Introduction

Since many years, the market for organic food shows a continuously growing trend. In line with the sustainability strategy of the German Federal Government, the organic farming sector should be strengthened, and the share of organically farmed land should increase to 20% (BMEL 2019). Increasing area means additional supply of organic produce, and in order to maintain market equilibria also is an additional demand. Additional demand requires a change in the purchasing behaviour of consumers who already consume organic products by buying more organic products and/or reaching out for new groups of consumers. One such group is young adults (18 to 30 years). In order to successfully address this group, one should be aware of the general values and specific attitudes towards organic food that drive consumer behaviour (Reynolds and Gutman 1988). Since values and attitudes can differ between generations (Fricke 1996), existing knowledge about values and attitudes of the average aged consumer might not be generally transferable.

In the past, various studies have dealt with consumer attitudes towards organic food and buying motives, and a distinction was made between egoistic and altruistic motives for the consumption of organic food (Aschemann and Hamm 2007; Goig 2007; Hughner et al. 2007; Lusk and Briggeman 2009; Zander et al. 2013). While egoistic motives relate to personal well-being and include, for example, taste, one’s own health and pleasure, altruistic motives relate to the well-being of others. They include environmental protection, animal welfare or fair producer prices. There is disagreement in the literature about the relative importance of egoistic versus altruistic motives. Some studies show that altruistic motives are more important for the purchase of organic food; other studies revealed that purchase decisions are driven by egoistic motives (Aarset et al. 2004; Aertsens et al. 2009; Zagata and Lostak 2012; Schleenbecker and Hamm 2013; Meyer-Höfer et al. 2014; Zander et al. 2018; Brümmer et al. 2019a).

The aim of this study was to identify in-depth motives and values that underlie young adults’ purchase behaviour of organic food. On this basis, some recommendations on how to increase demand for organic food among young adults are drawn.

The paper is structured as follows: In the ‘Material and methods’ section, a short literature review on values shaping food purchase behaviour, the laddering and means-end chain method is given. This is followed by a description of the own survey. The ‘Results’ section first presents the found ladders and chains for the purchase of organic food, followed by the corresponding results on non-purchase of organic food (‘Results’ section). In the ‘Discussion and conclusions’ section, the results are first discussed and finally conclusions on the relevance for the organic food sector are drawn.

Material and methods

Values, motives and attitudes are important drivers of consumers’ buying behaviour in general and also for (organic) food. While values are defined as a general view about a desirable end state, attitudes refer to specific situations. Values are stable constructs that can predict behaviour (Rokeach 1973; Solomon et al. 2019). Motives or motivations are influenced by the underlying values and translated them into attitudes towards specific products. According to this argumentation, each act of purchasing aims at achieving one or more ‘value-related goal’. One and the same product can contribute to several values (Botschen et al. 1999; Solomon et al. 2019:186).

In this research, the values are classified according to the ten Schwartz values self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security, conformity, tradition, benevolence and universalism (Schwartz 1992; Schwartz 2012). Self-direction implies independent thinking and acting, and the choice of one’s own goals. Stimulation refers to the desire for an exciting and varied life. Hedonism is defined by the pursuit of joy and pleasure. Achievement covers personal success, and power relates to social status, possessions and social recognition. Security embraces both one’s own safety and health as well as the stability of society. Tradition includes respect, obligation and modesty, and conformity is defined by obedience, self-discipline and politeness. Universalism comprises tolerance, environmental and animal protection and the well-being of all people. Benevolence implies helpfulness, care and the well-being of people close to you. While the first eight values can be assigned to an egoistic or self-referential value view, universalism and benevolence are altruistic values. These two values are sometimes referred to as self-transcendence, which describes the fact that a person only becomes fully human when he or she steps out of himself or herself and is absorbed in devotion to a thing or a person (Wicki and Längle 2000).

One approach to analyse the relation between attitudes and values is the means-end chain (MEC) model. According to this model, the specific product attributes can be directly linked to the underlying values. The key elements of a MEC are the product attributes, the consequences and the values (Veludo de Oliveira et al. 2006b). Product properties form the lowest level (Zanoli and Naspetti 2002). The consequences can be further divided into functional and psychological consequences and are arranged in the middle of the chain (Botschen et al. 1999; Zanoli and Naspetti 2002). Functional consequences are concrete outcomes from the use of the product that are experienced by the respondents. Psychological consequences are less tangible and more related to the feelings associated with the product attribute (Lin 2002). The final, most abstract, level of the MEC is formed by the values (Zanoli and Naspetti 2002). They are defined as the desired final state and, thus, play a decisive role in the choice of products (Veludo de Oliveira et al. 2006a). In a final step, the determined product attributes, consequences and values are graphically presented in a hierarchical value map (HVM), which illustrates the relationships between the three/four levels (Heitmann and Aschmoneit 2002; Zanoli and Naspetti 2002; Padel and Foster 2005; Gruber et al. 2009).

The laddering technique is particularly suitable for ‘clarifying the background and determinants of human action’ (Gruber et al. 2009: 571) which is the main aim of the means-end chain theory. The laddering approach is a form of qualitative market research and was developed by Reynolds and Gutman (1988). By encouraging respondents to reflect intensively on their purchasing behaviour, values, attitudes and the driving forces behind certain behaviours can be uncovered (Gengler and Reynolds 1995; Veludo de Oliveira et al. 2006a; de Ferran and Grunert 2007). This technique allows an understanding of purchasing behaviour that goes beyond functional properties (Wansink 2000; Veludo de Oliveira et al. 2006a).

The laddering method has already been successfully applied in various cases in the analysis of purchasing behaviour for (organic) foods (Zanoli and Naspetti 2002; Fotopoulos et al. 2003; Padel and Foster 2005; Roininen et al. 2006; de Ferran and Grunert 2007).

Two different laddering methods can be used. With the so-called soft laddering, personal face-to-face interviews are usually used, and there is as little interference as possible in the respondent’s flow of speech. With this interview method, respondents have the opportunity to answer in their own words and express their feelings (Gengler and Reynolds 1995). The ‘soft’ laddering is suitable for small samples of about 20 respondents (Phillips and Reynolds 2009) and can be used especially if the respondents have weak or complicated cognitive structures. Simultaneously, the tendency to deviate from the subject and to jump back and forth between levels increases. The method of ‘hard’ laddering avoids this jumping back and forth by providing standardised questionnaires with partly predefined answer options. The method of ‘hard’ laddering is particularly suitable for larger samples but has many disadvantages regarding the quality of answers (Grunert and Grunert 1995; Phillips and Reynolds 2009).

In this study, the ‘soft’ laddering technique was applied since weaker and complex cognitive structures were expected. The interviews for this study took place online and chat-based. The widespread use of the internet within the target group of this study makes online interviews an interesting alternative. Advantages compared with offline interviews are the better accessibility of the participants and the possibly larger willingness to share personal opinions. Furthermore, the extent of social desirability and interviewer bias is likely to be lower (Gruber et al. 2009).

In July 2019, 30 semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted, which lasted between 30 and 45 min. The respondents were recruited by a market research agency and included organic and non-organic consumers who were (co-)responsible for food shopping. The selection criteria for the recruitment of the participants were as follows:

  • Age, between 18 and 30 years (at least 40% 18–24 years and at least 40% 25–30 years)

  • No longer living in their parents’ household

  • Mainly or jointly responsible for food purchases

  • No profession in agriculture, fisheries, food industry or market research

  • Gender, share of females between 40 and 70%

  • Consumption of organic food: The share of organic food in the total food consumed was indicated by selecting one of the three categories ‘never/very rarely’, ‘occasionally’ and ‘frequently’. At least one fourth of the participants belonged to each group.

The online laddering interviews were administered using a web conference software (Adobe Connect). With this tool, a chat room was set up for the laddering interviews. Participants were given a password in order to be able to access the chat room.

The interviews started with an introduction to the interview method. It was pointed out that the questions were asked repetitively and that there were no correct or incorrect answers. The interview participants were asked to give open and honest answers. At the beginning of the interview, respondents were asked to name relevant criteria for or against the purchase of organic food. The interviewees were then asked whether and which organic foods they bought and to estimate the share of organic foods in their food purchases. Subsequently, the interviewees were asked to name relevant product characteristics of organic food. This was followed by a series of ‘why’ questions which is typical for laddering interviews (Zanoli and Naspetti 2002). A content analysis was conducted to structure the interview transcripts in segments and to assign the statements to product properties, consequences and values using the qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA.

Results

Based on the outcome of the laddering interviews, two HVMs were developed, one containing the ladders for the purchase and one with the ladders for the non-purchase of organic food.

Regarding ladders for buying organic food, a total of 25 relevant categories were identified (Fig. 1). They include seven attributes, eight functional consequences, six psychological consequences and four values. Elements mentioned less than three times are not shown in the HVM due to better readability (cut-off level = 3). Attributes relevant for the purchase of organic food are mainly ‘untreated’, ‘better animal husbandry’, ‘local’ and ‘fresh’. Functional consequences mentioned are, e.g. ‘delicious’, ‘quality’, ‘animal welfare’ or ‘less waste’. The psychological consequences follow directly from the functional consequences and are pleasure, good conscience, health and so on.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Hierarchical value map for buying organic food (cut-off level = 3)

Full size image

Arrows indicate direct relations, and thicker arrows symbolise connections that were mentioned more frequently. The highest frequency of links was found between ‘untreated’, ‘health’ and ‘security’. Also, the association between the attributes ‘untreated’, ‘environmental protection’ and ‘universalism’ was strong, as was the connection between ‘better animal husbandry’, ‘good conscience’ and ‘universalism’. ‘Localness’ was associated either with ‘short transport’ and ‘universalism’ or with ‘support of local farmers’ and finally ‘benevolence’. The attribute ‘fresh’ was associated with ‘delicious’ food and consequently the value ‘hedonism’.

The most important ladders are illustrated with some typical quotations of participants of the laddering interviews:

  1. 1.

    untreated (A)Footnote 1 → less residues (FC) → health (PC) → security (V)

  • ...so as not to have pesticides in your food and possibly get sick.Footnote 2

  • You hear from time to time in the media that it can be carcinogenic or is suspected to cause cancer.

  • Pesticides and chemical-based fertilizers that can harm me/my body or can even be carcinogenic.

  1. 2.

    untreated (A) → biodiversity (FC) → environmental protection (PC) → universalism (V)

  • Pesticides are supposed to kill insects - and then “good” insects such as bees, bumblebees, etc. are also hit.

  • ...as far as I know, pesticides are bad for the insects too.

  • Pesticides have a negative impact on biodiversity, not only by killing organisms directly, but also indirectly, for example by reducing the food supply of wild animals.

  1. 3.

    better animal husbandry (A) → animal welfare (FC) → good conscience (PC) → universalism (V)

  • It gives me a better feeling to consume products that have not been produced by animals that lived under torture.

  • Animals are just like us living beings and therefore have the same right to live in dignity. I love animals in general and simply don’t want an animal to suffer more than necessary because of my selfish way of thinking.

  • It is definitely important to me and I am happy when I see that animal welfare criteria are fulfilled. Only then can I enjoy what I eat.

  1. 4.

    local (A) → support local farmers (FC) → respect (PC) → benevolence (V)

  • ...as well as that it’s fair for all concerned, as farmers often get very little of the cake.

  • That the farmers in our region are doing well and can continue to do what they do.

  • Because I think that farming is a difficult profession and not many people will pursue this profession anymore. Therefore, local farmers should be supported so that they don’t have to sell their farm.

  1. 5.

    local (A) → short transport (FC) → environmental protection (PC) → universalism (V)

  • ...to avoid long transport routes and thus a high environmental impact.

  • I buy a lot of products from the region because I can trace the transport route and thus keep it low.

  • So they don’t get shipped all over the world and my carbon footprint is reduced.

  1. 6.

    fresh (A) → delicious (FC) → pleasure (PC) → hedonism (V)

  • ...because fresh food tastes better.

  • In my opinion, fresh foods are often more intense in taste.

  • It just tastes better fresh.

A second HVM was developed for non-purchase of organic food (Fig. 2). This HVM contains five attributes, five functional consequences, five psychological consequences and four values. In this case, a cut-off level of 2 was applied. Most important attributes restricting the purchase of organic food are ‘not organic’ and ‘expensive’. The functional consequences are ‘no benefit’, ‘non-compliance with regulations’ and the reduced ability to afford other goods (‘afford less’). They lead to psychological consequences such as ‘less pleasure’, ‘lack of trust’ or ‘less free time’. Two ‘big’ cognitive ladders could be isolated, i.e. the attribute ‘expensive’ leading to ‘save less money’ and the values less ‘security’ and less ‘power’, and the connection between ‘not organic’, ‘lack of trust’ and also less ‘security’. The third value assigned to the non-purchase of organic food was less ‘self-direction’. This was associated with a lack of availability, which meant that participants had to go shopping more often or had to visit other shops.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Hierarchical value map for not buying organic food (cut-off level = 2)

Full size image

The most important ladders are illustrated with some selected quotations:

  1. 1.

    expensive (A) → afford less (FC) → save less money (PC) → power / security (V)

  • I try to save money on the everyday things (e.g. food, rent, mobile phone contract) in order to spend the money on the “important” things (e.g. leisure activities, holidays, going out to eat)

  • ... because everything is getting more and more expensive, you also want to afford something or have / maintain / achieve a certain standard of living and therefore have to watch out for money.

  • I find a financial cushion important. And it’s getting more and more expensive either way, there are just some things you can and must save on.

  1. 2.

    not organic (A) → regulations not complied with (FC) → lack of trust (PC) → security (V)

  • Media reports that speak of an “organic mafia”, for example, where it then becomes clear that sometimes only the label on the fruit or vegetable is different.

  • I have heard from confidential sources that there is often an organic label on products that are not really organic.

  • Unfortunately, in the past one has often seen or read in the news that farms do not adhere to this and use the organic label without authorisation. Above all, I think it’s a pity that inspections are announced.

  1. 3.

    not available (A) → shop more often (FC) → less free time (PC) → self-direction (V)

  • I don’t want to go to another store to buy organic food, I want to go to one or two stores maximum. More time means more time for myself and my hobbies.

  • Availability is important because this way I don’t have to plan in advance where I can buy what sort of food. This means flexibility to me and if availability was high, I would probably buy more organic food.

  • I feel restricted by the active and conscious attention to organic food. Therefore, I often buy conventional food.

Discussion and conclusions

The results of the online laddering interviews show that a variety of values shape the buying behaviour of young adults towards organic food. Both, altruistic and egoistic values influence the purchase motivation. Egoistic values such as security and hedonism and the altruistic values universalism and benevolence seem to have a similar influence on young adults’ purchase intention for organic food. As has been found in the previous studies, the health aspect related to the value of security is one of the strongest motives for the purchase of organic food (e.g. Padel and Foster 2005). Hedonism is assigned a lower relevance in this survey with young adults than in the previous studies where the value hedonism associated with good taste has been identified as an important purchase motivation (Magnusson et al. 2001; Stobbelaar et al. 2007). Universalism, which goes hand in hand with animal welfare and environmental protection, seemed to be equally important role as the value of security. Universalism was also identified in other studies as motivation to buy organic food (e.g. De Backer et al. 2009; Mondelaers et al. 2009). According to the previous studies, universalism is more important for regular consumers of organic food than for occasional buyers (Krystallis et al. 2008; Aertsens et al. 2009) and correlates positively with attitudes towards organic food (Dreezens et al. 2005; Thøgersen and Olander 2006).

The value benevolence is important in motivating people to buy organic food too and is primarily associated with local food and the support of local farmers. Also, according to Padel and Foster (2005), respondents bought organic food in order to support local agriculture. Interestingly, other research demonstrated that organic and local are often not perceived as being complementary but as being competitive goods (Feldmann and Hamm 2015; Gremmer et al. 2016). In Brümmer et al. (2019b), people refrain from buying organic because they perceive it to be too often not locally but globally produced.

Localness is also associated with short transport distances, resulting in the value of universalism. This might serve as an example that one attribute might contribute to various values (Solomon et al. 2019).

High prices and lack of trust can be negatively attributed to the egoistic values of security, power, self-direction and hedonism. Bilsky and Schwartz (1994) as well as Schwartz et al. (2000) showed that self-related health and safety concerns and the loss of control over personal outcomes are positively correlated with the value security. The high price of organic food was already identified before as an obstacle to purchase organic food in numerous studies (e.g. Zanoli and Naspetti 2002; Hempel and Hamm 2016; Brümmer et al. 2019a). Similarly, the lack of trust in organic food has been reported among others by Krystallis et al. (2008) and Aertsens et al. (2009).

With regard to the value power, the results presented here are similar to the negative relations of the value power with the attitudes towards organic food found in Dreezens et al. (2005) and Krystallis et al. (2008). The close relation of perceived high prices and confusion about the ‘real’ organic quality of an organic product were discussed in Padel and Foster (2005) as well. Higher prices are more likely to be accepted if consumers are convinced that they really get what they expect to get, in this case if every product labelled ‘organic’ really is organic. Also, the low knowledge of organic standards and certification plays an important role (Padel and Foster 2005; Brümmer et al. 2019b).

To conclude, the findings of this study show that various values and goals are guiding young adults when buying organic food. When it comes at addressing young adults as new organic consumers, particularly the reasons for not buying organic food ‘too high prices’ and ‘lack of trust’ should be looked at more closely. Increase trust in organic food and address young adults’ ‘security’-related motives requires reducing uncertainty. In order to do so, the reliability of existing organic certification systems and important characteristics of organic farming, such as environmental protection, preservation of biodiversity and mitigation of climate change must be communicated much more strongly than actually. And, ‘organic’ must become more local by strengthening local structures and better communication of the products’ origin on the packaging.

The limitations of this study might be seen in its qualitative character which on the one hand gives deeper insights while not being representative. The interviewer bias and socially desirable behaviour could be largely reduced by the anonymous online chat-based interviews. Due to the small sample size of 30 interviewees, the respondents could not be segmented with regard to frequency of organic food consumption or demographic characteristics. Future research should go for a segmentation also within this consumer group to enable the development of a more targeted marketing approach.