and trust do not significantly affect purchase intentions. This research underscores the importance of educational campaigns and marketing strategies that enhance consumer knowledge and shape positive attitudes towards sustainable food. These insights offer valuable implications for policymakers, marketers, and educators aiming to encourage sustainable practices. Understanding the drivers of Generation Z’s sustainable food consumption behaviors can provide valuable insights for developing effective strategies to promote sustainable consumption patterns. This study adds to the body of knowledge on sustainable food consumption by highlighting the specific factors that drive Generation Z’s purchasing intentions.

1. Introduction

In the face of growing societal awareness regarding the impact of consumer actions on the natural environment and individual health, sustainable food purchasing has become a priority for societies worldwide. Public consciousness concerning the consequences of food consumption for both the environment and personal health is intertwined with an increasing interest in adopting sustainable practices. This shift in consumer behavior is crucial for mitigating environmental degradation and promoting healthier lifestyles. Sustainable food consumption is important due to its potential to mitigate environmental impact, promote social responsibility, and support long-term food security [1]. Consumers’ choices in favor of sustainable food can drive significant positive changes in production practices and environmental conservation.
Consumers define sustainable food in various ways, influenced by factors such as price, health, and environmental impact [2]. This definition is further shaped by their attitudes and behaviors, leading to the identification of distinct consumer segments [3]. However, there is a lack of understanding and knowledge among consumers about sustainability, with many prioritizing other factors in their food choices [2]. Factors such as organic and fair-trade attributes can significantly influence consumer attitudes towards sustainable food products [4]. To date, little research has focused on traditional food products (TFPs) as an example of sustainable products [5,6]. According to Tsolakis et al. [7], TFPs are characterized by attributes such as their short shelf life, seasonality, unique production circumstances, and ease of storage and transportation. These attributes have a substantial impact on the sustainability of their consumption. Programs promoting and protecting TFPs, like geographical indications, support sustainability by linking products to their origins and local resources. Selling TFPs through short supply chains is environmentally beneficial due to reduced transport, packaging, and food losses [6]. Therefore, traditional food can be identified to some extent with ‘sustainable food’. Research on traditional food products (TFPs) as examples of sustainable products is limited and there is little knowledge on how various predictors affect sustainable food purchases. This highlights the need for more studies of how TFP attributes influence consumer decisions towards sustainable foods.
To understand and predict various consumer behaviors, including food choices, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) has been widely utilized. The key components of the TPB are attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control, which influence behavioral intention [8]. Attitude reflects one’s positive or negative evaluation of the behavior, subjective norms involve perceived social pressure, and perceived behavioral control relates to the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior. Despite the wide application of the TPB to explain relations between variables built around the attitude–intention–behavior framework, various researchers from different fields have questioned the TPB’s usefulness. Previous research [9,10,11] suggests that while the TPB assumes attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control determine behavioral intention, it does not account for some domain-specific factors. According to Ajzen [8], the TPB can be expanded by introducing additional variables or changing their paths. Therefore, increasing evidence has been noticed in the recent literature for including additional predictor variables in the TPB. In this study, the authors utilized several factors drawn from the Theory of Planned Behavior (attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) in order to assess Generation Z’s intentions to buy sustainable food. In addition, the role of three variables (consumer knowledge, trust, and health consciousness) was examined. The underlying rationale was that this extension aligns with previous research suggesting that consumer knowledge, trust, and health consciousness are substantial motivators for adopting sustainable food practices [12,13,14]. Consumer knowledge about sustainability issues influences attitudes and behaviors, enhancing the perceived value and enabling informed choices [15]. Incorporating this construct allows to assess the role of knowledge in shaping sustainable consumption patterns, which is particularly relevant for Generation Z, who are known for their high access to information and desire for transparency. Trust in the sources of information and the credibility of sustainability claims are crucial for consumer confidence in purchasing decisions, as mistrust can act as a barrier to sustainable consumption [16]. Including trust in the TPB model highlights the importance of credibility and reliability of information in purchasing intentions. Health consciousness is also a significant factor, especially among younger generations aware of the health implications of their dietary habits [13]. Integrating health concerns into the TPB framework reflects this critical aspect of decision-making. The extent to which these variables play a role in shaping sustainable food purchase intentions within the framework of the TPB remains an area requiring further exploration.
The present study can be distinguished from previous studies by focusing on the evolution of the TPB in the context of sustainable food consumption. Moreover, particular attention was given to Generation Z (Gen Z), also called post-Millennials, who are individuals born in 1995 or later [17], and are increasingly influential in the marketplace. Gen Z exhibits greater impulsiveness in purchasing behavior compared to older cohorts. Conversely, the buying decisions of Generation Z are frequently influenced by hedonistic motives and are price-sensitive; yet Generation Z also displays a high awareness of environmental conservation issues in contrast to older generations [18,19]. Understanding their motivations and intentions regarding sustainable food consumption is essential for devising effective interventions and policies aimed at promoting sustainable consumption patterns and fostering environmental and public health. Prior studies have also examined consumption of sustainable food products, suggesting that Generation Z consumers are driven by a combination of product attributes, perceived value, and sustainability considerations when making purchasing decisions related to sustainable food products [20,21,22,23,24]. However, there is a scarcity in the discourse surrounding consumer knowledge, trust, and health consciousness, which seem to be crucial to achieving sustainable consumption. Considering this gap, the current study adds to the existing literature by offering new insights into consumer behavior regarding sustainable food. To provide a deeper insight, it is crucial to consider the TPB model, a widely accepted framework for understanding consumer behavior. Through the examination of the interplay between health concerns, consumer knowledge, trust, and the core components of TPB (personal attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control), this paper provides a comprehensive view of the factors influencing sustainable food purchase intentions. Through the examination of these variables, this research aimed to present a more comprehensive understanding of how the core components of the TPB and health concerns, consumer knowledge, and trust can shape intentions to purchase sustainable food.
Based on the above background, this study provides insights into the mechanisms underlying consumer decision-making regarding sustainable food choices. The topic of sustainable food consumption is highly relevant in the context of global environmental and social challenges. Moreover, as Generation Z continues to grow in influence, understanding their consumption patterns and preferences becomes increasingly important for shaping future market trends and sustainability efforts.

2. Literature Review

Sustainable food consumption can help reduce the environmental impact of the food industry. To support sustainable food production and consumption, it is important to understand consumer perceptions of sustainable food. By extending the classical components of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)—attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control—with the components product knowledge, trust, and health concerns, research has been undertaken to identify and assess the determinants of purchase intentions for sustainable food.

2.1. Personal Attitude

Attitudes comprise the first group of factors that form the behavioral beliefs that the consumer attaches to them. Every purchase intention is formed primarily by attitudes, which are derived from the consumer’s beliefs about the expected outcome of a given behavior. The higher the subjective value of the expected outcome of a behavior, the more positive the attitude toward that behavior. In order to assess attitudes, it is necessary to know a person’s opinions regarding both the behavior itself and the consequences they associate with it. Attitude affects the likelihood of a person reacting positively or negatively to a behavior. Consumer attitudes, shaped by influencers, perceived value, and brand attitude, play a key role in determining consumer purchase intentions, highlighting the complex interdependence between attitudes and purchase behavior in different market segments [8,25,26,27].
The results of studies conducted in different countries indicate that attitudes directly influence the purchase intentions of food products, including organic and ecological products [28,29,30]. Positive attitudes towards organic and ecological products may contribute to positive attitudes towards purchasing sustainable products [31,32,33,34]. On the basis of these findings, the following hypothesis was proposed:
H1. 
Personal attitude affects consumer intention to purchase sustainable food.

2.2. Subjective Norms

Subjective norms are the consumer’s perceptions about what he or she should do according to others. Subjective norms reflect social influences, which can be seen as a type of social pressure that encourages or discourages action [8].
In a study conducted by Islam and Ali Khan [35], consumer attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control were found to have a significant positive impact on the purchase intention for sustainable products. The study contributed to domain marketing by establishing a new concept called sustainable product evaluation, which included factors such as perceived environmental values and beliefs, perceived environmental impact, and product characteristics. Maduku [36] showed that environmental concerns play a key role in shaping consumers’ positive and negative emotions, which influence their sustainable consumption intentions. Furthermore, a study by Bulut et al. [37] showed that consumer price awareness and brand awareness have a strong influence on their purchasing behavior in relation to a sustainable product. However, some studies indicate that subjective norms may not always be a strong factor influencing purchase intention [29,38]. On the basis of these findings, the following hypothesis was proposed:
H2. 
Subjective norms affect consumer intention to purchase sustainable food.

2.3. Perceived Behavioral Control

Perceived behavioral control refers to the consumer’s subjective assessment of how easy or difficult it is to control his or her behavior when influenced by external and internal factors [8]. The most relevant factors shaping behavioral control include cost, convenience, and time [39]. Studies have shown that behavioral control has a direct and positive effect on the purchase intentions of various environmentally friendly products, e.g., green cosmetics [40,41], environmentally friendly clothing [42], sustainable biscuits [43], and organic vegetables [29]. In summary, perceptual behavioral control evaluates the effectiveness of potential actions, strongly influencing environmentally friendly intentions and behaviours. On the basis of these findings, the following hypothesis was proposed:
H3. 
Perceived behavioral control affects consumer intention to purchase sustainable food.

2.4. Consumer Knowledge

Consumer knowledge forms the basis for decision-making and rationalizing consumer behavior and shapes consumer confidence. Knowledge is the content resulting from the combination of product information and consumer experience that influences consumer purchasing decisions. Research has shown that providing consumers with comprehensive and reliable product knowledge positively influences their purchase intentions and behavior [43,44,45,46].
In recent years, consumers have shown an increased interest in sustainability, particularly in adopting sustainable consumption patterns to contribute to environmental protection. Consumers’ perceptions of sustainability are influenced by various factors, such as environmental awareness, perceived value, trust in green labels and claims, sociocultural influences, personal values, and income levels [47,48]. As Wong et al. [49] point out, knowledge about green products positively influences product trust, which in turn influences the intention to purchase a green product. The researchers also pointed out that for consumers, the relationship between knowledge about green products and purchase intention is a complex relationship, which is also influenced by trust in the product, perceived benefit, and price. However, studies also indicate that despite growing environmental concerns and interest in sustainable practices, the market share of sustainable products remains low, indicating a gap between consumer perception and purchase intention, thus hindering sustainable choices [50,51,52,53]. On the basis of these findings, the following hypothesis was proposed:
H4. 
Consumer knowledge affects intention to purchase sustainable food.

2.5. Trust

Consumer trust in sustainable food is a key aspect that influences purchasing decisions and consumer behavior. Recently, scholars have focused on the idea of trust and its components, such as trusting intention and trust-related behavior [54]. Many studies highlight the importance of consumer trust in different areas of the food industry, such as food producers and processors [55,56,57], product labeling [58,59,60], market regulators [61,62,63], product certification schemes [64,65], and mobile organic food delivery applications [66]. These studies highlight that consumer trust plays a key role in overcoming the gap between intention and behavior in food consumption, influencing actual purchase decisions. Perceived quality is one of the main factors explaining the purchase and consumption of organic food [67]. In a study by Setyarko et al. [29], consumer green assurance significantly influences purchase intention for organic vegetables. The results of a study by Dangelico et al. [43] indicated that familiarity with and perceived value of the product influences consumers’ purchase intentions for sustainable biscuits, interacting with perceived quality, environmental concern, and purchase intention. Understanding and fostering consumer confidence in sustainable food systems is essential to promote the economization of consumption. On the basis of these findings, the following hypothesis was proposed:
H5. 
Trust affects consumer intention to purchase sustainable food.

2.6. Health Consciousness

The impact of food on consumer well-being is strongly linked to health, enjoyment, and emotional aspects. In many studies, consumers have identified sensory attributes, production processes, nutritional composition, and the context of food consumption as the main factors underlying food-related well-being [68,69]. Research also highlights the importance of health consciousness in relation to contemporary health concerns and willingness to use functional foods, indicating that people with higher health consciousness show greater concern about health-related factors and are more likely to use functional foods to achieve a higher quality of life [70].
Consumer health awareness plays a significant role in predicting consumers’ intentions to purchase organic food [71]. Results from a study of consumers of organic vegetables in Brazil [28] indicate that attitude mediates the relationship between perceived health benefits and intention and perceived sustainability benefits. As shown by the results of various studies, consumers attribute health benefits to organic foods due to their natural origin, and these benefits are important factors influencing consumer purchase decisions and attitudes [48,66,72,73,74]. According to Konuk [75], in addition to the health consciousness of organic food consumers, environmental concerns are an important factor driving consumers to purchase food. The findings of De Farias [76] among organic food consumers in Brazil indicated that environmental awareness positively influences consumer attitudes, healthy consumption significantly influences consumer attitudes, and attitudes and subjective norms positively influence the intention to purchase again in the context of organic food consumption, thus reinforcing signs of healthier and more sustainable consumption behavior. On the basis of these findings, the following hypothesis was proposed:
H6. 
Health consciousness affects consumer intention to purchase sustainable food.
Some studies also include other factors such as environmental knowledge, materialism, environmental influences, promotion of sustainable consumption, disclosure of sustainability attributes, and behavioral intention of sustainable consumption [77,78,79]. Therefore, increasing evidence has been noticed in the recent literature for including additional predictor variables in the TPB. The extent to which health concerns, consumer knowledge, and trust play a role in shaping sustainable food purchase intentions within the framework of the TPB remains an area requiring further exploration. Furthermore, the inclusion of variables such as environmental concerns, personal moral norms, and perceived consumer efficacy, along with the TPB, can predict environmentally friendly purchase intentions, highlighting the importance of tailored sustainable marketing strategies and policies to promote sustainable food choices [80]. To increase consumer acceptance of sustainable products, companies and policy makers should consider a holistic approach to sustainability, targeting new consumer segments and exploring trade-offs between different dimensions of sustainability to meet consumer preferences and support greater development of environmentally friendly products.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Design

This research adopted the deductive method by building on theories that have already been proposed by other researchers [81]. Firstly, the TPB model was discussed with relevant hypotheses. The hypotheses for this study were defined based on the results of previous research, as detailed in the earlier literature review. Then, the hypotheses were tested through data analysis, contributing to summarizing the factors affecting the intention of Generation Z consumers to purchase sustainable food. Through quantitative analysis of the collected primary data, a theoretical framework suitable for analyzing the impact of selected factors on the purchase intention for sustainable food products of Generation Z consumers was summarized. The factors affecting sustainable food consumption are presented in the conceptual structure (Figure 1). This analysis selects one dependent variable, which is consumers’ intention to purchase, and six independent variables, which are personal attitude (ATT), subjective norms (SN), perceived behavior control (PBC), health consciousness (HC), consumer knowledge (KNOW), and trust (TRUST).

3.2. Procedure and Participants

This research was based on a quantitative method of analysis to examine the factors influencing the intention to purchase sustainable food products, taking as an example the TFP. The research was carried out via the online interview method (CAWI), with users ranging between the ages of 18 and 27 (Table 1). The selection of respondents for the study was determined by a convenience sampling procedure. The sampling frame was narrowed down only to people who met the survey criteria. The research population consisted of people living in different parts of Poland, who declared they were buying and eating sustainable food products of different categories. The sample of 438 respondents was recruited from an adult population (representatives of Generation Z) in the years 2022–2023.
The questionnaire was created digitally using Google Forms and distributed over peer-to-peer digital networks and social media platforms. The digital distribution removed the constraint of geography, allowing responses from many regions in Poland.
A total of 438 respondents were included in the research to analyze the factors influencing the intention to purchase sustainable food. The distribution of respondents by residence shows that 28% of the respondents resided in villages and 72% resided in cities. The gender-wise distribution of the respondents had a female (262 respondents) to male (176 respondents) allocation of 60–40%. The education distribution shows that 65% of respondents possessed a high school education (286 respondents), 34% of respondents had attained graduate degrees, and a smaller portion of the sample, consisting of 1% of respondents, had completed primary school education.

3.3. Measures

The items for all the constructs, namely, personal attitude towards sustainable food [82,83,84,85] (4 items), subjective norms [86,87,88] (3 items), perceived behavioral control [85,89,90] (5 items), health consciousness [91] (3 items), knowledge [92,93] (3 items), trust [89,94] (3 items), and purchase intentions [89,95] (3 items) were adopted from the literature. The questionnaire was designed using the theoretical framework discussed earlier and presented measures of the TPB constructs that complied with the TPB questionnaire construction guidelines [96]. Table 2 describes the items of each construct. All the items were measured on the scale of 1–7, with 7 as strongly agree and 1 as strongly disagree [97]. Finally, participants answered socio-demographic questions.
The questionnaire was piloted with 20 consumers of sustainable foods to ensure that the questions and response formats were clear. Suggested changes were incorporated in the questionnaire.

3.4. Data Analysis

In this study, the software used for data analysis was IBM SPSS 29 for preliminary data analysis and IBM AMOS 29 for structural equation modeling (SEM). The presence of outliers was investigated to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the dataset. In the next step, structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied to test the research model. Initially, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to investigate the adequacy of the measurement model. For the measurement model, factor loadings of the statements were examined first. Due to the standardized factor loadings being below 0.50, one item of attitude (ATT3), one item of subjective norms (SN3), one item of trust (TRUST3), and three items of perceived behavioral control (PBC2, PBC4, and PBC5) were removed from the model.
Fit indicators of the measurement model considered included chi-square (χ2), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR). Typically, a satisfactory model is denoted by χ2 not being significant, χ2/df ≤ 3, RMSEA ≤ 0.06, CFI ≥ 0.95, and SRMR ≤ 0.08 [98].
The reliability and validity of the constructs were tested using Cronbach’s alpha for reliability (α > 0.70), composite reliability (CR > 0.70), and average variance extracted (AVE > 0.50). Discriminant validity was assessed by ensuring that the square root of the AVE for each construct was greater than the correlations with other constructs (Fornell and Larcker’s (F-L) criteria) [99]. Finally, a structural model was used in order to test the hypothesized model of relations (Figure 1).

4. Results

The measurement model presented adequate validity and reliability indicators, and is presented in Table 3. The descriptive statistics of each item are demonstrated in Supplementary Material. To estimate the reliability of measures, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and composite reliability (CR) values were determined; then, descriptive statistics were computed for all variables. All constructs presented values of Cronbach’s alpha, CR, and AVE that indicate adequate validity and reliability: composite reliabilities (CRs) ranged from 0.8 to 0.9, average variance extracted (AVE) ranged from 0.5 to 0.9, and Cronbach’s coefficients were satisfactory.
Based on the results presented in Table 4, it was observed that the square root of AVE for the research constructs (0.70 < AVE < 0.92) was greater than the correlation between them (0.32 < r < 0.67). This result indicates the confirmation of the discriminant validity of the constructs in the proposed research model [100].
After confirming the validity and reliability of the measurement model, it was possible to estimate the structural model and to test the research hypotheses proposed in this article to explain sustainable food purchase intention. The results are presented in Table 5. The goodness of fit indicators had adequate levels (χ2(114) = 258.893, p = 0.000, χ2/df = 2.271, RMSEA = 0.054, CFI = 0.933, TLI = 0.776), indicating the overall validity of the measurement model. In this study, attitude (β = 0.351, p < 0.003) and knowledge (β = 0.727, p < 0.001) were identified as the predictors of intention to purchase sustainable food (Table 5).

5. Discussion

This paper designs a social-psychological model to examine decisions regarding the purchase of sustainable foods among young adults (Generation Z). The aim was to investigate the interplay between health concerns, consumer knowledge, trust, and the components of the TPB in influencing sustainable food purchase intentions. The results indicated that the model used in the context of Gen Z’s behavioral intentions for sustainable food was very successful, because the figure of variance explained was 79.0%. Our results showed that consumers’ attitudes and knowledge were predictors of intention to purchase sustainable food by Generation Z representatives.
The results of hypothesis H1 showed that the attitude toward sustainable food had a significant effect on the purchase intention of Generation Z (β = 0.351, p < 0.003). These findings are in line with the existing literature that shows attitude to be the most significant predictor of intention to purchase sustainable food [31,32,33,34]. According to the analysis of this data, it can be concluded that researchers consistently refer to it as the key to understanding behavior and have referred to it as the most significant component in explaining behavioral intentions [101]. People who have a sustainable and positive attitude toward the environment are always more likely than others to refrain from engaging in destructive activity in their immediate surroundings [102].
The study did not confirm the expected impacts of subjective norms and perceived behavioral control on purchase intentions (β = 0.024, p = 0.70; β =−0.397, p = 0.122), and consequently research hypotheses H2 and H3 were not supported. This was a surprise conclusion, as it contradicted several previous studies that evaluated TPB variables to predict sustainable food purchasing intentions [103,104,105,106]. However, the literature has questioned the lack of predictive ability of one or more variables from the TPB model. Some studies have reported comparable results, suggesting that perceived behavioral control and subjective norms were not significant predictors of sustainable food purchase intentions, so consumers may not always be a subject to attitudinal and normative control [107]. Hasan [108] found that perceived behavioral control significantly influences organic food purchase intentions, while subjective norms do not. Similarly, Wong [38] found that both perceived behavioral control and subjective norms are not significant predictors of intentions to purchase suboptimal foods. However, Ham [109] and Shin [110] both found that subjective norms do play a significant role in the intention to purchase green and local food products, respectively. These mixed findings suggest that the influence of perceived behavioral control and subjective norms on sustainable food purchase intentions may vary depending on the specific context and type of sustainable food product.
A positive impact of knowledge on purchase intentions was found by this study (β = 0.72, p < 0.001), providing support to research hypothesis H4 and empirical support to the literature. Kumar [111] and Wang [48] both found that environmental knowledge positively influences attitudes and purchase intentions for environmentally sustainable and organic products. Lee [46] further demonstrated that consumer knowledge of certification can increase purchase intentions for sustainable products. However, Vermeir [112] highlighted the role of other factors, such as involvement, perceived availability, certainty, perceived consumer effectiveness, values, and subjective norms in influencing attitudes and intentions for sustainable food products. Environmental knowledge has been consistently found to have a significant positive relationship with attitude towards sustainable products, which in turn influences purchase intentions [46]. This knowledge can also moderate the relationship between other factors, such as subjective norms, personal attitude, and health consciousness, further increasing purchase intention [48].
This study did not confirm the effect of health consciousness on intention to purchase sustainable food (β = −0.48, p = 0.36); thus, research hypothesis H5 was not supported. The literature on the relationship between health consciousness and intention to purchase sustainable food presents mixed findings. Dipietro et al. [113] and Parasha et al. [114] found health consciousness to be a significant predictor of purchase intentions. However, Michaelidou [115] found that health consciousness was the least important predictor of attitude and intentions to purchase organic produce, with food safety concerns and ethical self-identity playing more significant roles. Similarly, Huang et al. [116] found health consciousness to be a major predictor of intentions to purchase healthy products but did not specifically focus on sustainable food. These mixed findings suggest that while health consciousness may play a role in purchase intentions, it is not always a significant predictor, particularly in the context of sustainable food.
Finally, this study did not confirm the effect of trust on intentions to purchase sustainable food (β = 0.14, p = 0.12); thus, research hypothesis H6 was not supported. It is a notable finding in our study that coincides with some other studies. Mughal [117] found that trust was not a significant predictor of organic food purchase intentions in a non-regulated market, while Ayyub [118] identified trust as a partial mediator of personal and product attributes in the same context. Dumortier [119] also found that trust in organic certification and the supply chain did not significantly influence organic food purchases. However, research on sustainable food purchase intentions has yielded mixed results regarding the significance of trust as a predictor. Other research indicates that trust in sustainable producers and green claims can significantly impact consumer behavior [120,121]. Dowd and Burke [122] found that ethical values, which are closely related to trust, were significant predictors of intentions to purchase sustainably sourced foods. Trust acts as a mediator between factors like environmental concern and perceived knowledge, leading to positive purchase intentions for sustainable food options [123,124]. Moreover, the level of trust in safety regulators and independent promoters also plays a vital role in shaping consumers’ intentions to consume sustainable food alternatives like plant-based meat [125]. These findings suggest that while trust may not always be a direct predictor, it can play a role in shaping consumer intentions for sustainable food.
In sum, the results of this study demonstrate that attitudes towards sustainable food and consumer knowledge influence the intentions to purchase sustainable food among Generation Z (H1 and H4 were supported). Generation Z often places a high value on environmental sustainability and ethical consumption. If they understand how sustainable food aligns with their values, they are more likely to support and purchase these products. Positive attitudes toward sustainable food are aligned with these core values, making individuals more inclined to act in accordance with their beliefs. Attitudes are often tied to emotions, so when consumers feel positively about sustainable food, perhaps due to its perceived benefits for health and the environment, these positive emotions can drive their purchasing decisions. Knowledge about the benefits of sustainable food—such as environmental impact, health benefits, and ethical considerations—make consumers more likely to prioritize these options in their purchasing decisions. Educational initiatives that enhance consumer knowledge could therefore be effective in promoting sustainable consumption.
Contrary to expectations, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control did not play significant roles in influencing sustainable food purchase intentions (H2 and H3 were not supported). This suggests that external social pressures and perceived ease or difficulty of purchasing sustainable food are less influential for Generation Z compared to their personal attitudes and knowledge. Generation Z is often characterized by a strong sense of individualism and personal values. They may prioritize their personal beliefs and attitudes over societal expectations. As a result, subjective norms, which rely on the influence of others, might be less impactful for this group compared to their own attitudes and knowledge. In addition, with the widespread availability of information through digital media, Generation Z has greater access to knowledge about sustainable practices. This increased access to information allows them to form their own opinions and attitudes independently of subjective norms. Generation Z also tends to have high confidence in their ability to make informed decisions. This self-assurance can diminish the impact of perceived behavioral control, as they feel capable of overcoming potential barriers to purchasing sustainable food on their own.
This study did not confirm the effect of health consciousness and trust on the intention to purchase sustainable food (H5 and H6 were not supported). This generation has grown up with extensive information about healthy eating, which might make the specific health benefits of sustainable food less compelling. While health consciousness is important, Generation Z might prioritize other factors such as environmental impact, ethical considerations, and social responsibility when it comes to sustainable food. These values could overshadow health concerns in their decision-making process. With access to vast amounts of information, Generation Z tends to rely more on personal research and peer reviews rather than institutional trust. They prefer to verify claims independently and may question the authenticity of sustainability labels, making trust in producers or certifications more critical. Therefore, trust in food producers and certification bodies might be low, reducing the impact of trust on their purchase intentions.
These research results provide valuable insights into the practical and theoretical implications of the findings. Considering the practical implications, this study shows that consumer education should be prioritized, focusing on raising awareness about the benefits of sustainable food through targeted campaigns in schools and social media. Marketers need to reevaluate how they communicate trust and health benefits, tailoring messages to address the specific concerns and interests of Generation Z. Despite subjective norms not being significant, strategies to leverage social influence should be explored, perhaps through endorsements or peer influence mechanisms. Efforts should also investigate other barriers, such as cost and convenience, to develop more effective interventions that encourage sustainable food purchases. Turning to the theoretical research implications, the inclusion of consumer knowledge in the TPB framework was validated, but the insignificance of trust, health consciousness, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control suggested a need for model refinement.
Future research should explore additional variables or different factor combinations that might better predict sustainable food purchasing intentions. The findings highlight the importance of context-specific factors, indicating that TPB applications need to be tailored to different consumer groups or cultural settings. This study calls for a more nuanced approach to the TPB, considering unique influences within various demographic or cultural contexts. Future studies should also explore the longitudinal changes in Generation Z’s attitudes and behaviors towards sustainable food consumption, investigate the interplay of additional factors such as economic constraints and accessibility, and compare the findings across different cultural and regional contexts to develop more comprehensive and globally applicable strategies.

6. Conclusions

The aim of this research was to investigate the behavioral intentions of Gen Z to purchase sustainable food. In this study, the extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) was utilized. In terms of theory, it is implied from our findings that the attitudinal component of the TPB is particularly crucial for understanding sustainable consumption behaviors in Generation Z. This emphasizes the need for a deeper exploration of what shapes these attitudes and how they can be positively influenced. The traditional components of the TPB—subjective norms and perceived behavioral control—may need to be reconsidered or expanded when applied to sustainable food consumption among Generation Z. This demographic prioritizes personal attitudes and knowledge over social influences and perceived ease of action. The findings contribute to the Theory of Planned Behavior, suggesting potential extensions to the TPB framework by highlighting the significant role of knowledge in shaping purchase intentions. This can stimulate further research and discussion on how the TPB can be adapted to different contexts and demographic groups. This study validates the importance of attitudes within TPB, while indicating that other factors like health consciousness and trust may not be as influential as previously thought. This highlights the importance of considering demographic factors when applying the TPB. What drives behavior in one demographic may not hold true universally, suggesting the need for tailored theoretical models.
From a practical point of view, this study provides a justification for using attitude and knowledge dimensions in policies and programs that intend to encourage young adult people to purchase sustainable foods. Given that attitude and knowledge were the strongest predictor of Generation Z’s behavioral intentions, it is necessary to create positive attitudes and enhance consumer knowledge. This can be achieved through targeted educational campaigns that provide comprehensive information about sustainable food. These campaigns should aim to increase general awareness and specific knowledge about the benefits and practices of sustainable food production and consumption. In addition, clear and transparent information should be accessible. This includes transparent labeling, online resources, and educational content that clearly explains the environmental, social, and health benefits of sustainable food. By focusing on transparent and informative marketing, engaging digital platforms, community and educational initiatives, and building trust and credibility, producers can effectively cater to Generation Z’s preferences for sustainable food. These strategies not only align with the attitudes and knowledge that drive purchase intentions, but also foster long-term loyalty among consumers.
This study has several implications for research and society. It is suggested to pay attention to the following in future studies: understanding the specific mechanisms through interaction with each other and with external influences such as social norms and marketing strategies; conducting longitudinal studies to reveal how attitudes and behaviors toward sustainable food evolve over time within Generation Z; and comparing generational differences in attitudes and behaviors toward sustainable food to highlight unique trends and preferences across different age groups. The findings underscore the importance of promoting sustainability as a societal value among Generation Z. Encouraging sustainable food consumption not only benefits the environment but also supports ethical practices and healthier lifestyles. By fostering positive attitudes and knowledge about sustainable food, society can contribute to a broader shift toward more sustainable consumer behaviors. This shift is crucial for addressing global challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss.
While the study provides valuable insights into sustainable food consumption among Generation Z, several limitations should be considered. This study examines behavioral intentions rather than actual purchasing behavior, so there can be a significant gap between what people intend to do and what they actually do, influenced by situational factors and real-world constraints. The next limitation is sample representativeness, because the findings cannot be generalizable to Generation Z in other countries. Cultural, economic, and social differences can influence attitudes and behaviors related to sustainable food consumption. Despite certain limitations, the current study contributes to the body of knowledge on sustainable food consumption by looking into the behaviors of Generation Z.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16177284/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.J., A.Z.D., B.P. and S.S.; methodology, D.J., A.Z.D., B.P. and S.S.; software, D.J., A.Z.D., B.P. and S.S.; validation, D.J., A.Z.D., B.P. and S.S.; formal analysis, D.J. and A.Z.D.; investigation, D.J., A.Z.D., B.P. and S.S.; resources, D.J., A.Z.D., B.P. and S.S.; data curation, D.J. and A.Z.D.; writing—D.J., A.Z.D., B.P. and S.S.; writing—review and editing, D.J. and A.Z.D.; visualization, D.J. and B.P.; supervision, D.J.; project administration, D.J.; funding acquisition, D.J., A.Z.D., B.P. and S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn Research Ethics Committee (Ethics Committee number: 10/2022; date of approval: 30 June 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ifeanyichukwu, C.D. Exploring critical factors influencing sustainable food consumption: A conceptual review. Eur. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2020, 8, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. van Bussel, L.M.; Kuijsten, A.; Mars, M.M.; van ‘t Veer, P. Consumers’ perceptions on food-related sustainability: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 341, 130904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Verain, M.C.; Bartels, J.; Dagevos, H.; Sijtsema, S.J.; Onwezen, M.C.; Antonides, G. Segments of sustainable food consumers: A literature review. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012, 36, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Annunziata, A.; Scarpato, D. Factors affecting consumer attitudes towards food products with sustainable attributes. Agric. Econ. 2014, 60, 353–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kalenjuk Pivarski, B.; Šmugović, S.; Tekić, D.; Ivanović, V.; Novaković, A.; Tešanović, D.; Banjac, M.; Đerčan, B.; Peulić, T.; Mutavdžić, B.; et al. Characteristics of traditional food products as a segment of sustainable consumption in Vojvodina’s hospitality industry. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jakubowska, D.; Sadílek, T. Sustainably produced butter: The effect of product knowledge, interest in sustainability, and consumer characteristics on purchase frequency. Agric. Econ. 2023, 69, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tsolakis, N.; Anastasiadis, F.; Srai, J.S. Sustainability performance in food supply networks: Insights from the UK industry. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Donald, I.J.; Cooper, S.R.; Conchie, S.M. An extended theory of planned behaviour model of the psychological factors affecting commuters’ transport mode use. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Maichum, K.; Parichatnon, S.; Peng, K.C. Application of the extended theory of planned behavior model to investigate purchase intention of green products among Thai. Consumers. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Aydın, H.; Aydin, C. Investigating consumers’ food waste behaviors: An extended theory of planned behavior of Turkey sample. Clean. Waste Syst. 2022, 3, 100036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ruzgys, S.; Pickering, G.J. Gen Z and sustainable diets: Application of the transtheoretical model and the theory of planned behaviour. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 434, 140300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Savelli, E.; Murmura, F. The intention to consume healthy food among older Gen-Z: Examining antecedents and mediators. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 105, 104788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Agustina, T.; Susanti, E.; Ali Saeed Rana, J. Sustainable consumption in Indonesia: Health awareness, lifestyle, and trust among Gen Z and Millennials. Environ. Econ. 2024, 15, 82–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Borah, P.S.; Dogbe, C.S.K.; Marwa, N. Generation Z’s green purchase behavior: Do green consumer knowledge, consumer social responsibility, green advertising, and green consumer trust matter for sustainable development? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2024, 33, 4530–4546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lăzăroiu, G.; Andronie, M.; Uță, C.; Hurloiu, I. Trust management in organic agriculture: Sustainable consumption behavior, Environmentally conscious purchase intention, and healthy food choices. Front. Public Health 2019, 19, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Priporas, C.V.; Stylos, N.; Fotiadis, A. Generation Z consumers’ expectations of interactions in smart retailing: A future agenda. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 77, 374–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gazzola, P.; Pavione, E.; Pezzetti, R.; Grechi, D. Trends in the fashion industry. The perception of sustainability and circular economy: A gender/generation quantitative approach. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Koch, J.; Frommeyer, B.; Schewe, G. Online shopping motives during the COVID-19 pandemic—Lessons from the crisis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Meixner, O.; Malleier, M.; Haas, R. Towards sustainable eating habits of generation Z: Perception of and willingness to pay for plant-based meat alternatives. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Audina, G.A.; Pradana, M. The influence of green products and green prices on generation Z purchasing decisions. Int. J. Environ. Eng. Dev. 2024, 2, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hudayah, S.; Ramadhani, M.A.; Sary, K.A.; Raharjo, S.; Yudaruddin, R. Green perceived value and green product purchase intention of Gen Z consumers: Moderating role of environmental concern. Environ. Econ. 2023, 14, 87–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fodor, M.; Vasa, V.; Popovics, A. Sustainable consumption from a domestic food purchasing perspective among Generation Z. Decis.Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 2024, 7, 401–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pachołek, B.; Jakubowska, D.; Sady, S.; Matuszak, L.; Pyszka, A. Perception of discount stores promotional brochures among consumers from generation Z. J. Mark. Mark. Stud. 2024, 4, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Armitage, C.; Christian, J. From attitudes to behaviour: Basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. Curr. Psychol. 2003, 22, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhao, X.; Xu, Z.; Ding, F.; Li, Z. The influencers’ attributes and customer purchase intention: The mediating role of customer attitude toward brand. Sage Open 2024, 14, 21582440241250122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pamungkas, D.D.A. The influence of perceived value and product involvement towards purchase intention mediated by attitudey. J. World Sci. 2023, 2, 989–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dorce, L.C.; da Silva, M.C.; Mauad, J.R.C.; Domingues, C.H.F.; Borges, J.A.R. Extending the theory of planned behavior to understand consumer purchase behavior for organic vegetables in Brazil: The role of perceived health benefits, perceived sustainability benefits and perceived price. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 91, 104191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Setyarko, Y.; Noermijati, N.; Rahayu, M.; Sudjatno, S. The role of consumer green assurance in strengthening the influence of purchase intentions on organic vegetable purchasing behavior: Theory of planned behavior approach. WSEAS Trans. Bus. Econ. 2024, 21, 1228–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Aprilia, A.; Dewi, H.E.; Pariasa, I.I.; Hardana, A.E. Factors affecting consumers’ preferences in purchasing organic vegetables using a theory of planned behavior. IOP Conf.Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2024, 1306, 012028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Biasini, B.; Rosi, A.; Scazzina, F.; Menozzi, D. Predicting the adoption of a sustainable diet in adults: A cross-sectional study in Italy. Nutrients 2023, 15, 2784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Xin, S.; Qian-Er, X.; Qiao, L. Predicting sustainable food consumption across borders based on the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic structural equation model. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0275312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Canova, L.; Bobbio, A.; Manganelli, A.M. Sustainable purchase intentions: The role of moral norm and social dominance orientation in the theory of planned behavior applied to the case of fair trade products. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 31, 1069–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jusuf, K.; Nuttavuthisit, K. Going from attitude to action: Analyzing how the orientations of sustainable food businesses influence their business strategies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 4371–4381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Islam, Q.; Ali Khan, S.M.F. Assessing consumer behavior in sustainable product markets: A structural equation modeling approach with partial least squares analysis. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Maduku, D.K. How environmental concerns influence consumers’ anticipated emotions towards sustainable consumption: The moderating role of regulatory focus. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2024, 76, 103593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bulut, E.; Yildirim, B.; Brandão, A.; Vieira, B.M.; Tavares, V. Influence of sustainability on the purchase decision of products. Eur. J. Appl. Bus. Manag. 2022, 8, 32–51. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wong, S.L.; Hsu, C.C.; Chen, H.S. To buy or not to buy? Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions for suboptimal food. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Varah, F.; Mahongnao, M.; Pani, B.; Khamrang, S. Exploring young consumers’ intention toward green products: Applying an extended theory of planned behavior. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 9181–9195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Meliniasari, A.R.; Mas’od, A. Understanding factors shaping green cosmetic purchase intentions: Insights from attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1487–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hsu, C.-L.; Chang, C.-Y.; Yansritakul, C. Exploring purchase intention of green skincare products using the theory of planned behavior: Testing the moderating effects of country of origin and price sensitivity. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 34, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chi, T.; Zheng, Y. Understanding environmentally friendly apparel consumption: An empirical study of Chinese consumers. Int. J. Sustain. Soc. 2016, 8, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dangelico, R.M.; Ceccarelli, G.; Fraccascia, L. Consumer behavioral intention toward sustainable biscuits: An extension of the theory of planned behavior with product familiarity and perceived value. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2024, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. He, J.; Sui, D. Investigating college students’ green food consumption intentions in China: Integrating the theory of planned behavior and norm activation theory. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 8, 1404465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tzeng, S.-Y.; Ho, T.-Y. Exploring the effects of product knowledge, trust, and distrust in the health belief model to predict attitude toward dietary supplements. Sage Open 2022, 12, 21582440211068855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lee, E.J.; Bae, J.; Kim, K.H. The effect of environmental cues on the purchase intention of sustainable products. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 120, 425–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mahadeva, R.; Ganji, E.N.; Shah, S. Sustainable consumer behaviours through comparisons of developed and developing nations. Int. J. Environ. Eng. Dev. 2024, 2, 106–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, X.; Pacho, F.; Liu, J.; Kajungiro, R. Factors influencing organic food purchase intention in developing countries and the moderating role of knowledge. Sustainability 2019, 11, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, H.; Ma, B.; Bai, R. How does green product knowledge effectively promote green purchase intention? Sustainability 2019, 11, 1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Peschel, A.O.; Grebitus, C.; Steiner, B.; Veeman, M. How does consumer knowledge affect environmentally sustainable choices? Evidence from a cross-country latent class analysis of food labels. Appetite 2016, 106, 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Camilleri, A.R.; Larrick, R.P.; Hossain, S.; Patino-Echeverri, D. Consumers underestimate the emissions associated with food but are aided by labels. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Simeone, M.; Scarpato, D. Sustainable consumption: How does social media affect food choices? J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 124036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hartmann, C.; Lazzarini, G.; Funk, A.; Siegrist, M. Measuring consumers’ knowledge of the environmental impact of foods. Appetite 2021, 167, 105622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Al-Kfairy, M.; Shuhaiber, A.; Al-Khatib, A.W.; Alrabaee, S.; Khaddaj, S. Understanding trust drivers of S-commerce. Heliyon 2024, 10, e23332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Robinson, C.; Ruth, T.; Easterly, R.G. (Tre), Franzoy, F. and Lillywhite, J. Examining consumers’ trust in the food supply chain. J. Appl. Commun. 2020, 104, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Murphy, I.; Benson, T.; Lavelle, F.; Elliott, C.; Dean, M. Assessing differences in levels of food trust between European countries. Food Control 2021, 120, 107561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. László, V.; Szakos, D.; Csizmadiáné Czuppon, V.; Kasza, G. Consumer trust in local food system—Empirical research in Hungary. Acta Aliment. 2024, 53, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cook, B.; Costa Leite, J.; Rayner, M.; Stoffel, S.; van Rijn, E.; Wollgast, J. Consumer interaction with sustainability labelling on food products: A narrative literature review. Nutrients 2023, 15, 3837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Randoni, A.; Grasso, S. Consumers behaviour towards carbon footprint labels on food: A review of the literature and discussion of industry implications. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 301, 127031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tonkin, E.; Wilson, A.M.; Coveney, J.; Webb, T.; Meyer, S.B. Trust in and through labelling—A systematic review and critique. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 318–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yuan, R.; Jin, S.; Lin, W. Could trust narrow the intention-behavior gap in eco-friendly food consumption? Evidence from China. Agribusiness 2023, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rizomyliotis, I. Consumer trust and online purchase intention for sustainable products. Am. Behav. Sci. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. van der Zee, E. Regulatory structure underlying sustainability labels. In Sustainability Labels in the Shadow of the Law; Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Truong, V.A.; 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] [CrossRef]
  65. Hasan, M.M.; Al Amin, M.; Arefin, M.S.; Mostafa, T. Green consumers’ behavioral intention and loyalty to use mobile organic food delivery applications: The role of social supports, sustainability perceptions, and religious consciousness. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 6, 15953–16003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Rana, J.; Paul, J. Health motive and the purchase of organic food: A meta-analytic review. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2020, 44, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ares, G.; de Saldamando, L.; Giménez, A.; Claret, A.; Cunha, L.M.; Guerrero, L.; de Moura, A.P.; Oliveira, D.C.R.; Symoneaux, R.; Deliza, R. Consumers’ associations with wellbeing in a food-related context: A cross-cultural study. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 40, 304–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Fortunka, K.B. Factors affecting human health in the modern world. J. Educ. Health Sport 2020, 10, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Verain, M.C.D.; Raaijmakers, I.; Meijboom, S.; van der Haar, S. Differences in drivers of healthy eating and nutrition app preferences across motivation-based consumer groups. Food Qual. Prefer. 2024, 116, 105145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chen, M.-F. Modern health worries and functional foods. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 43, E1–E12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nagaraj, S. Role of consumer health consciousness, food safety and attitude on organic food purchase in emerging market: A serial mediation model. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 59, 102423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hansmann, R.; Baur, I.; Binder, C.R. Increasing organic food consumption: An integrating model of drivers and barriers. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 123058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ladwein, R.; Sanchez Romero, A.M. The role of trust in the relationship between consumers, producers and retailers of organic food: A sector-based approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 60, 102508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Tm, A.; Kaur, P.; Ferraris, A.; Dhir, A. What motivates the adoption of green restaurant products and services? A systematic review and future research agenda. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 30, 2224–2240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Konuk, A.F. The role of store image, perceived quality, trust and perceived value in predicting consumers’ purchase intentions towards organic private label food. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 43, 304–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. De Farias, F.; Eberle, L.; Milan, G.S.; De Toni, D.; Eckert, A. Determinants of organic food repurchase intention from the perspective of Brazilian consumers. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2020, 25, 921–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Saari, U.A.; Damberg, S.; Frömbling, L.; Ringle, C.M. Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: The influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 189, 107155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Dimitrova, T.; Iliana, I.; Mina, A. Exploring factors affecting sustainable consumption behaviour. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Leidner, D.; Sutanto, J.; Goutas, L. Influencing Environmentally Sustainable Consumer Choice through Information Transparency. In Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Virtual, 4–7 January 2022; pp. 4749–4758. [Google Scholar]
  80. Gul, S.; Ahmed, W. Enhancing the theory of planned behavior with perceived consumer effectiveness and environmental concern towards pro-environmental purchase intentions for eco-friendly apparel: A review article. Bull. Bus. Econ. (BBE) 2024, 13, 784–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Young, M.; Varpio, L.; Uijtdehaage, S.; Paradis, E. The spectrum of inductive and deductive research approaches using quantitative and qualitative data. Acad. Med. 2019, 95, 1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Yadav, R.; Pathak, G.S. Determinants of Consumers’ Green Purchase Behavior in a Developing Nation: Applying and Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 134, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Setyawan, A.; Noermijati, N.; Sunaryo, S.; Aisjah, S. Green product buying intentions among young consumers: Extending the application of theory of planned behavior. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2018, 16, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Paul, J.; Modi, A.; Patel, J. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 29, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Saxena, N.; Sharma, R. Impact of spirituality, culture, behaviour on sustainable consumption intentions. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 32, 2724–2740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Al-Swidi, A.; Huque, S.M.R.; Hafeez, M.H.; Shariff, M.N.M. The role of subjective norms in theory of planned behavior in the context of organic food consumption. Br. Food J. 2014, 116, 1561–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Askadilla, W.L.; Krisjanti, M.N. Understanding Indonesian green consumer behavior on cosmetic products: Theory of planned behavior model. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2017, 15, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ru, X.; Wang, S.; Chen, Q.; Yan, S. Exploring the interaction effects of norms and attitudes on green travel intention: An empirical study in eastern China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 1317–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Witek, L.; Kuzniar, W. Green purchase behaviour gap: The effect of past behaviour on green food product purchase intentions among individual consumers. Foods 2024, 13, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Singh, M.P.; Chakraborty, A.; Roy, M. Developing an extended theory of planned behavior model to explore circular economy readiness in manufacturing MSMEs, India. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 135, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kabir, M.R.; Islam, S. Behavioural intention to purchase organic food: Bangladeshi consumers’ perspective. Brit. Food J. 2022, 124, 754–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kumar, S.; Gupta, K.; Kumar, A.; Singh, A.; Singh, R. Applying the theory of reasoned action to examine consumers’ attitude and willingness to purchase organic foods. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2022, 47, 118–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Anupam, S.; Priyanka, V. Factors influencing Indian consumers’ actual buying behaviour towards organic food products. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 473–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Nuttavuthisit, K.; Thogersen, J. The importance of consumer trust for the emergence of a market for green products: The case of organic food. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 140, 323–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Yadav, R.; Pathak, G.S. Intention to purchase organic food among young consumers: Evidences from a developing nation. Appetite 2016, 96, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. In Prediction and change of health behavior: Applying the reasoned action approach. Psychology Press: New York, USA; Taylor & Francis Group: New York, USA, 2010; pp. 3–21. [Google Scholar]
  97. Malhotra, N. Questionnaire design and scale development. In the Handbook of Marketing Research: Uses, Misuses and Future Advances; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2006; pp. 83–94. ISBN 1-4129-0997-X. [Google Scholar]
  98. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Zhong, F.; Li, L.; Guo, A.; Song, X.; Cheng, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Ding, X. Quantifying the influence path of water conservation awareness on water-saving irrigation behavior based on the theory of planned behavior and structural equation modeling: A case study from Northwest China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Savari, M.; Gharechaee, H. Application of the extended theory of planned behavior to predict Iranian farmers’ intention for safe use of chemical fertilizers. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lavuri, R.; Jindal, A.; Akram, U.; Naik, B.K.R.; Halibas, A.S. Exploring the antecedents of sustainable consumers’ purchase intentions: Evidence from emerging countries. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 31, 280–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Harjadi, D.; Gunardi, A. Factors affecting eco-friendly purchase intention: Subjective norms and ecological consciousness as moderators. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 9, 2148334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Anjaka, R.G.; Syafrizal, A. The effect of attitude, subjective norm, perceived behaviour control on intention to reduce food waste and food waste behaviour. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 2022, 15, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Alam, S.S.; Ahmad, M.; Ho, Y.H.; Omar, N.A.; Lin, C.Y. Applying an extended theory of planned behavior to sustainable food consumption. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Yazdanpanah, M.; Forouzani, M. Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to predict Iranian students’ intention to purchase organic food. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 342–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hasan, H.; Suciarto, S. The influence of attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control towards organic food purchase intention. J. Manag. Bus. Environ. 2020, 1, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ham, M.; Jeger, M.; Frajman Ivković, A. The role of subjective norms in forming the intention to purchase green food. Econ. Res. -Ekon. Istraživanja 2015, 28, 738–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Shin, Y.H.; Hancer, M. The role of attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and moral norm in the intention to purchase local food products. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2016, 19, 338–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Kumar, B. Theory of Planned Behaviour Approach to Understand the Purchasing Behaviour for Environmentally Sustainable Products 2012; No. WP2012-12-08; Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department: Ahmedabad, Indian, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  112. Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer attitude-behaviour gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2006, 19, 169–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Dipietro, R.B.; Remar, D.; Parsa, H.G. Health consciousness, menu information, and consumers’ purchase intentions: An empirical investigation. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2016, 19, 497–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Parasha, S.; Singh, S.; Sood, G. Examining the role of health consciousness, environmental awareness and intention on purchase of organic food: A moderated model of attitude. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 386, 135553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Michaelidou, N.; Hassan, L.M. The role of health consciousness, food safety concern and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic food. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2008, 32, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Huang, Z.; Zhu, Y.D.; Deng, J.; Wang, C.L. Marketing healthy diets: The impact of health consciousness on Chinese consumers’ food choices. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Mughal, H.A.; Thøgersen, J.; Faisal, F. purchase intentions of non-certified organic food in a non-regulated market: An application of the theory of planned behavior. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2021, 35, 110–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Ayyub, S.; Asif, M.; Nawaz, M.A. Drivers of organic food purchase intention in a developing country: The mediating role of trust. Sage Open 2021, 11, 21582440211045076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Dumortier, J.; Evans, K.S.; Grebitus, C.; Martin, P.A. The influence of trust and attitudes on the purchase frequency of organic produce. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2017, 29, 46–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Parwez, M.; Ansari, Z.; Mullick, N.H. Examining the antecedents of behavioral intention toward organic food in India. Sustain. Clim. Change 2022, 15, 422–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Ghaffar, A.; Zaheer Zaidi, S.S.; Islam, T. An investigation of sustainable consumption behavior: The influence of environmental concern and trust in sustainable producers on consumer xenocentrism. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2023, 34, 771–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Dowd, K.; Burke, K.J. The influence of ethical values and food choice motivations on intentions to purchase sustainably sourced foods. Appetite 2013, 69, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Kamboj, S.; Matharu, M.; Gupta, M. Examining consumer purchase intention towards organic food: An empirical study. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2023, 9, 100121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. de Sio, S.; Zamagni, A.; Casu, G.; Gremigni, P. Green Trust as a Mediator in the Relationship between Green Advertising Skepticism, Environmental Knowledge, and Intention to Buy Green Food. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Begho, T.; Odeniyi, K.; Fadare, O. Toward acceptance of future foods: The role of trust and perception in consumption intentions of plant-based meat alternatives. Br. Food J. 2023, 125, 2392–2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 07284 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual framework and hypotheses.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework and hypotheses.
Sustainability 16 07284 g001
Table 1. Survey sample characteristics.
Table 1. Survey sample characteristics.
MeasureGender
n%
Men17640
Women26260
Education
n%
Primary school51
High school28665
Graduate school14734
Place of residence
n%
Village12128
City up to 50,000 inhabitants10925
City 50,001–200,000 inhabitants7818
City 200,001–500,000 inhabitants358
City over 500,000 inhabitants9522
Table 2. Constructs and items of the study.
Table 2. Constructs and items of the study.
ConstructItem
Personal Attitude (ATT)ATT1. Purchasing sustainable food products protects the natural environment
ATT2. When I buy sustainable food products I am sure that I help protect my health
ATT3. I believe that buying sustainable food products help preserve the sustainable development of the region and the community
ATT4. I am sure that when I buy sustainable food products, I buy products of higher quality
Subjective Norms (SN)SN1. My family members buy sustainable food products
SN2. My friends think that, I should choose sustainable
food products
SN3. The trend of buying sustainable food among people around me is increasing
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC)PCB1. I have the competence to search for sustainable food
products among others available in the store
PCB2. I pay attention to sustainable food price
PBC3. I have complete information and awareness regarding where to buy sustainable food
PCB4. I have time to purchasing of sustainable food products
PCB5. I have the financial capability to buy sustainable food products
Consumer Knowledge (KNOW)KNOW1. I have knowledge about sustainable food
KNOW2. I know that sustainable foods are high quality products
KNOW3. I have more knowledge about sustainable food products than other people
Trust (TRUST)TRUST 1. I trust producers to ensure high quality
TRUST 2. I trust sustainable methods in production
TRUST 3. I trust food certificates and quality marks
Health Consciousness (HC)HC1. To maintain my fitness, I carefully choose my food
HC2. I consider myself very health conscious
HC3. When eating, I often consider health-related concerns
Intention to purchase (INT)INT1. I have a very high purchase interest for sustainable food products
INT2. I intent to buy sustainable food products in the next month
INT3. I am willing to pay a higher price for sustainable food product
Table 3. Descriptive statistics, and validity and reliability assessment.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics, and validity and reliability assessment.
ConstructItemMean (SD) *Factor LoadingsCronbach’s
Alpha		CRAVE
Personal Attitude (ATT)ATT15.85 (1.14)0.8060.7640.90.6
ATT2 0.879
ATT4 0.781
Subjective Norms (SN)SN14.45 (1.65)0.8820.7040.80.6
SN2 0.882
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC)PBC15.31 (1.30)0.8350.7320.80.5
PBC3 0.835
Consumer Knowledge (KNOW)KNOW15.15 (1.21)0.8320.7760.90.7
KNOW2 0.786
KNOW3 0.778
Trust (TRUST)TRUST15.30 (1.22)0.9410.7600.90.8
TRUST2 0.941
Health Consciousness (HC)HC15.40 (1.30)0.9180.9020.90.9
HC2 0.917
HC3 0.913
Intention to purchase (INT)INT15.26 (1.28)0.8510.7670.90.7
INT2 0.873
INT3 0.761
* All measures were scored on 7-point scales. Abbreviations: CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.
Table 4. Examining the discriminant validity of the research constructs. (Fornell and Larcker’s criterion).
Table 4. Examining the discriminant validity of the research constructs. (Fornell and Larcker’s criterion).
ATTSNPBCKNOWHCTRUSTINT
ATT0.78 *
SN0.469 **0.796 *
PBC0.440 **0.511 **0.726 *
KNOW0.516 **0.528 **0.619 **0.868 *
HC0.320 **0.402 **0.384 **0.445 **0.819 *
TRUST0.399 **0.415 **0.504 **0.561 **0.352 **0.924 *
INT0.494 **0.520 **0.506 **0.673 **0.410 **0.524 **0.838 *
* The square roots of AVE estimate. ** Correlation is significant at the <0.01 level.
Table 5. Structural model estimates.
Table 5. Structural model estimates.
HypothesisHypothesized
Effects		Standarized
Regression Weight		p-ValueConclusion
H1INT ← ATT0.3510.003supported
H2INT ← SN0.0240.706not supported
H3INT ← PBC−0.3970.122not supported
H4INT ← KNOW0.727<0.001supported
H5INT ← TRUST0.1420.124not supported
H6INT ← HC−0.0480.366not supported
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

Jakubowska, D.; Dąbrowska, A.Z.; Pachołek, B.; Sady, S. Behavioral Intention to Purchase Sustainable Food: Generation Z’s Perspective. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7284. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177284

AMA Style

Jakubowska D, Dąbrowska AZ, Pachołek B, Sady S. Behavioral Intention to Purchase Sustainable Food: Generation Z’s Perspective. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7284. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177284

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jakubowska, Dominika, Aneta Zofia Dąbrowska, Bogdan Pachołek, and Sylwia Sady. 2024. "Behavioral Intention to Purchase Sustainable Food: Generation Z’s Perspective" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7284. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177284

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