3.1. Context
Participants recognized that ‘cage-free’ meant that hens did not live in cages and that this includes free-range. In practice, participants often referred to indoor systems that did not provide outdoor access as ‘cage-free’ (非笼养) and used the term ‘free-range’ (散养) to refer to systems providing outdoor access. We thus sub-categorized cage-free production into indoor (single or multi-tier) and free-range (see
Table 1).
3.1.1. Production
All companies used only cage-free production, except for Companies C, D, and J. C and D each had one cage-free farm representing <1% of their total flock (Company C is a large egg processor who wanted to test the Chinese market’s acceptance of ‘cage-free’ and ‘animal welfare’; Company D is a large egg supplier who received some business buyer demand to produce cage-free eggs). J sourced eggs from multiple caged and cage-free farms. Flock size for companies using indoor systems (15,000 to 110,000 hens) was larger than those providing outdoor access (mainly 6000 to 15,000 hens), except for Company E, which operated free-range farms with a large total flock (80,000 hens).
3.1.2. Breeds
All companies using indoor systems used commercial layer breeds, which are considered more productive, including Hyline White, Hyline Brown, Dawu and Jinfen-6. In contrast, most companies using free-range systems used local breeds, indigenous to the location of the farm (e.g., the Jianmenguan indigenous chicken 剑门关土鸡). The exceptions were Company E and H which used both commercial and indigenous breeds in outdoor free-range systems. The participants from these companies suggested that it was more productive to use commercial breeds, but also used indigenous breeds to meet consumer demand for pink or green eggs.
3.1.3. Egg Buyers
Eggs are distributed along the supply chain from suppliers to consumers. We refer to any stakeholder that purchases eggs from these companies (e.g., distributor, trader, retailer, consumers) as an egg buyer, and distinguish between two categories: consumers (individual buyers that consume the egg product) and business clients (buyers along the supply chain who then resell eggs to the final consumer). Companies in this study mainly sold eggs for out-of-home or at-home consumption. Out-of-home consumption included intermediary suppliers and businesses such as hotels, restaurants, canteens in companies, schools, or other businesses sourcing eggs. Several of these buyers had international headquarters that have committed to sourcing only cage-free products. For at-home consumption, eggs were sold offline through retailers including supermarkets, farmer markets, specialty stores, and directly at the farm. Restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic reduced in-person shopping, so companies also developed online distribution channels such as via WeChat stores, group purchases, and Tik Tok. Company A and E sold directly to egg processing companies that made commitments to source cage-free eggs by 2025.
3.1.4. Motivation for Producing Cage-Free Eggs
Companies chose cage-free systems due to economic and ethical reasons. For economic reasons, companies believed “the product quality is good” (Company G; free-range), that free-range eggs addressed current market demand (“the [free-range] eggs are deeply accepted by consumers”; Company E; free-range), that the cage-free eggs were addressing future demand: “some of our business partners might require the use of cage-free eggs in the future” (Company D; indoor), or to test the market by “bringing the [animal welfare] concept to consumers […] see if it is easily accepted by consumers” (Company C; indoor). Ethically, some participants reported wanting to “produce real free-range eggs, [be] a company that does not lie” (Company E), wanting to “bring real value to society” (Company G; free-range), and to benefit animals: “if we really want chickens to be happy, and lay happy eggs, we must use cage-free system” (Company A; indoor).
3.2. Price: Engaging Buyers Who Are Willing to Pay
Participants agreed that it was important to engage with buyers who were willing to pay the higher price typically associated with cage-free production. All participants reported a higher cost of production for cage-free compared to caged production; depending on how costs were calculated, cost of production of cage-free eggs was 1.25–3 times more expensive compared cage eggs. Participant G1 described some exceptions including small, free-range farms that produce at a low cost by letting hens forage to reduce feed costs and using cheap and simple infrastructure. Participants also reported high distribution costs, especially when sending small batches of eggs to businesses (e.g., hotels) or individual consumers; these higher costs were reflected in higher prices.
3.2.1. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay
Retail price varied for different distribution channels, and participants described a large range in retail prices for both caged and cage-free eggs, ranging from 0.4–3 RMB/egg. Cage-free eggs were sometimes sold as regular eggs (at approximately 0.4 RMB/egg) when suppliers had surplus eggs. Various factors were believed to contribute to variation in the price that consumers were willing to pay, including consumer income, intended purpose of the egg, and egg quality (sensory and credence attributes).
Participants believed consumers were more willing to pay for cage-free eggs when they had more disposable income. Participant C2 (indoor single-tier; eggs marketed as “cage-free”, “animal welfare”; retail price ranging from 2–3 RMB/egg) shared, “Our target audience, […] their family income is relatively high, and they can accept an egg being 3 RMB, rather than 1 RMB”. Similarly, Participant I1 (free-range; eggs marketed as “free-range”; retail price 2.5 RMB/egg) shared, “People who frequently buy [our free-range eggs] have achieved a certain degree of financial freedom. For people from the ordinary working class, it would be difficult to afford this product”. Some companies selected locations where average income is higher, including major cities such as Beijing and Shanghai. Company C (indoor single-tier; eggs marketed as “cage-free”, “animal welfare”; final retail price in the range of 2–3 RMB) sold their eggs at Costco stores in Suzhou and Shanghai (an international retailer which made a 2025 commitment to sourcing cage-free eggs globally). Company C’s eggs were the only cage-free ones in Costco, and the most expensive (2 RMB/egg, double the price of the other eggs sold in Costco). Participant C1 shared: “The sales in Shanghai are better than in Suzhou, mainly because the income level is higher”.
Consumers who purchased eggs for special purposes (such as for gifts or for children or pregnant women) were reported to be willing to pay more. Participant F1, who produced free-range indigenous chicken eggs and priced these at 2.2 RMB/egg, shared: “In China we still have this sentiment […] what is the most high-end gift for relatives? An indigenous chicken, indigenous chicken eggs, a big basket of it. Especially when someone’s wife is in postpartum confinement period after having a baby, or when there are children”. Suppliers sometimes catered their packaging for gifts; for example, Company H used regular packaging for eggs sold in supermarkets, and “high-end” packaging for gift boxes. Consumers were perceived to be willing to pay more for eggs that they thought were of higher quality; buyer preferences for experiential attributes (e.g., taste) and credence attributes (e.g., free-range production) are discussed in later sections of this paper.
3.2.2. Business Willingness to Pay
Businesses were reportedly willing to pay more for cage-free eggs if they were pressured to purchase these by their international headquarters, or if they catered to high-income local consumers. As Participant J1 shared, “business clients mainly care about costs”; while individual consumers were willing to pay up to 3 RMB/egg, businesses were generally willing to pay less (at most 1.4 RMB/egg) for cage-free eggs. Our participants reported that these businesses were willing to pay 1.25–2 times more for cage-free eggs compared to caged alternatives, but that price was a main consideration for these business buyers. For example, H1 (free-range eggs sold to consumers through retailers and high-end hotels) shared: “Internationally [some companies] have committed to using cage-free eggs by 2025, but they are still very strict about cost […] last August I signed a contract with [a hotel] in Shanghai, but they only ordered eggs from me twice, 900 eggs each time. I asked him why it was so little; they said the cost was too high. Their current price [for caged eggs] is 0.7 RMB/egg, mine is double at 1.4 RMB/egg. So, though they signed a contract, they only occasionally use our eggs”.
Some businesses that had made cage-free commitments were willing to pay the higher price. H1 shared their experience of supplying eggs to another international five-star hotel: “For example [this hotel] was very reluctant to collaborate with us; they said because their headquarter is in France, they are required to use cage-free eggs, that’s why they chose us, otherwise they would never choose us”. All hotels sourcing cage-free eggs from participants in this study were high-end international hotels that made global cage-free commitments. One participant from Company J reported that all their supply was sold to such hotels. Suppliers such as Company A (indoor) also supplied eggs to Chinese retailers who have made cage-free commitments (e.g., City’super).
Some companies sold to businesses which catered to high-income local consumers, such as high-end canteens and restaurants. Participant I1 (Company I; free-range) shared: “For canteens, some of our clients are high-end kindergartens, regular kindergartens might not have that purchasing power […] For example, we supply [eggs to] a bilingual school, their students are often children of people from international organizations […] or richer people”. Some locations provided access to high-income consumers; for example, Company A (indoor multi-tier) supplied an egg-themed, high-end brunch restaurant in Shanghai. Participant E1 (free-range) supplied casinos in Macau; these businesses catered to customers who were perceived to be “relatively wealthy” and thus better able to afford these eggs.
Overall, participants agreed that an important strategy for promoting cage-free eggs was to understand and engage with buyers who were willing to pay for these eggs, for example, either directly to consumers with higher disposable income, or to businesses catering to these higher-income consumers, or to businesses that were committed to buying these eggs.
3.3. Experiential Attributes: Accommodating Buyer Preferences
Experiential attributes (e.g., egg’s taste, yolk color) can be readily detected by buyers and can affect their willingness to purchase the product. Participants discussed buyers’ preferences for experiential or sensory egg qualities that could be assessed before purchase (e.g., egg size and color) or after purchase (e.g., taste, texture, yolk color). All participants agreed that consumers valued the mouthfeel and taste of eggs. Participant E1 (free-range) shared: “The core [positive] feedback from consumers is mouthfeel. […] The product must be tasty”. Company A (produced indoor eggs marketed as ‘cage-free edible raw’) had salespeople in the supermarkets who promoted their products, and A1 shared that “taste samples [in the supermarkets] had the best effects”.
Participants also shared other preferences, such as shell color, egg size, egg cleanliness, yolk viscosity, and a general preference for darker or non-pale yolk color. For example, F1 (free-range), who raised an indigenous chicken breed that laid a mixture of green, pink, and yellow eggs, shared: “upon opening our egg [packaging], you see mainly green-shelled eggs, with a few yellow and pink ones, right? […] after many clients eat it, they also bought it for their clients or family relatives. […] after you boil the eggs, it has a light fragrance, lots of children really like this. Our indigenous chicken eggs are also smaller than caged eggs”. Participant comments also indicated that consumer preferences were likely heterogenous. For example, C1 shared how consumers preferred pink eggs, but A1 felt that consumers preferred their white eggs, and F1 and I1 believed that their consumers preferred green eggs.
Participants reported how meeting consumer expectations stimulated purchasing behavior. H1 (free-range) supplied a supermarket in Beijing. He shared: “Although the [egg] brand is not ours, [the product] has our factory address, farm address and phone number on the product certificate, so some consumers call me directly to say: ‘can you deliver eggs to me directly, I will buy a lot […] I want 100 jin (50 kg), for myself, relatives, and friends’ […] They think our eggs’ quality is actually better than eggs that claim to be cage-free, but are actually caged. There is a difference in mouthfeel and other qualities”. Having a detectable difference in the experiential qualities meant some consumers selectively purchased eggs from this supplier. In contrast, C2, who produced eggs using indoor systems, shared that their product did not meet consumers’ experiential expectations for their product. When discussing their low sales, C2 shared: “Many of our consumers feel [our] eggs are not pink shelled, the yolk color is not very bright […] In terms of direct sensory perception, the first impression does not feel good, or perhaps [consumers] may be a bit disappointed. So, it might also affect the [product’s] repurchase, because it’s different from what they traditionally considered good. We are also somewhat hesitant about whether to meet everyone’s psychological expectations, like whether we should change the eggshell color, or adjust the color of the yolk, and so on”. In this quote, the participant reflected and questioned whether they should alter their product to enhance these preferred egg qualities in order to better meet their consumers’ expectations for cage-free eggs.
Some participants described their eggs as being experientially different, while others did not, and of these differences, only some were believed to be associated with cage-free production per se. Participant B1 used an indoor multi-tier system and shared their belief that, all else being equal, “cage free eggs have a distinct advantage in terms of taste and Haught unit (egg thickness, a common measurement of freshness), but the main issue of cage free eggs is the eggs laid outside of the nests are very dirty”. D1, who produced 99% caged and 1% cage-free eggs, conducted a brief experiment comparing eggs from both systems: “The egg white [from cage-free eggs] was slightly thicker […] We did some tests, the Haught unit [for cage free eggs] was higher by around 5% […] But for consumers it is hard to tell [the difference], they might not be able to sense this”.
Participants attributed differences in their eggs to a variety of factors other than the cage-free housing. G1, who produced free-range eggs using indigenous breeds, shared: “Indigenous chicken, as long as they are raised naturally, the egg’s mouthfeel should be good […] It is related to the breed […] their environment […] the nutrition […] their life stage (how old they are)”. He recognized that a combination of these factors contributed to a distinct taste for the eggs and shared positive feedback from children: “Real free-range eggs have a different flavor compared to [eggs] produced in factories. The eating experience is different. For adults, they may have a subjective imagination of ‘I want the taste from childhood’ […] but children are different, they do not have these beliefs and conceptions […] some children never ate chicken and eggs before, but you give them [our] authentic free-range chicken, they will immediately eat it. Because children have very sensitive taste. When they think it tastes good, it means the nutrition is meeting their bodily needs”. Participants recognized that certain egg qualities were unrelated to housing method; for example, shell color and size were impacted by breed. I1 (free-range) shared: “We mainly raise Suqin Grass Chicken, a domestic breed, a regional breed, so compared to caged chickens, there is a difference in the egg, including mouthfeel, eggshell color. Our eggs are pink with some green eggs”. When MC asked if the difference was due to breed or nutrition, I1 clarified “It is related to breed”.
Participants varied in their approaches to accommodating specific buyer preferences. For example, participant C1 wanted to improve the taste of their eggs: “I am not very pleased with our eggs’ current taste. This is related to the [hen’s] feed. […] We previously did not spend too much energy on taste, but now we want to […] we want the consumers to feel their money is well spent”. In comparison, Participant E1 produced eggs in free-range systems and utilized different hen breeds to meet different demands for egg size and shell color. For mainland consumers, he raised indigenous chicken breeds that produced smaller, brown eggs; for hotel businesses in Hong Kong and Macao, he raised commercial breeds that produced larger, white eggs. E1 shared: “Apart from mouthfeel, [consumers] care about eggshell color. […It can be] hard to negotiate with cage-free [business] buyers, because we raised breeds that lay smaller eggs, which do not meet [business] standards, so we also started raising some breeds [that lay larger eggs]”.
Participants were hesitant to use feed additives to change yolk color, as they perceived this as unnatural or unethical. For example, I1 (free-range) shared: “Our main point is that we completely raise the free-range chickens on our own […] We purchase grains ourselves, grind them, and then feed the chickens. Throughout the whole process, we would not add anything else. Those large-scale farms [would] increase egg production rates, change the yolk color, adding carophyll red (a synthetic additive which makes yolks redder). We do not do any of these, [we] allow them to lay eggs in a completely natural way”. Similarly, C3 (indoor) was hesitant to add feed additives to change yolk color, as this went against their company’s ethics: “I asked our farm manager, he said we could include [additives to shift yolk color] in the feed [if we wanted to], but we are a company with integrity, we do not want to artificially add these things”.
Overall, participants identified various experiential attributes preferred by buyers, with the priority being taste and mouthfeel for consumers. Participants also shared how cage-free housing was not always associated with experiential differences, and that one strategy to promote cage-free production is to accommodate buyer preferences, for example, by changing hen breed.
3.4. Credence Attributes: Improving Buyer Understanding and Trust
Credence attributes are those which buyers cannot easily detect or assess directly without additional efforts such as visiting the farm (for example, to see how hens are housed). As such, companies needed to communicate these attributes to buyers while establishing trust. We will share how suppliers addressed consumer and business motivations for credence attributes and established trust.
3.4.1. Understanding Buyer Motivation
Participants reported that consumers were motivated to purchase cage-free eggs based on traditional values (e.g., “free-range 散养”, “indigenous chicken egg 土鸡蛋”), health benefits (e.g., “food safety 食品安全”, “nutrition 营养”), and altruistic motives (e.g., “caring for environment 在意环保” “liking wildlife 喜欢野生动物”). Participants also reported that consumers sometimes associated multiple attributes, for example, that free-range was associated with health benefits (e.g., food safety) and altruism (e.g., liking wildlife).
All free-range companies reported that free-range and associated concepts such as indigenous chicken eggs (土鸡蛋) were deeply rooted in traditional values. F1, who sold free-range products nationwide, shared: “If you are talking about ecological foods (生态食材) like indigenous chicken eggs […] lots of people from large cities want to buy it, there is a sentiment (情怀) involved in it […] In China, the cities expanded significantly over the past twenty years, and many people in big cities actually have their roots in the countryside, right? […] They still very much miss the countryside’s more carefree or natural lifestyle, and the ingredients and products that come from this way of life”. Thus, consumers in the city were thought to have a nostalgic connection to the countryside, motivating their demand for free-range and indigenous products.
All participants mentioned the importance of food safety (食品安全) and health (健康). When I1 was asked how he attracted customers for his free-range eggs, he shared: “initially there was the national food safety crisis around 2010 [… and] there were policies stimulating the economy resulting in some people feeling richer, and then caring more about food safety, especially for their children […] The Beijing Organic Farmers Market started then, these people had demand [for free-range eggs]. We just happened to produce these [eggs], it turned out that there was actually no difficulty in selling them at that time”. In this way, I1 suggested that consumers prioritized food safety and associated free-range products with better food safety.
Company A produced eggs in indoor systems and marketed its eggs as ‘cage-free edible raw’ (非笼养可生食), a term used to imply food safety. When A1 was asked what consumers prioritized when it came to eggs, he said: “food safety and taste”. When asked why consumers bought his cage-free eggs, he replied: “a variety of reasons. Some believe it is tasty, some believe it is healthy. Very few buy because of [animal] ‘welfare production’ (福利养殖). Because people do not have a conception of this yet”. He perceived that consumers were prioritizing the experiential attribute of taste, and credence attributes such as food safety and health.
Some participants perceived that consumers were motivated to purchase their cage-free eggs due to altruistic motives. H1 (free-range) shared how he sold surplus eggs to consumers using environmentally friendly packaging. “These were mainly used for Chinese New Year, festivals, gifts, and sometimes shipped as packaged eggs […] The [consumers] like [the packaging], it is good from an environmental perspective […] most people who order by mail are younger people, they care to a degree about the environment”. Both Company A (indoor cage-free) and Company H (free-range) chose environmentally friendly egg packaging due to positive consumer feedback.
One participant (I1, free-range) shared about consumers who purchased free-range eggs due to their care for wildlife. Company I’s owner was passionate about wildlife and set up cameras showing nearby wildlife, including badgers. I1 shared how some consumers purchased their eggs due to a similar interest in wildlife: “there is one type [of consumers] that, because we keep chickens in the woods, there are some wildlife like badgers, wild-boars, weasels […] the natural environmental is severely damaged, so they do not have much to hunt, so they sometimes steal chicken from our farms. Each year they eat around 200–300 chickens, for our farm of 2000 chickens, almost one chicken lost per day […] [Consumers] like wildlife, so they feel ‘you are keeping chickens, the wildlife eats them, [and] you experience a loss, so we can support you a bit’”. In this case, consumers were reportedly interested in how the free-range production contributed to wildlife conservation and a healthy ecosystem, despite this coming at a cost to the individual hens affected.
Participants generally shared that consumers had low awareness for ‘cage-free’ (非笼养) and ‘animal welfare’ (动物福利) attributes. Company C only marketed its products with the terms ‘cage-free’ and ‘animal welfare’. C is a large egg processing company, meaning most of its previous work focused on selling and marketing directly to business clients; participants from Company C reported being less familiar with marketing to consumers. It started producing 1% of its eggs from indoor cage-free systems in 2019 to test the consumer market in China and observe if foreign concepts such as ‘cage-free’ and ‘animal welfare’ would be accepted. C2 shared, “Right now Chinese consumers are not familiar with [animal] ‘welfare’ and ‘cage-free’ […] So now there needs to be the process of cultivating [awareness] and education. We are using the term ‘cage-free’ because consumers might understand this, if you really tell them this is a ‘welfare egg’ (福利鸡蛋), many people might not know what it means, why do eggs have welfare. And if you further explain, some people might feel ‘how is the chicken’s welfare relevant to me, why should I pay so much?’”
3.4.2. Building Buyer Trust
All participants agreed that consumers had low trust and high skepticism. Information asymmetry between consumers and suppliers, coupled with misleading marketing claims, resulted in consumers not trusting suppliers’ claims. Egg suppliers attempted to increase trust by engaging with consumers, showing production conditions, using third-party assurance, and developing relationships with consumers.
As an example of low trust, H1 (free-range) shared a prominent incident in China: “The CCTV 3.15 Gala (an annual national TV show in China for promoting consumer rights and addressing market issues), I forgot if it was 2018 or 2019, they suddenly did a session about eggs […] Chinese consumers conceptually equate ‘indigenous chicken eggs’ (土鸡蛋), ‘chai-eggs’ (柴鸡蛋) to ‘free-range eggs’, so they did an undercover investigation of large brands producing ‘indigenous chicken eggs’, but [the companies] were misleading [the consumers] with deliberate falsehoods (混淆视听), they were all producing regular caged eggs (笼养鸡蛋), just calling it ‘chai-egg’, ‘indigenous chicken egg’, then adding some colorants in the feeds to make the yolk darker to deceive the consumers. After that our sales began to plummet…”
Some participants proactively tried to raise awareness of concepts like ‘cage-free’ and ‘animal welfare’. Company A used a variety of marketing techniques, including activities to educate their current potential consumers (urban residents with higher income) and future consumers (children). In October 2023, Company A worked with Consultancy IQC on a series of consumer engagement activities which took place in retail stores across large cities in China. One selected shop was located near the international embassies of Beijing which, as A2 mentioned, meant the visitors had “international perspectives, and an ability to afford [higher priced eggs]”. During the one-day event, salespeople introduced the concept of cage-free to consumers, using creative methods such as a ceremony unleashing helium balloons to symbolize chickens flying out from cages. A2 shared: “the consumers really accepted [the concept], far exceeding our expectations […] That day’s sales [at that supermarket] surpassed the monthly sales volume of other eggs”. A2 further shared: “we can plant the concept and promote cage-free [eggs], starting from the children”.
Companies showed consumers production conditions through farm visits, videos, and photos. Three companies (H; G; I) operating smaller, free-range farms shared how their consumers valued personal farm visits. H1 (free-range) shared: “Some consumers will personally come to the farm, only after they see it, they will believe this is real”. Similarly, G1 (free-range) spent minimal effort on marketing, sharing that “I feel spending on marketing is not worth it, any time you market, people try to prove if you are real or fake. They always perceive your marketing with skepticism”. Instead, he relies on farm visits. “‘Indigenous chicken egg’, why do I say ‘indigenous chicken’ is a culture? When consumers are in the mountains, in the villager’s homes, when they buy themselves, they believe this is the best”. By encouraging consumers to visit the farms, these free-range companies attempted to improve consumer trust.
Some companies improved transparency by showing videos and photos of farms to consumers. F1 (free-range) shared: “Additionally, we actually have customers who visit our physical store, and their biggest impression is that we have remote real-time camera monitoring […] Our competitors do not do this, possibly because they do not dare to; because either they are fake, or not entirely genuine, […] So, these are the ways in which we differ from others”. E1 (free-range) also provided live video farm footage to their consumers, through an interactive QR code placed on the product packaging that links to a 24-h live stream of the barn and surrounding free-range area.
All four indoor companies and four out of the six free-range companies used third-party assurances, such as certifications, awards, or tests displayed on the egg packaging to establish trust with their consumers. For example, E1 had two certifications and two awards. When asked about the benefits of the Certified Humane certification, and whether it was more useful for consumers or business clients, E1 said: “currently, I think it is quite useful for consumers […] The [Certified Humane] certification is international, so Chinese consumers will trust it more”. E1 also believed that the certification worked well in tandem with visual evidence of production methods and a quality product which tastes good.
Some smaller free-range companies attempted to develop more direct trusting relationships with their consumers. I1 shared: “Some customers come to visit the chicken farm in person, and we have a place where they can stay. Then, they can experience firsthand scenarios like collecting eggs or feeding the chickens. After that, they establish a kind of trust relationship [with us]”. Companies also sought to establish this relationship by prioritizing selling eggs to their loyal consumers, rather than to new clients. “We generally do not like those customers who buy eggs as gifts […] It affects the ordinary consumers […] Those few gifting customers purchase in large quantities, concentrating their orders of eggs in a few days. Then, perhaps our own ordinary customers cannot buy eggs on those days. So, we usually do not take large orders”.
Participants developed trust with business buyers through communications with decision makers and third-party assurances. Initial communication between suppliers and relevant decision makers in the business took place on an interpersonal level. For example, H1 communicated with the product purchasing manager (采购经理) of a hotel in Shanghai for 1.5 years prior to securing a contract to sell free-range eggs. Multiple participants shared that people within third-party “animal welfare organizations”, such as consultancies (IQC, Lever) or NGOs (Compassion in World Farming), helped them initially connect with business buyers. Participants reported business buyers trusting and even requiring third party certification and tests. For example, Company J was a distributer who supplied eggs from small, free-range farms to local five-star hotels. Prior to receiving certification, J1 shared: “Most of our eggs supplied are cage-free, but right now we have not received the [cage-free] certification, so [even though] we are supplying cage-free, [clients] say ‘without certification, we would not recognize these [as cage-free]”.
Companies that could not meet stringent requirements were less able to supply to business buyers. Company F reported changing their marketing strategies to not focus on business clients after learning about the stringent requirements. Though consumers and businesses are both concerned about food safety, Company F found his products were sufficient for consumers, but not for businesses. F1 shared how they could not move forward with working with businesses, as “their requirements are too high, like all these safety tests right? […Consumers] are willing to pay the price, and their requirements are not as high, they do not need all these tests […] as long as it is fresh and safe, and it is real ‘indigenous chicken egg’, then they can accept your product”. Companies who supplied successfully to business buyers needed to comply with buyer’s requirements, for example, obtaining relevant certification for cage-free and food safety.
Participants believed that consumer were motivated to purchase cage-free eggs due to a traditional preference for ‘free-range’ products, health benefits (e.g., food safety), and altruistic motives (e.g., environmentally friendly), and that business buyers were motivated to purchase cage-free products by cage-free commitments and consumer preference for these products. Trust was established through diverse methods for consumers (e.g., showing farm conditions), whereas businesses prioritized third party assurances.