country-of-origin and choice of food imports

8/3/2019 Country-Of-Origin and Choice of Food Imports

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/country-of-origin-and-choice-of-food-imports 1/20

Country-of-origin and choice of food imports:an in-depth study of European distribution

channel gatekeepers

John G Knight,David K Holdsworth andDamien W Mather

Marketing Department, Otago School of

Business, University of Otago, Dunedin,

New Zealand

Correspondence:

Dr John G Knight, Marketing Department,

Otago School of Business, University of

Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Tel: þ64 3 479 8156;

Fax: þ64 3 479 8172;

E-mail: [email protected]

Received: 2 August 2004

Revised: 21 December 2005

Accepted: 14 July 2006

Online publication date: 18 January 2007

Abstract

Country-of-origin preferences of distribution channel gatekeepers when

sourcing food imports were investigated using in-depth interviews in fiveEuropean markets. Channel member perceptions of product-country image

related more to specific issues of confidence and trust in integrity of

production, certification and regulatory systems than to country image

stereotypes. This study integrates these trust-determining factors with price-

perceived value constructs in order to build a comprehensive model applicable

to food channel gatekeepers.

Journal of International Business Studies (2007) 38, 107–125.

doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400250

Keywords: country of origin; food imports; gatekeepers; trust; country image

Introduction

Images that consumers have of particular countries are wellrecognised as having a major impact on propensity to purchaseproducts from those countries (Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002).Perceptions that consumers have of products from a country, aswell as their feelings towards the people of that country and thedesired level of interaction with those people, contribute to acountry stereotype. The broader term product-country image (PCI)encompasses the multidimensional nature of the images of products and brands, together with the multiplicity of places thatmight be involved in the design, manufacture and assembly of products (Papadopoulos and Heslop, 1993a, b). Drawing on thefields of stereotypy and semiotic theory, Askegaard and Ger (1998:

52) have argued that both ‘product’ and ‘country’ are signs whosemeaning ‘must be determined through the demasking of theirdenotations and the analysis of the connotations they evoke, andhence the myths they are inscribed in’. Stereotypes associated witha given country engender ‘mythological narratives’ in the minds of people of other countries, and the ‘dimensions of place, product,market context and usage context are central to understandingcontextualised product-place images’ (Ger et al., 1999: 165).Geographic origin not only is a cognitive cue for judgementsabout product quality, but also has affective (emotional) andnormative (relating to personal and social norms) connotations(Verlegh and van Ittersum, 2001).

Journal of International Business Studies (2007) 38, 107–125& 2007 Academy of International Business All rights reserved 0047-2506 $30.00

www.jibs.net



The product-country image literature is con-cerned mainly with high-involvement consumerpurchasing of durable products, and in particularproducts bearing well-recognised brands. Much lessstudied has been the importance of PCI in relation

to the purchase of food products, which aregenerally low-involvement from the perspective of consumers. Even less studied has been the influ-ence of PCI on the purchasing behaviour of fooddistribution channel members. This is somewhatsurprising, because such ‘gatekeepers’ often makepurchasing decisions (with high involvement),which determine the array of products availableto millions of end-consumers. From a managerialand marketing perspective, it is important for anation such as New Zealand, whose economy isvitally dependent on exports of food products, to

know and understand the factors that determinethe outcome of such industrial, wholesale and retailbuying processes. From an academic perspective, itis important to determine whether the conceptualframework that has emerged over three decades of study of PCIs in relation to decision-making byconsumers applies equally to these professionalbuyers. If not, in what regard does this frameworkneed to be extended?

Industrial buyingIndustrial buying decisions (concerning compo-

nents or raw ingredients for further manufacture)are often made within a ‘buying centre’, whereasbuyers for retailers (‘retail buyers’) commonly actautonomously (McGoldrick and Douglas, 1983;Wagner et al., 1989; Sternquist, 1994). ‘In largerorganisations there is an increased probability of the ultimate decision being the responsibility of acommitteey. Discussion in committee form assistsin minimising perceived risks’ (McGoldrick andDouglas, 1983: 18).

Hakansson and Wootz (1975: 49) concluded thatan industrial buyer

very seldom reacts to higher quality when the minimumrequirements are fulfilledy purchasers always are told to be

aware of the quality, but they are not rewarded when they

find a supplier offering a better qualityy [However, they]

will be rewarded if they find a cheaper supplier because of

the effects on the purchasing budgets.

McGoldrick and Douglas (1983) developed a modelof the supplier selection process for food productsbased on seven key factors found to influence thebuying decision:

characteristics of the supplying company;

characteristics of the product;

variety of product offered;

pricing factors, including volume and promo-tional discounts;

marketing support to the product or brand;

reliability, and ability to comply precisely withdelivery conditions; and

personal and interpersonal factors.

The countries from which products originated werenot included in this study.

A study of decision-making in relation to retailer-brand imported food products by one large UKmultiple food retailer showed the importance of quality considerations, the need for product vari-ety, and premium or standard positioning (Shawet al., 1992). Evaluative criteria were found to fall infour broad areas:

product factors;

range compatibility issues; price in relation to quality; and

supply factors.

Country-of-origin appeared largely irrelevant, withthe authors noting:

There is nothing inherently different in the decision to

source from outside the UK, particularly since most of the

imported items in question came from Europe, most

notably from Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Ger-

many. (Shaw et al., 1992: 137)

Johansson (2002: 581) found that food retailerbuyers, particularly in the UK, have access to vastamounts of information to the point where ‘asituation of information overload seems to existy.As sense making is difficult, buyers chose to be veryselective.’ Shaw et al. (1992: 129) concluded that‘most retail buyers are buying many products andoperating in a pressured work environment withlittle time available to evaluate in a formal waydetailed and subtle criteria.’ Decision-making byretail buyers can be seen as a process of minimisingperceived risk (Sheth, 1973; Hakansson and Wootz,

1975). Higher risk can be ‘associated with foreignprocurement because of uncertainty about qualityand because of problems with returning merchan-dise to the vendor’ (Sternquist, 1994: 160).

Country-of-origin effectsCountry-of-origin (COO) effects have been inten-sely studied over the last three decades (Bilkey andNes, 1982; Han and Terpstra, 1988; Han, 1989;Papadopoulos and Heslop, 1993a,b; Nebenzahlet al., 1997; Al-Sulaiti and Baker, 1998). According

Country-of-origin and choice of food imports John G Knight et al

108

Journal of International Business Studies



to Johansson (1993) COO is used by consumers toreinforce, create and bias initial perceptions of products, and evidence has accumulated thatconsumers in many markets are willing to pay apremium for manufactured products from more

industrialised countries. ‘Made in Germany’, ‘Madein Switzerland’ and ‘Made in Japan’ convey thenotion of ‘high quality’ because of the reputationthat these countries have developed – although thishas not always been the case for Japan, even among

Japanese themselves (Nagashima, 1977). In the1950s and 1960s Japanese products were widelyregarded as ‘cheap and unreliable’, but this negativeperception was reversed with the ascendancy of

Japanese technological excellence in the 1970s and1980s. The influence of particular events on theimages of countries has been researched. The 1988

Seoul Olympic Games had a major positive impacton the image of South Korea (Jaffe and Nebenzahl,1993), and clearly the Tiananmen Square incidentin 1989 had a major negative impact on percep-tions of China. So it is possible for a product-country image to change over time, sometimesrapidly, either by design or as a result of technolo-gical, social or political change.

Judgements consumers make about a country andits people transfer to evaluations of the perfor-mance of products from that country. Consumerevaluation of products is influenced by the stage of development of a country from which the productoriginates, with consumers (even in less developedcountries) holding less positive views of productsfrom less developed countries (Wang and Lamb,1983; Hulland et al., 1996). Heslop and Papado-poulos (1993) concluded from their eight-countrystudy that ‘good products are seen to come fromwell-managed, technologically advanced nationswith hardworking people.’ Furthermore, ‘goodproducts are seen to be produced by people whohave refined taste, and are likeable, trustworthy andadmirable for their role in world politics’ (Heslopand Papadopoulos, 1993: 67).

A meta-analysis of COO research (Verlegh andSteenkamp, 1999) concluded that COO has a largereffect on perceived quality than on attitude towardsthe product or purchasing intention. COO has beenfound to have a stronger impact on the priceconsumers were willing to pay (presumably relatedto perceived quality) when product purchase riskwas high than when it was low (Hulland et al.,1996). Agarwal and Teas (2001: 9) found that‘Consumers, when exposed to extrinsic productcues, do not just make judgements about product

quality and (monetary) sacrifice, but also judge-ments about uncertainties that may pose potentiallong-term losses’. According to Liefeld’s (1993)meta-analysis, purchasing agents place moreimportance on COO in their product evaluations

than do consumers. Uncertainties and perceivedrisk – particularly in terms of loss of customergoodwill – are likely to be major considerations inpurchasing decisions by industrial buyers.

Scope of country image effectsRoth and Romeo (1992) found that willingness tobuy a product from a particular country is highwhen the country image is also an importantpositive characteristic for the product category.Thus, perceptions vary depending on how wellthe country’s perceived production and marketing

strengths fit with the product category. They notethat

while consumers may prefer automobiles from Japan and

Germany, they would rather buy crystal from Ireland and

leather shoes from Italy. The interesting question for

marketers is what underlies consumers’ attitudes towards

products from a particular country? (Roth and Romeo,

1992: 493).

A particular COO may be positive for one productcategory but negative for another. Thus an associa-tion with France, while positive for hedonicproducts (e.g., perfume), was found to detract from

the value of utilitarian products such as machinery(Leclerc et al., 1994).

Heslop and Papadopoulos (1993: 71) consider that

the product image dimension of the country involvedy is a

response component of pride of ownership and is associated

with the exquisiteness or high-class taste of the source

country. The country-of-origin serves directly as a status

symbol.

However, the country image cue cannot be viewedin isolation from the brand cue. Furthermore, forproducts manufactured away from the homecountry of a brand, a strong brand name may

largely override negative perceptions regarding aparticular COO. ‘A Sony manufactured in HongKong is basically still a Sony, albeit with someslightly tarnished image’ (Johansson, 1993: 83).

Explanatory modelsAccording to the halo model, consumers use overallperceptions about a country (even one they mayknow little about) to make overall evaluations of products (Han, 1989). In turn this ‘halo’ mayinfluence ratings of specific tangible attributes of


109




products (Erickson et al., 1984; Johansson et al.,1985). An example might be perceptions that NewZealand is ‘clean and green’, and/or that the Lord of the Rings movies filmed in New Zealand portray abeautiful landscape, leading to the ‘inferential

belief’ (Verlegh and van Ittersum, 2001) that NewZealand apples will taste better and/or have loweragricultural spray residues than competitors. Con-sumers may rely on country image in order to inferthe quality of a specific product, as they are not in aposition to determine that quality prior to purchase.

In contrast, the summary construct model proposesthat consumers infer information about productattributes based on coded abstract sets of informa-tion that are stored and readily recalled from long-term memory. This model interprets the impact of COO in terms of generalising pre-existing percep-

tions about products made in a country to attri-butes of other products from the same country. Hanproposed that when consumers are unfamiliar withproducts from a particular country, image of thatcountry may serve as a halo (Han, 1990). Asconsumers become familiar with a country’s pro-ducts, country image may become a construct thatsummarises consumers’ beliefs about product attri-butes and directly affects their brand attitude. Asexperience of the true attributes of a country’sproducts grows, provided there is consistency (‘lowvariability in their attributes’), ‘the initial halo roleof country image will gradually be replaced by asummary one’ (Nebenzahl et al., 1997: 42). Con-sidering image of a country in association with, andin comparison with, other countries is consistentwith positioning being relative to competitors(Askegaard and Ger, 1998). Country image can beviewed as a ‘schema, or a network of interrelatedelements that define a country, a knowledgestructure that synthesises what we know of acountry, together with its evaluative significanceor schema-triggered affect’ (Askegaard and Ger,1998: 53).

Laroche et al. (2005) propose that country imageis a multidimensional construct comprising

(1) a cognitive component, including beliefs aboutthe country’s level of industrial and technolo-gical development;

(2) an affective component, namely consumers’emotional response towards people of thatcountry; and

(3) a conative (motivational and volitional) com-ponent, reflecting consumers’ desired level of interaction with that country.

Country image and buying behaviour Realistically, country image can act as only one of several extrinsic cues that buyers use to perceivequality of products or services. ‘Generally, buyersare likely to use cues that are high in predictive

value and high in confidence value to assessquality’ (Monroe, 2003: 160). In addition to COO,other extrinsic cues include price, brand name,packaging, and perceived warranty and/or guaran-tees. Monroe’s ‘price–perceived value model’ (Mon-roe, 2003: 161) portrays ‘willingness to buy’ asresulting from ‘perceived value’ – which is a trade-off between ‘perceived quality’ and ‘perceivedmonetary sacrifice’. The literature on countryimage seems curiously disconnected from thepricing/buyer behaviour literature, so there is aneed to integrate country image constructs with

‘price–perceived value’ models in order to build acomprehensive picture, particularly in regard toindustrial buying behaviour.

Food products and country-of-origin effectsIn contrast to consumer durables, food products arein general purchased with low involvement on thepart of the consumer, although this seems unlikelyto be the case for industrial buyers. Impulsepurchasing or unplanned purchasing plays a sig-nificant role in consumer behaviour (Rook, 1987;Beatty and Ferrell, 1998), possibly accounting formore than half of total grocery items purchased(Phillips and Bradshaw, 1993). Research has shownthat ‘the first taste is almost always with the eye,’suggesting that visual cues, such as packaging andcolour, greatly influence a consumer’s initial accep-tance of a food product (Imran, 1999). However,‘food is both substance and symbol, material andaestheticy’ (Marshall, 1995: 3), so many factorsother than appearance and taste come into play.‘The hedonic dimension inherent in food lies at theheart of y food acceptance’ (Cardello, 1996: 232).Many of the influences of food choice are mediatedby individual beliefs and attitudes, includingfactors that determine self-identity, for example,identity with green consumerism (Shepherd andRaats, 1996).

Labels on food products potentially play animportant role in influencing consumer decision-making, in view of the spontaneous nature of muchfood-purchasing behaviour. Turner (1995: 30) con-cludes that

people take note of food labels more than is generally

thought; some of the labelling information is used some of

the time, circumstances dictate what details are used at any


110




one time, different people look for different things, and

buying decisions are less to be swayed by labelling than by

factors such as quality, value and price.

However, it is quality as perceived by the consumerrather than ‘objective’ quality that influences a

consumer’s decision process (Zeithaml, 1988; vanTripj et al., 1997; Monroe, 2003), and labels havethe potential to sway perceptions of quality.Quality labels are a potentially valuable componentof a response strategy to deal with negative mediacoverage of health-related food issues, althoughconsumers have been found to display quiteimperfect knowledge of what a quality labelactually conveys (Verbeke and Viaene, 1999). Theuse of protected denomination of origin (PDO)labels by food companies is a mechanism toincrease consumer perceptions of trust and con-

fidence, particularly in regard to relating quality to‘traditional’ methods of production (von Alvensle-ben and Gertken, 1993; Guerrero, 2001; Fotopoulosand Krystallis, 2003). Although many consumersmay express sympathy for the concept, the realityappears to be that such labels have rather a minoreffect on consumer willingness to pay more forPDO-labelled produce (von Alvensleben and Gert-ken, 1993; Fotopoulos and Krystallis, 2003).

It is commonly acknowledged that COO informa-tion influences consumers in buying food products(Skaggs et al., 1996; Hoffmann, 2000). Juric and

Worsley (1998), surveying a random sample of NewZealand consumers, found that national imageseemed to act as a halo when consumers wereevaluating unfamiliar foreign food products. Rat-ings of American and Australian products appearedto reflect consumer knowledge about products theybuy regularly, whereas prevailing public percep-tions about less-developed countries may haveinfluenced the observed negative perceptions of products from Thailand and Hungary (Juric andWorsley, 1998).

Skaggs et al. (1996: 594) point to the importance

of overall impressions of a country influencingperceptions of food products from that country:

If a consumer had never tried food products imported from

China but had an image of China as a country that uses

prison labour to produce exports and condones copyright

infringement (as has been broadcast on recent news

reports), it may cause the consumer to question the business

ethics and ingredients used to produce food products there.

Hoffman’s study of Swedish consumers con-cluded that women use COO as a quality cue to alarger extent than men in evaluating both food

quality and food safety – a result attributed towomen predominantly acting as gatekeepers for thehousehold, and tending to be more risk averse thanmen (Hoffmann, 2000; Nayga, 2000).

Country name as brand and symbol for foodproductsThere are many instances where successful incor-poration of a country name into branding hasenhanced the perceived value of a product orproduct category. For example, ‘Ceylon tea’ hasbeen used for more than a century to differentiatetea from Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon) from othercountries’ teas, and has become synonymous withperceptions of high quality and dependability,irrespective of how little consumers may knowabout this country that changed its name. For two

decades, Colombian coffee has been actively pro-moted as high-quality coffee (Kotler and Gertner,2002). A logo created in 1981 has portrayed aColombian character named Juan Valdez and hismule to add personality to the Colombian name.This logo has been extensively used on packagingas a seal of guaranteed quality, and also inadvertising and promotional materials, to reinforcethe Colombian origin. These efforts to promoteColombia as a co-brand have included sponsorshipof the 1995 US Open Tennis Tournament, whichfurther enhanced recognition of the logo. A 1995survey revealed that 83% of Americans interviewedidentified the logo as being associated with coffee,and 53% correctly identified Colombia as thecountry of origin of that coffee (Kotler and Gertner,2002). This demonstrates the ability of skilfulbranding to build trust in a product from a countrythat might otherwise be viewed rather negatively,in the light of media coverage of drug dealing,kidnapping, murder and corruption. In this case,trust in the co-brand appears to override anyfeelings of mistrust consumers may have towardsthe country.

Risk perception and foodConsumer perception of risk associated with foodproducts has heightened in developed countries inrecent years, despite significant advances in foodquality and food security (Bergman, 2002). Thisparadox can in part be ascribed to the emergence of a risk-sensitised society, in which risk messages aresubject to distortion and social amplification(Slovic, 2000). Consumer perceptions of whatconstitutes food risk differ markedly from countryto country. For example, French consumers prefer


111




cheese made from unpasteurised milk, and arewilling to accept the associated higher health risksfrom Listeria contamination, whereas the US banssale of most unpasteurised cheese, despite thisconstraining consumer choice (Buzby, 2001). Given

the prevailing climate of food-related fear andconsumer uncertainty, a trusted COO image couldhave a significant moderating role to play. Hamp-ton (1977) examined perceptions of US consumersof the risks involved in buying products made byUS firms in other countries, finding that otherwiselow-risk products (canned peas, instant coffee andcooking oil) made in a high-risk country wereperceived as having high risk (Hampton, 1977).Buzby’s (2001) analysis (p. 64) of three case studiesdemonstrated that ‘even after major internationalfood safety incidents have been resolved or largely

controlled, consumer perceptions about the impli-cated foods and the exporting country’s ability toproduce safe food may be slow to recover.’

Context of this study: ‘Clean green’stereotype as moderator of perceived riskAccording to Sanderson et al. (2003: 3):

The origins of the concept of a ‘clean green’ image for New

Zealand are comparatively recent, commencing in the mid-

1980s around the time of the Rainbow Warrior incident

[1985, when French government agents planted a bomb

that sank the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland

harbour] and the passing of the New Zealand Nuclear Free

Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act (1987).

Buhrs and Bartlett (1993: 5) defined the essentialelements of this concept thus:

New Zealand is widely perceived to be still a ‘clean and

green’ country, which is not affected – at least not to the

same extent as most other countries – by industrial

pollution, over-populationy traffic congestion, noise, and

urban decay. New Zealand is commonly associated with

national parks, scenic beauty, wilderness areas, beautiful

deserted beaches, green pastures and a friendly population –

an imagey carefully cultivated in tourism brochures.

The authors argued that the clean and greenimage is and always has been an inflated, if notfalse, representation of the country’s environmen-tal conditions and awareness (Buhrs and Bartlett,1993). A 2001 survey found that 42% of NewZealanders thought the concept was a myth,despite the wide recognition that the concept haswithin New Zealand (Gendall et al., 2001). How-ever, others have concluded that

New Zealand’s environmental image is indeed a key driver

of the value New Zealand is able to obtain for its goods and

services in the international market placey many of the

key marketers of New Zealand product use New Zealand’s

image as part of their marketing strategies. (Thornton et al.,

2001: 61)

Undoubtedly, New Zealand’s landscape is at thecore of its unique selling proposition as a tourist

destination. Tourism New Zealand has investedheavily in building the ‘100% Pure New Zealand’brand through a global branding initiative thatshowcases the country’s diverse landscapes, people,cultures and tourist activities (Morgan et al., 2002).But is this the imagery that influences purchase of food products? It may well be for people who havevisited as tourists (Gnoth, 2002), but what aboutconsumers in general? And, especially, how rele-vant is scenic imagery to the industrial and retailfood buyers who decide what is going to beavailable to consumers in the first place?

Aims of this studyThis study concentrates on food distributors inEuropean countries, because the EU is of greatimportance to New Zealand as a trading partner.New Zealand as a country prides itself on being seenin overseas markets as a ‘clean green’ source of foodproducts and tourist destination (Gnoth, 2002).Much effort has been made to promote thisimagery in foreign markets, in the belief that the‘halo’ associated with this image will enhanceperceptions of New Zealand products and lead toincreased demand and premium prices in keymarkets. However, the people who ultimatelydecide the range of products available for consu-mers to choose from in these key markets are foodchannel members who may base their purchasingdecisions on behalf of consumers on factors otherthan, or additional to, those motivating end-consumers. In particular, retail buyers, who can beregarded as a special subset of industrial buyers(Ettenson and Wagner, 1986), ‘can generally beconsidered ‘‘expert consumers’’ uniquely qualifiedto assess product quality and desirability’ (Stern-quist, 1994: 171). Wholesale and industrial buyers,being some steps removed from end-consumers,might be expected to apply different purchasingcriteria. However, according to an often-citedreview of industrial buying behaviour, ‘similar toconsumer behaviour, the industrial buyers oftendecide on factors other than rational or realisticcriteria’ (Sheth, 1973: 56). ‘Although industrialbuyers may follow more formalised purchasingprocedures, industrial buyers are no more rational


112




in making purchase decisions than consumers’(Insch, 2003: 1).

The relevance of product-country image in thepurchasing decisions of food channel members hasbeen investigated, to identify the elements that

comprise such an image, and to relate thesefindings to extant literature on price and custo-mers’ perceptions of value (Monroe, 2003). Arethese ‘expert consumers’ influenced, as are typicalend-consumers, by the mental representations thatconstitute country stereotypes? Or are these gate-keepers non-emotive analysts who base theirdecisions on more prosaic considerations?

Key issuesThe purpose of this study of gatekeepers of fooddistribution companies, and industry experts, was

to discover:

factors considered by European gatekeepers whenchoosing source countries;

aspects of country of origin that gatekeepersconsider are of most importance;

the extent to which contextualised product-country images influence food purchase deci-sions, both by gatekeepers and (in the opinion of gatekeepers) by end-consumers;

the elements that make up product-countryimages in the minds of gatekeepers, with respect

to particular food categories; the extent to which ‘mythological narratives’such as ‘clean green’ image transfer to foodproducts from particular countries, and the spanof influence that such a mental image has overthe choice of food products by distributionchannel members in European markets; and

the applicability of existing models of buyingbehaviour to gatekeepers in the food distributionchannel.

MethodologyTo gain insights into the thought processes andbehaviour of distribution channel members whenevaluating different countries as potential sourcesof food products, semi-structured personal inter-views were undertaken. An interview guide (Appen-dix A) listed topic areas to be covered – althoughnot necessarily in the order shown. Some topicswere relevant to respondents in particular sectorsand less so, or not at all, to others. For example,farm animal management practices were relevant

to meat distributors but not relevant to those in theseafood or fruit sectors.

This qualitative approach seemed the mostpractical way to explore the complexity and richdiversity of views likely in different types of

companies and in different countries (Tull andHawkins, 1990; Gummesson, 2000). Katsikeas et al.(1998), reviewing the export marketing literature,argue that understanding has been hampered byover-reliance on quantitative methods (often mailquestionnaires) that, while revealing the frequencyof phenomena, may fail to provide deeper insightsinto their nature, intensity, underlying causes, andultimate effects. In-depth personal interviews resultin a richness of material that is unlikely to emergefrom an indirect questionnaire (Tull and Hawkins,1990; Katsikeas et al., 1998).

In-depth face-to-face interviews were conductedwith key informants of a convenience sample of 17companies and/or industry experts. Fifteen wereprovided by New Zealand trade commissioners inHamburg, Milan and London, who selected com-panies they considered to be key players in theEuropean food distribution sector and who werewilling to participate in research on food safety andfood quality in relation to diverse countries of origin. In addition, a major meat importer inAthens and a food service buyer associated with amajor supermarket chain domiciled in the Nether-lands were contacted through academic colleagues.Except for four respondents whose entire businessconcerned products of New Zealand origin, therespondents dealt with food from many countriesother than New Zealand. Table 1 shows the profileof the respondents.

Nine of the respondents were importers anddistributors of meat, seafood, fruit or manufacturedfood. Two were manufacturers of meat and seafoodproducts made from imported raw ingredients.Three were buyers for major supermarket chains.Two were industry organisation representatives,and one was the publisher of the leading trademagazines for the meat and seafood sectors in Italy.

The objective was to sample as much diversity aspossible among the participants so that an overallview could be distilled from these diverse inputs.Patton uses the term ‘purposeful sampling’ (Patton,1990) to describe the recruitment procedureadopted. Glaser and Strauss (1967) consider thatthe desirable number of cases is determined bysaturation – the diminishing marginal contributionof each additional case (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).In this study, it appeared towards the end that the


113




marginal contribution had approached the point of saturation, in that a high degree of consistency of responses emerged.

Interview procedureInterviews were conducted at the respondentcompanies’ premises, apart from one interview ata University in Rotterdam and three interviews atTrade New Zealand offices. A Trade New Zealandstaff member was present (at their request, fortheir own interest) during four of the interviews.All except one interviewee agreed to the interview

being tape-recorded. Some interviews were con-ducted with more than one informant from thecompany: for example, the interview with theItalian supermarket chain involved four foodbuyers, although one speaker of English providedall the recorded comment after consultation(often highly animated) with colleagues inItalian. The interview with the German fruitimporter and distributor was primarily with a fruitbuyer, but then the CEO of the company arrivedand added quite different perspectives on someissues.

Table 1 Profile of key informants, companies, and organisations in sample

Company Interviewee Sector Location Activity

A CEO Meat Hamburg, Germany Major importer/distributor of meat since 1980

B CEO Seafood Hamburg, Germany Manufacturer and distributor of seafood

products

C (a) Importer/buyer

(b) CEO

Fruit Hamburg, Germany 126-year-old fruit importer and distributor

throughout Europe

D Director Seafood Hamburg, Germany German seafood industry organisation

E Director Food Service Rotterdam,

Netherlands

Very large food service supplier, among the

largest food distribution companies in the world

F (a) CEO

(b) Partner

Meat Athens, Greece Agent/distributor for meat, poultry and seafood

companies from various countries

G Director of

veterinary hygiene

and quality

Meat and seafood Milan, Italy Manufacturer and distributor of meat and

seafood products

H (a) Importer/buyer

(b) CEO

Fruit Bologna, Italy Major fruit importer and distributor

I Publisher Meat and seafood Modena, Italy Publisher of trade magazines for meat and

seafood sectorsJ Agent/distributor Meat Milan, Italy Agent/distributor for meat products

K Four directors and

food buyers

Fresh food, meat

and other FMCG

Milan, Italy Head office of one of the largest supermarket

chains in Italy

L Two directors Manufactured

foods

London, UK Importers of manufactured foods; distributors to

prominent restaurants, major supermarket

chains, and specialty retailers

M (a) Commercial

director

(b) Accounts

executive

Specialty foods London, UK Importers and distributors of specialty foods;

formerly head wine buyer for major supermarket

chain

N Sales manager,

Europe

Wine London, UK Importer and distributor of New Zealand,

Australian and South African wines; former

manager for one of largest food retailers in

world (by no. of outlets)

O Managing director Meat London, UK UK distributor for major meat company; serves

major supermarkets and food service companies

P UK marketing

manager

Wine London, UK A New Zealand wine industry organisation

Q Media liaison

officer

Food retail London, UK One of the three largest supermarket chains in

the UK


114




Interviews ranged from 60 to 120 min, and tookthe form of semi-structured personal interviews,managed through an interview protocol guidingthe major areas of enquiry (Merton et al., 1956;McCracken, 1988; Kvale, 1996; Denzin and Lin-

coln, 2000). The interviewer aimed to establishrapport with the respondents and to have aconversation that was steered to a large extent bythe interviewee and the topics that they foundinteresting. Consistent with this approach, theinterview protocol was only loosely adhered to. Inthis regard, the interviews resembled the ‘unstruc-tured ethnographic’ format in which the researcheruses various probes to build a ‘conversation-likedialogue rather than asking questions that imposecategorical frameworks on informants’ understand-ing and experiences’ (Arnould and Wallendorf,

1994: 492); ideally this approach would be com-plemented by ‘observation of behaviour in context’(p. 488), but it seems unlikely that gatekeeperswould acquiesce to such a degree of intrusion.Despite this limitation, the desired outcome was ‘arichly textured interpretation’ having credence forthe reader, which is the aim of market-orientedethnography (Arnould and Wallendorf, 1994: 495).

Questions were open-ended to enable determina-tion of what was most salient to respondents. ‘Oncerespondents have been brought within sight of thetopic, they must be allowed to ‘‘go’’ wherever theywish’ (McCracken, 1988: 40). Steps were taken tominimise the risk of social desirability bias (Schu-man and Presser, 1981), ‘the basic human tendencyto present oneself in the best possible light’ (Fisher,1993: 303). An important technique used to over-come the effects of social desirability is indirectquestioning – a projective technique in whichrespondents are asked to provide opinions fromthe perspective of another person or group. Indirectquestioning allows respondents to ‘describe theirown feelings behind a facade of impersonality’(Simon and Simon, 1975: 586). With this in mind,the interviewer took care to ask informants howthey considered others would respond to issues –both their industrial customers and the end-consumers. An example of the type of questionasked is:

When consumers see products from a particular country

(e.g., Vietnam) on the supermarket shelf, what do you think

is likely to be running through their mind when they

consider purchasing that product?

Evidence that this technique was successful came inthe form of respondents distancing themselves

from the answer – indicating that this is not howthey themselves think, but how they believe mostof their customers would think in regard to aparticular issue.

Tape-recorded interviews were transcribed, and

comments were coded on the transcripts usingdifferent text colours and marginal keywords(Coffey and Atkinson, 1996). Excerpts were labelledwith multiple codes as appropriate. According toSeidel and Kelle (1995) this process has threecomponents:

(1) noticing relevant phenomena;(2) collecting examples of those phenomena; and(3) analysing those phenomena in order to find

commonalities, differences, patterns and struc-tures.

Thematic analysis was undertaken to build a ‘logicalchain of evidence’ (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Inaccordance with Coffey and Atkinson (1996: 54), thisanalysis aimed to preserve ‘the storied qualities of qualitative textual data, that is the ways in whichsocial actors produce, represent and contextualiseexperience and personal knowledge through narra-tives and other genres’. Emic (subjective significance)portrayal of individual respondents’ experiences andbeliefs were then integrated into etic themes andrelationships (comparative and interpreted signifi-cance), drawing on the extant literature (Arnouldand Wallendorf, 1994).

Checks on validityCresswell and Miller (2000: 125) refer to qualitativeresearchers using ‘a lens not based on scores,instruments, or research designs but a lens estab-lished using the views of people who conduct,participate in, or read and review a study’. They usethe term ‘researcher reflexivity’ for the process of researchers self-disclosing their assumptions,beliefs, and biases. In this study, the interviewerwas acutely aware of the potential for bias to

intrude in three areas: his own very obvious New Zealand origins, and

the means of recruiting respondents throughNew Zealand Trade Commissioners, influencingrespondents in their comments;

the interviewer’s knowledge of, and familiaritywith, technical issues such as applications of genetic modification; and

the interviewer’s background in biologicalscience and personal experience in the interna-tional marketing of food products.


115




The first step is to acknowledge the potential of such factors to bias collection and analysis of data,while at the same time enabling the collection of technical information; the second is to take steps tominimise any impact of such potential biases. This

we have tried to do.A preliminary version of the research findings was

submitted to the participants in the study for‘checking how accurately participants’ realitieshave been represented in the final account’ (Cress-well and Miller, 2000: 125), a process regarded as‘the most crucial technique for establishing cred-ibility’ (Lincoln and Guba, 1985: 314). Changeswere made in response to respondent requests intwo instances. In addition, two eminent academicsin the UK and one in the USA were enlisted toreview the draft report from which the results

reported here are derived. Changes were made ontheir recommendation to ensure that the draftconclusions and recommendations were a valid andcredible reflection of the data collected (Knightet al., 2003).

Results

Issues considered when choosing particular countries as source‘Quality’ was mentioned by most respondents asthe overriding consideration when choosing parti-cular countries as source – especially particularquality for a given price, as indicated in AppendixB. German respondents (e.g., Respondent D) and aGreek respondent (F) frequently referred to thefact that consumers in their markets are highlyprice-conscious, and this has a major bearingon the quality that is affordable by importers inthat market. In contrast, Italian consumersappeared much less price-conscious (e.g., Respon-dents I and J).

As illustrated by the examples in Appendix B,‘quality’ meant different things to different respon-dents. For a German meat distributor (RespondentA), whose entire business relies on product fromNew Zealand, quality not only refers to attributes of the tangible product, but also embraces imageryassociated with cleanliness and animals feeding onopen pasture. This imagery is captured in hispromotional material. An Italian meat distributor(J) felt that reputation of the veterinary service inthe supplying country was an important determi-nant of quality, together with innovative technol-ogy in the processing industry. In particular, hereferred to gas-flushing of chilled meat as an

innovation developed in New Zealand that con-tributed greatly to perception of quality by retailers.For the Greek meat, seafood and poultry distributor(F), the concept of free range was the key, both forhis business customers and for end-consumers. On

probing, it became clear that free range was equatedwith ‘natural’, freedom from chemicals, and trust inthe ‘healthy’ nature of products derived from free-range animals. In the seafood sector in Germanyand Italy, perceptions about the country fromwhere products are sourced related mainly tohygiene, trust in production methods, lack of contamination, and freedom from antibiotics(e.g., chloramphenicol in shrimps). Traceabilitywas mentioned as ‘a hot item’ by a respondent inthe food service sector, and by three meat distribu-tors (e.g., Respondent O). This has become particu-

larly important in the aftermath of the BSEoutbreak. Trust in the source of supply, especiallyin relation to chemical spray residues, was reportedas necessary to avoid problems with regulatoryauthorities in the importer’s country and to avoidcausing problems for business customers (Respon-dent H).

Technical details of production methods, chemi-cal and microbiological standards are not mattersthat end-consumers are likely to be knowledgeableabout, or able to discern at the point of purchase;standards of hygiene, spray residues and otherstandards relating to food security are likely to beexpected as a given. To a considerable extent,consumers rely on supermarket chains and otherretailers to take care of such considerations on theirbehalf. ‘Tesco sells it so it must be okay ’ (RespondentO). Retailers, in turn, rely on intermediaries in thechannel to provide them with products that willnot give rise to problems, and avoidance of risk is amajor driver in their purchasing behaviour. Famil-iar and trusted brands can provide further short-hand communication to retailers and consumersabout trustworthiness of products. Attributes thatare visually discernible by end-consumers wereregarded as paramount when dealing with fruit(e.g., Respondents C and K, Appendix B), but less sowith food products that are cooked or otherwisetransformed before being consumed.

Importance of country-of-origin?Respondents varied in their assessments of theimportance of COO, depending on the type of company and sector they were in (Appendix C). Infood service and in manufacturing the COO is oftenlost before products reach the end-consumer. The


116




Dutch food service company (respondent E) con-sidered COO largely irrelevant, and felt thattrustworthiness of a company was much moreimportant than issues to do with the country. Aninteresting perspective was that consumers in the

Dutch market regarded apples as ‘local’ eventhough they might be imported from SouthAmerica. An Italian seafood products manufacturerconsidered that end-consumers would not knowwhere the anchovies in a paste came from, forexample. A German seafood sector expert drew adistinction between fish used for further processingand fish sold as a specialty item – Scottish and Irishsalmon, for example. He also drew a distinctionbetween specialty retailers (fishmongers) and ‘thediscount chain’. For fishmongers, COO of specificfish species was paramount, whereas for the

discount chain (which accounts for the greatmajority of product) COO was not importantat all.

A UK distributor of a highly successful New-Zealand-manufactured dessert product (Respon-dent L) believed that COO labelling for this productwas a negative – certainly in view of scepticismamong supermarket buyers concerning the logisticsof delivery from 20,000 kilometres away. Further-more, consumers would view the ‘pudding’ conceptas traditionally British and therefore local. Theproduct is sold under house brands (private labels)in four major supermarket chains, and also appearsunder its own label. Mandatory requirements meanthat it carries in small print ‘produced in NewZealand for y’, but the country-of-origin is notincorporated into the brand or given prominencein any way.

Respondent F believed that in his country(Greece) the linkage of product and COO was verystrong – at least in regard to lamb (see Appendix C).A UK distributor of Australian, South African andNew Zealand wines considered ‘ It’s the most impor-tant factor of it .’ H owever, on further probing, herevealed that this perception relates more to qualityof the wine than to scenic imagery of the country:‘ It’s not an emotional attachment to New Zealand, it’sthe fact that good Sauvignon Blanc comes from New Zealand ’ (Respondent N). A German fruit distribu-tor considered New Zealand apples and kiwi fruit tobe ‘the Mercedes Benz among the fruit basket ’, basingthis evaluation on his perception of quality controlstandards, low pesticide residues, taste and appear-ance of fruit, and high packaging standards. AnItalian meat distributor felt a country name wasimportant as a proxy for ‘trustworthy’. According to

the Italian supermarket chain (Respondent K) ‘thisis product-specific y consumers associate certain pro-duct with certain country-of-origin.’ This reportedassociation seems to be based partly on traditionand partly on trust in products from that country. A

UK distributor of specialty foods saw countrysymbolism as important in grabbing attention(‘Oh, Australian!’), a factor he considered vital inthe cluttered supermarket environment (Respon-dent M). This symbolism appeared to relatemainly to Australian celebrities (particularly inthe movie and music industries), who have con-tributed prominently to the stereotype of thecountry itself.

A good example of a ‘mythological narrative’(Ger et al., 1999) attaching to a country namewas provided by a German fruit buyer, reflecting

on the significance of ‘New Zealand’ to his end-consumers:

I don’t know if they are thinking about the country or –

they are thinking ‘It’s a long way the fruit is coming – that is

other end of the world, and there’s a good climate, and the

sun is ever shining’ they are thinking – not the truth I know!

But I could think that they know it, therefore they have

every year good apples.

Political considerations also impinge on assess-ment of product-country images in some cases.Israel was mentioned by two respondents as acountry that their business customers would not

wish to be supplied from: ‘Co-op (major Italiansupermarket chain) for example has abandoned Israelbecause they are against the Israelis beating the

Palestinians’ (Respondent H). This provides supportfor the assertion mentioned in the introductionthat ‘good products are seen to be produced bypeople who arey admirable for their role in worldpolitics’ (Heslop and Papadopoulos, 1993: 67).

Resource sustainability practicesDuring discussion with seafood importers anddistributors, it became clear that European super-

market chains – presumably in response to con-sumer demands – are becoming very sensitive tothe merits of Marine Stewardship Council certifica-tion in regard to sourcing seafood products.

Our customersy are concerned due to the Marine Steward-

ship Council certification of the oceany the issue is

growing steadily and in a few year’s time we will have so-

called aqua-labelling origin-wise. (Respondent B)

This is a good example of an issue largelyunknown to the interviewer emerging as a resultof the open-ended question approach. New Zealand


117




was cited as being very forward-looking in regard tothis issue in comparison with other sources:

On the other side, Canada is not that well known or

specialised for fisheries management. We see that in the cod

fishery, where we more and more have to learn that because

of the increasing shrimp fisheryy

So, if the North Sea willbe empty of cod will we see a huge shrimp fishery there? So

in Canada we have this problem. (Respondent B)

Genetic modificationThe topic of genetic modification (GM) produceddiverse responses, and was often first raised byrespondents themselves. A clear consensus emergedthat European consumers are not yet ready toaccept GM foods, particularly in the prevailingclimate of food-related fears. Some respondents

thought the technology was inevitable, and con-sidered that consumers would eventually acceptGM foods that offered defined consumer benefits orlower prices. Details of these findings are reportedelsewhere (Knight et al., 2005). Of particularrelevance to the subject of this paper, somerespondents were asked how they viewed conven-tional products from countries such as USA, Canadaand Argentina that produce GM food crops, orcountries such as Australia that produce GMnon-food crops such as cotton or carnations.None could see any negative impact of GM on theimage of these countries as suppliers of high-qualityfood (Knight et al., 2005). For example: ‘GM is GM.GM-free is GM-free. It doesn’t matter where it comesfrom. Basically it doesn’t matter about the country.

It’s just a matter of (the product) being GM-free’(Respondent G).

The presence or absence of nuclear power gen-eration was used as a test of how ‘environmentallyquestionable’ practices may or may not influenceperceptions of food products from a given country.Although not directly food-related, this issue wasconsidered particularly relevant in view of itsprominence in relation to the ‘clean green’ imageattributable to New Zealand (at least in the mindsof most New Zealanders). The study sought todetermine what value European food channelmembers place on an existing ‘nuclear-free’ co-brand as an indicator of how a putative ‘GE-free’ co-brand might be seen. According to the intervie-wees, countries such as the USA, Canada and Francethat rely heavily on nuclear power are still held ingenerally high regard for food quality and foodsafety. This is hardly surprising considering thewidespread use of nuclear power technology in

Europe, and the generally excellent safety record inthis controversial industry. The notable exceptionprovided by the Chernobyl disaster, attributable tohuman error in conducting an ‘experiment’ thatwent wrong, is now largely dismissed as an artefact

of the communist era rather than equating tooverall mistrust of the technology. New Zealand’snuclear-free policy was unknown to most respon-dents, and appeared to have little impact onperceptions of country image for food products.Respondent F indicated that publicity given to NewZealand’s position on nuclear testing led people inGreece to think that New Zealand’s shores must becontaminated. (He was very surprised to learn thatMururoa Atoll, site of French nuclear testing, isapproximately 5000 km from New Zealand – similarto the distance from Athens to Iceland.) As an

indicator of the extent of any marketing advantagethat New Zealand might derive from a ‘GE-FreeNew Zealand’ brand, the Nuclear-Free New Zealandbrand seems rather ineffectual.

DiscussionThis study was designed to determine the impor-tance that leading food buyers in Europe attach tocountry image when evaluating imports of foodfrom different countries, in the context of all theother factors used in making such evaluations. Theoverriding factor in determining purchase decisionsby European food buyers is price, and this fits wellwith the predictions of Monroe’s price–perceivedvalue model (Monroe, 2003: 161). Perceived valuerepresents a trade-off between perceived qualityand perceived monetary sacrifice. Especially inhighly price-sensitive markets such as Germanyand Greece, the price for a given quality outweighsall else. This finding is compatible with previousstudies of industrial and retail buyer behaviour(Hakansson and Wootz, 1975; White and Cundiff,1978; Shaw et al., 1992). Figure 1 integratescountry-specific factors identified in this study intothe price–perceived value model, as discussedbelow.

Apart from pragmatic considerations of price andvalue, the factors identified by gatekeepers can beseen to involve trust – both in the tangible productand its packaging, and in the producers andintermediaries involved in supplying that product.Diverse country-specific factors clearly have abearing on perceived trust, which in turn moder-ates perceptions of quality, perceived monetarysacrifice, and ultimately perceived value. Figure 1provides a conceptual model of how these many


118




factors appear to interrelate. Several of the identi-fied factors concern technical specifications, reg-ulations and certifications, and the reputation of governmental and corporate intermediaries fordelivering required services with a minimum of uncertainty. These are matters about which end-consumers are likely to have little knowledge.Industrial and retail buyers, in contrast, have readyaccess to technical information and experientialknowledge, and are highly concerned with factorsthat could influence levels of risk in their businessdealings. In that certain countries have a betterreputation than others for delivering goods of hightechnical standards and low risk of variability inattributes, COO acts as a moderator of risk and anenhancer of trust.

Of increasing importance is the issue of trace-ability – being able to trace food products right backto the processing plant, and even to the farm ororchard gate. This can be seen as an insurancepolicy in case of some unexpected sanitary orcontaminant event. Previous research has foundtraceability to be more important in some countriesthan others, with German firms placing particularimportance on this (Skytte and Blunch, 2001).These factors are well known to internationalmarketers, and New Zealand has gone to greatlengths to build trust and confidence relating tothese issues. A related issue is the value of third-party certification, and in particular Marine Stew-ardship Council certification of sustainability.

Third-party certification marks have previouslybeen found to enjoy high levels of recognition,even though consumers may misperceive theirinformation content and take more comfort fromthem than is warranted (Laric and Sarel, 1981).

The stereotypic image that end-consumers mighthave of a source country may well contribute to, orameliorate, risk as perceived by the retail buyer.Increasingly in the grocery sector ‘buying startswith selling to the consumer rather than buyingfrom the manufacturer’ (Johansson, 2002: 583).Retail buying, including grocery buying, ‘demandsthat the buyers become connoisseurs of consumertastes and forecasters of what will be popularmonths in the future’ (Sternquist, 1994: 160). Sowhat are the issues for consumers, and whataccount do retail buyers take of these? One might

anticipate that safety in regards to food overridesmost other considerations, given the prevailingfood-scare sensitised climate. This certainly hasbeen revealed in this study.

Country mental imagery as consumers mighttypically view it has emerged as remarkably unim-portant in food categories where raw ingredientsare imported for further processing, and also in thefood service sector – except that country designa-tion may serve as a proxy for trust and reliability.Gatekeepers have indicated that end-consumerswill not usually be aware of the COO of rawingredients. From the perspective of manufacturersand food service providers, the issue is not whereingredients originate from. The issue is how con-fident they are that ingredients are safe forconsumption, meet technical specifications, andare at the lowest price. Similarly, the relationshipbetween product-country image and industrialbuying behaviour of Swedish seafood purchasingmanagers has been observed to be weak (Olsen andOlsson, 2002). Liefeld (1993) concluded from hismeta-analysis that purchasing agents place moreimportance on COO in their product evaluationsthan do consumers. However, few of the studiesanalysed concerned food products, and it is unclearwhat elements of COO were deemed influential.

The vast majority of COO studies have investi-gated attitudes and/or stated intentions rather thanactual purchasing behaviour by consumers. Acautionary note has been sounded by a recentstudy (Liefeld, 2005) that found that more than93% of 1248 North American consumers inter-cepted at the cash register did not know the COO of a durable product that they had just purchased.Liefeld’s conclusion from this study (p. 85) is that

Figure 1 Contextual representation of factors influencing

purchase of imported food products by gatekeepers. Adapted

from Monroe’s price–perceived value model. Hollow arrows

represent inhibitory effects.


119




‘country of origin of products is not an importantattribute in the choice processes of the greatmajority of North American consumers.’

A high percentage of New Zealand food exportsleave New Zealand shores unbranded, and are not

identified with New Zealand as COO in the market-place. Once such products enter food servicechannels for distribution to restaurants, hotels,hospitals, schools, and institutions of many types,COO typically becomes unimportant and indeedunknown to the end-consumer. A German chef placing hirschfleisch (venison) on the menu is likelyto hope that the end-consumer has visions of theBlack Forest in mind, rather than visions of greenpaddocks and 2 metre-high wire fences in NewZealand. When commodities enter the manufactur-ing sector also, as raw materials or ingredients for

processed goods, COO is often lost. In some foodcategories, for example the puddings referred to inone of our interviews, New Zealand COO wasreported as a detracting factor if anything.

A study of purchasing behaviour in the NorthernIreland wine market found that COO was indeedthe most important of ten factors reported byconsumers selecting wine; however, when askedwhy they preferred their favourite wine, themajority of responses were related to ‘taste’,‘quality’, ‘palatability’, ‘value for money’, andintrinsic qualities of the wine such as ‘dry’, ‘fruity’,‘full-bodied’ or ‘refreshing’ (Keown and Mura,1995). So, it seems that perception of the char-acteristics of a product from a given country mayoverride general perceptions of the ambience of thecountry in itself, in line with the contention that ahalo effect gives way to a summary construct onceconsumers become familiar with a country’s pro-ducts (Han, 1989; Nebenzahl et al., 1997). Theresults of the present study suggest that industrialand retail buyers use summary constructs based onspecific technical, experiential, and assurance-based factors.

The cost of brand-switching for consumers inrelation to supermarkets is often negligible: theycan simply visit some other supermarket, so suchoutlets strive very hard to retain customers. Foodbuyers for these supermarket chains place greatstore on purchasing from localities and companiesthey trust in order to avoid unhappy consequences– either from disgruntled consumers or from beingcaught out by regulatory authorities. In turn,consumers place their trust in the supermarket tosource products from safe places. In certain pro-duct-specific areas, COO does become part of the

brand of a product, or acts as a halo to enhanceconsumer confidence in the brand, but this doesnot appear to be the general case. Because industrialand retail buyers will be very familiar with thecharacteristics of products and suppliers from many

different countries, it is understandable that theirperceptions are based more on summary constructscomprising specific attributes of products, suppli-ers, and regulatory authorities from a particularcountry than on country image as a halo.

The contribution that this study makes is todemonstrate interconnectedness between concep-tual models derived from the COO literature andconceptual models described in the pricing/buyerbehaviour literature. The context in which thismodel has been derived concerns industrial buyingbehaviour by gatekeepers in the European food

distribution channel, but the implications of theexpanded model seem likely to be widely applicableto both industrial buying behaviour and consumerbuying behaviour in relation to food products.Hopefully, this study will lead to further research toestablish the relative importance of these links andpathways.

ConclusionPerceptions of the country image of New Zealand,and indeed any other country, among channelmembers in the European food markets appear torelate more to factors involving confidence andtrust in the integrity of regulatory systems andsuppliers than they do to ‘clean green’ mentalstereotypic images of landscape, water and sky. Riskto New Zealand’s ‘clean green image’ in foreignmarkets for food products is often cited as a basisfor recommending governmental policy and com-mercial strategy, most recently in regard to debateconcerning the commercial release of geneticallymodified organisms. However, in the eyes of the‘gatekeepers’ of the food channel interviewed inthis study, the role of country stereotypic image asconsumers would be likely to view it seemssecondary to more pragmatic considerations.

This study in no way precludes the possibilitythat, in the future, food markets in Europe mayappreciate the halo effect of a ‘clean, green’ countryimage as a result of a well-managed, integratedmarketing communications strategy. However, weconclude that this is not the most important factorat present. According to Skaggs et al. (1996: 599):‘product-country images that extend an aura of riskiness to food products are a serious problem formarketers, particularly when in direct competition


120




with products perceived to be less risky.’ Our studyindicates that, in the eyes of the food channelmembers interviewed, New Zealand is in thefortunate position of being perceived as ‘less risky’than many other countries, as a direct result of the

efforts that have been made to institute the bestquality control and traceability systems and tech-nology available.

The conceptual contribution of this study is toplace elements of country image in the widercontext of factors that determine purchasingbehaviour by food channel gatekeepers. In orderto understand the buying behaviour of fooddistribution channel members, it is necessary tointegrate conceptual models derived from the COOfield with those derived from the pricing/customerperception of value field. Only by doing this can

COO effects be seen in a real-world context. Theoverarching conclusion drawn is that, in thisindustrial buying setting, the mode of action of a

product-country image summary construct is toprovide channel members with a shorthand nota-tion for trust. Trust appears to be the centralcomponent that enhances perceived quality whileminimising perceived monetary sacrifice – thereby

leading to enhanced perceived value, and thereforea willingness to buy.

Acknowledgements We thank Professor Eric Arnould (University of Arizo-na), Professor Emeritus Michael Baker (University of Strathclyde), Professor Russell Belk (University of Utah)and Professor Phil Harris (University of Otago) for helpful suggestions concerning earlier versions of thisreport. We also thank JIBS Departmental Editor Professor Guliz Ger and two anonymous reviewersfor many constructive suggestions. The research was

supported by a grant from the Agricultural andMarketing Research and Development Trust(AGMARDT) of New Zealand.

References Agarwal, S. and Teas, R.K. (2001) ‘Perceived value: mediating

role of perceived risk’, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 9(4): 1–14.

Al-Sulaiti, K.I. and Baker, M.J. (1998) ‘Country of origin effects: aliterature review’, Marketing Intelligence and Planning 16(3):150–199.

Arnould, E.J. and Wallendorf, M. (1994) ‘Market-orientedethnography: interpretation building and marketingstrategy formulation’, Journal of Marketing Research 31(4):484–505.

Askegaard, S. and Ger, G. (1998) ‘Product-country images:towards a contextualized approach’, European Advances inConsumer Research III: 50–58.

Beatty, S. and Ferrell, S. (1998) ‘Impulse buying: modelling itsprecursors’, Journal of Retailing 74(2): 169–192.

Bergman, K. (2002) Dealing with Consumer Uncertainty: Public Relations in the Food Sector , Springer-Verlag: Berlin.

Bilkey, W.J. and Nes, E. (1982) ‘Country-of-origin effects onproduct evaluations’, Journal of International Business Studies 13(1): 89–99.

Buhrs, T. and Bartlett, R. (1993) Environmental Policy in New Zealand: the Politics of Clean and Green, Oxford University

Press: Auckland.Buzby, J.C. (2001) ‘Effects of food-safety perceptions on fooddemand and global trade’, in A. Regmi (ed.), Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade , Market andTrade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDepartment of Agriculture, pp: 55–66.

Cardello, A.V. (1996) ‘The Role of the Human Senses in Food Acceptance’, in H.L. Meiselman and H.J.H. MacFie (eds.), Food Choice, Acceptance and Consumption, Blackie Academic:London, pp: 51–52.

Coffey, A. and Atkinson, P. (1996) Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies , Sage: ThousandOaks, CA.

Cresswell, J.W. and Miller, D.L. (2000) ‘Determining validity inqualitative inquiry’, Theory Into Practice 39(3): 124–131.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Erickson, G.M., Johansson, J.M. and Chao, P. (1984) ‘Imagevariables in multi-attribute product evaluations: country-of-origin effects’, Journal of Consumer Research 11(2): 694–699.

Ettenson, R. and Wagner, J. (1986) ‘Retail buyers’ saleability

judgments: a comparison of information use across threelevels of experience’, Journal of Retailing 6(1): 41–63.

Fisher, R.J. (1993) ‘Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning’, Journal of Consumer Research 20(2):303–315.

Fotopoulos, C. and Krystallis, A. (2003) ‘Quality labels as amarketing advantage: the case of the ‘‘PDO Zagora’’ apples inthe Greek market’, European Journal of Marketing 37(10):1350–1374.

Gendall, P.J., Healey, B., Robbie, P., Gendall, K., Patchett, S. andBright, N. (2001) New Zealanders and the Environment , NewZealand: Massey University.

Ger, G., Askegaard, S. and Christensen, A. (1999) ‘Experientialnature of product-place images: image as a narrative’,Advances in Consumer Research 26: 165–169.

Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded

Theory , Aldine: New York.Gnoth, J. (2002) ‘Leveraging export brands through a tourismdestination brand’, Journal of Brand Management 9(4–5):262–280.

Guerrero, L. (2001) ‘Marketing PDO (Products with Denomina-tions of Origin) and PGI (Products with GeographicalIdentities)’, in L. Frewer, E. Risvik and H. Schifferstein(eds.), Food, People and Society: A European Perspective of Consumers’ Food Choices , Springer Verlag: New York,pp: 281–296.

Gummesson, E. (2000) Qualitative Methods in Management Research, 2nd edn, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hakansson, H. and Wootz, B. (1975) ‘Supplier selection in aninternational environment: an experimental study’, Journal of Marketing Research 12(February): 46–51.


121




Hampton, G.M. (1977) ‘Perceived risk in buying products madeabroad by American firms’, Baylor Business Studies 8: 53–64.

Han, C.M. (1989) ‘Country image: halo or summary construct?’ Journal of Marketing Research 26(May): 222–229.

Han, C.M. (1990) ‘Testing the role of country image inconsumer choice behaviour’, European Journal of Marketing 24(6): 24–40.

Han, C.M. and Terpstra, V. (1988) ‘Country-of-origin effects for Uni-National and Bi-National products’, Journal of International Business Studies 19(2): 235–255.

Heslop, L.A. and Papadopoulos, N. (1993) ‘But who knowswhere or when: reflections on the Images of countries andtheir products’, in N. Papadopoulos and L. Heslop (eds.),Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing , International Business Press: New York, pp. 39–75.

Hoffmann, R. (2000) ‘Country of origin: a consumer perceptionperspective of fresh meat’, British Food Journal 102(3): 211–221.

Hulland, J., Todino, H.S. and Lecraw, D.J. (1996) ‘Country-of-origin effects on sellers’ price premiums in competitivePhilippine markets’, Journal of International Marketing 4(1):57–79.

Imran, N. (1999) ‘The role of visual cues in consumer perceptionand acceptance of a food product’, Nutrition and Food Science

99(5): 224–229.Insch, G.S. (2003) ‘The impact of country-of-origin effects onindustrial buyers’ perceptions of product quality’, Manage-ment International Review 43(3): 1–11.

Jaffe, E. and Nebenzahl, I. (1993) ‘Global promotion of countryimage: do the Olympics count?’, in C. Papadopoulos and L.Heslop (eds.), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role inInternational Marketing , International Business Press: New

York, pp: 433–452.Johansson, J.K. (1993) ‘Missing a strategic opportunity: man-

agers’ denial of country-of-origin effects’, in C. Papadopoulosand L. Heslop (eds.), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing , International Business Press:New York, pp: 77–86.

Johansson, J.K., Douglas, S.P. and Nonaka, I. (1985) ‘Assessingthe impact of country of origin on product evaluations: a newmethodological perspective’, Journal of Marketing Research22(4): 388–396.

Johansson, U. (2002) ‘Food retail buying processes: a study of the UK, Italy and Sweden’, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 30(11/12): 575–586.

Juric, B. and Worsley, A. (1998) ‘Consumers’ attitudes towardsimported food products’, Food Quality and Preference 9(6):431–441.

Katsikeas, C.S., Bell, J. and Morgan, R.E. (1998) ‘Editorial:advances in export marketing theory and practice’, Interna-tional Marketing Review 15(5): 322–332.

Keown, C. and Mura, C. (1995) ‘Purchasing behaviour in theNorthern Ireland wine market’, British Food Journal 97(1):17–22.

Knight, J., Holdsworth, D. and Mather, D. (2003) Trust and Country Image: Perceptions of European Food Distributors Regarding Factors That Could Enhance or Damage New

Zealand’s Image – Including GMOs , University of Otago:Dunedin, NZ.

Knight, J.G., Mather, D.W. and Holdsworth, D.K. (2005) ‘Impactof genetic modification on country image of imported foodproducts in European markets: perceptions of channelmembers’, Food Policy 30(4): 385–398.

Kotler, P. and Gertner, D. (2002) ‘Country as brand, product,and beyond: a place marketing and brand managementperspective’, Brand Management 9(4–5): 249–261.

Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing , Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Laric, M.V. and Sarel, D. (1981) ‘Consumer (mis)perceptionsand usage of third party certification marks, 1972 and 1980:did public policy have an impact?’ Journal of Marketing 45(3):135–142.

Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. and Mourali, M.(2005) ‘The influence of country image structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products’, International Marketing Review 22(1): 96–115.

Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B.H. and Dube, L. (1994) ‘Foreign brandingand its effects on product perceptions and attitudes’, Journal of Marketing Research 31(2): 263–270.

Liefeld, J.P. (1993) ‘Experiments on Country-of-Origin Effects:Review and Meta-Analysis of Effect Size’, in C. Papadopoulosand L. Heslop (eds.), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing , International Business Press:New York, pp: 117–146.

Liefeld, J.P. (2005) ‘Consumer knowledge and use of country-of-origin information at the point of purchase’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4(2): 85–96.

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry , Sage:Newbury Park, CA.

Marshall, D.W. (ed.) (1995) Food Choice and the Consumer ,Blackie Academic & Professional: London.

McCracken, G. (1988) The Long Interview , Sage: Newbury Park,CA.

McGoldrick, P.J. and Douglas, R.A. (1983) ‘Factors influencingthe choice of supplier by grocery distributors’, European

Journal of Marketing 17(5): 13–27.Merton, R., Fiske, M. and Kendall, P. (1956) The Focused Interview: A Manual of Problems and Procedures , The FreePress: Glencoe, IL.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , Sage Publications:Thousand Oaks, CA.

Monroe, K.B. (2003) Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions , 3rdedn, McGraw-Hill Irwin: Boston, MA.

Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Piggot, R. (2002) ‘New Zealand,100% pure: the creation of a powerful nichedestination brand’, Journal of Brand Management 9(4/5):335–355.

Nagashima, A. (1977) ‘A comparative ‘‘Made In’’ product imagesurvey among Japanese businessmen’, Journal of Marketing 41(7): 95–100.

Nayga Jr, R.M. (2000) ‘Nutrition knowledge, gender, and foodlabel use’, Journal of Consumer Affairs 34(1): 97–112.

Nebenzahl, I., Jaffe, E. and Lampert, S. (1997) ‘Towards a theoryof country image effect on product evaluation’, Management International Review 37(1): 27–49.

Olsen, S.O. and Olsson, U.H. (2002) ‘Multientity scaling and theconsistency of country-of-origin attitudes’, Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies 33(1): 149–167.

Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (1993a) ‘What Product-Country Images Are and Are Not’, in N. Papadopoulos andL. Heslop (eds.), Product-Country Images , International Busi-ness Press: New York, pp: 3–38.

Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (1993b) Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing , Interna-tional Business Press: New York.

Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (2002) ‘Country equity andcountry branding: problems and prospects’, Journal of Brand

Management 9(4/5): 294–315.Patton, M. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods ,

Sage: Newbury Park, CA.Phillips, H. and Bradshaw, R. (1993) ‘How customers actually

shop: customer interaction with the point of sale’, Journal of the Market Research Society 35(1): 51–62.

Rook, D.W. (1987) ‘The buying impulse’, Journal of Consumer Research 14(2): 189–200.

Roth, M.S. and Romeo, J.B. (1992) ‘Matching product categoryand country image perceptions: a framework for managingcountry-of-origin effects’, Journal of International Business Studies 23(3): 477–498.

Sanderson, K., Saunders, C., Nana, G., Stroombergen, A.,Campbell, H., Fairweather, J. and Heinemann, A. (2003)Economic Risks and Opportunities from the Release of Genetically


122




Modified Organisms in New Zealand , Ministry for the Environ-ment: Wellington, New Zealand.

Schuman, H. and Presser, S. (1981) Questions and Answers inAttitude Surveys , Academic Press: New York.

Seidel, J. and Kelle, U. (1995) ‘Different Functions of Coding inthe Analysis of Textual Data’, in U. Kelle, U. (ed.), Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis: Theory, Methods and Practice ,

Sage: London, pp: 52–61.Shaw, S.A., Dawson, J.A. and Blair, L.M.A. (1992) ‘The sourcing

of retailer brand food products by a UK retailer’, Journal of Marketing Management 8(2): 127–146.

Shepherd, R. and Raats, M.M. (1996) ‘Attitudes and Beliefs inFood Habits’, in H.L. Meiselman and H.J.H. MacFie (eds.), Food Choice Acceptance and Consumption, Blackie Academic: Lon-don, pp: 346–364.

Sheth, J.N. (1973) ‘A model of industrial buyer behavior’, Journal of Marketing 37(4): 50–56.

Simon, J. and Simon, R. (1975) ‘Money incentives and familysize: a hypothetical-question study’, Public Opinion Quarterly 38(4): 585–595.

Skaggs, R., Falk, C., Almonte, A. and Cardenas, M. (1996)‘Product-country images and international food marketing:relationships and research needs’, Agribusiness 12(6):

593–600.Skytte, H. and Blunch, N.J. (2001) ‘Food retailers’ buyingbehaviour: an analysis in 16 European countries’, Journal of Chain and Network Science 1(2): 133–145.

Slovic, P. (2000) The Perception of Risk , Earthscan: London.Sternquist, B. (1994) ‘Gatekeepers of consumer choice: a four

country comparison of retail buyers’, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 4(2):159–176.

Thornton, S., Paul, S. and Kerr, G. (2001) Valuing New Zealand’s Clean Green Image , PA Consulting Group: Wellington.

Tull, D.S. and Hawkins, D.I. (1990) Marketing Research:Measurement and Method , 4th edn, Macmillan: New York.

Turner, A. (1995) ‘Prepacked food labelling: past, present andfuture’, British Food Journal 97(5): 23–42.

van Tripj, H.C.M., Steenkamp, J.B. and Candel, M.J.J.M. (1997)‘Quality Labelling As Instrument to Create Product Equity: TheCase of OKB in the Netherlands’, in B. Wierenga, A. vanTilburg, K. Grunert, J.B. Steenkamp and M. Wedel (eds.),Agricultural Marketing and Consumer Behaviour in a Changing World , Kluwer: Dordrecht, pp. 201–215.

Verbeke, W. and Viaene, J. (1999) ‘Consumer attitude to beef quality labeling and associations with beef quality labels’,

Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing 10(3):45–65.

Verlegh, P.W.J. and Steenkamp, J.B. (1999) ‘A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin research’, Journal of Economic Psychology 20(5): 521–546.

Verlegh, P.W.J. and van Ittersum, K. (2001) ‘The Origin of theSpices: The Impact of Geographic Product Origin on Con-sumer Decision Making’, in L. Frewer, E. Risvik and H.Schifferstein (eds.), Food, People and Society , Springer: Berlin,pp: 267–279.

von Alvensleben, R. and Gertken, D. (1993) ‘RegionaleGutezeichen als Marketinginstrument bei Nahrungsmitteln’,Agrarwirtschaft 42(6): 247–251.

Wagner, J., Ettenson, R. and Parrish, J. (1989) ‘Vendor selectionamong retail buyers: an analysis by merchandise division’,

Journal of Retailing 65(1): 58–79. Wang, C.K. and Lamb, C.W. (1983) ‘The impact of selected

environmental forces upon consumers’ willingness to buyforeign products’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 11(Winter): 71–85.

White, P.D. and Cundiff, E.W. (1978) ‘Assessing the quality of industrial products’, Journal of Marketing 42(1): 80–86.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1988) ‘Consumer perceptions of price, quality,and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence’,

Journal of Marketing 52(3): 2–22.

Appendix A. Topics used to guide interviews

Problems encountered with food sourced fromparticular countries

Issues considered when choosing source countries

Reasons for deciding against purchasing fromparticular countries

Aspects of food quality that influence purchasing

decisions

Quality issues that most influence your industrialcustomers

Extent to which products retain country brand inchannel

Aspects of country-of-origin that influence your

customers’ choice Extent to which country image influences purchase

decisions, by industrial buyers and/or consumers

Examples of countries that customers (industrialand/or end-consumers) consider produce high-

quality food Factors determining perceptions of quality of

food from particular countries Trustworthiness

Importance of hygiene standards

Quality control, grading

Freedom from chemical residues, hormones Organic production

Pasture feeding vs feedlot Environmental conditions, population density,

industrial pollution Employment conditions, social aspects, political

aspects

Nuclear power

Diseases in livestock

Genetic modification – general aspects GM specific applications

GM food crops, animals for meat and dairy

GM pasture and animal feed

GM for environmental benefit: pest control,bioremediation, reducing greenhouse gases

Countries already producing GM crops Countries regarded as ‘clean green’

Factors likely to damage or enhance that reputation ‘Nuclear-free’ co-brand? ‘GM-free’ co-brand?

Appendix B. Examples of issues considered whenchoosing source countries

Price‘Germany is a very low priced country. Low pricemeans not bad quality, but certain quality.’(Respondent D, Germany)


123




‘Whatever is cheaper we go with it – of course wewill not buy rubbish.’ (Respondent F, Greece)

‘They expect more quality, and usually theyidentify more quality in a higher price.’ (Respon-dent I, Italy)

‘Italy is a sophisticated market – we have a goodstandard, but only in the north.’ (Respondent J,Italy)

Hygiene, trust, and perceived quality‘Cleanness, the cleanness of the nature, the clean-ness of the factoriesy the rich green grass, that issomething which is important.’ (Respondent A,Germany)

‘Food securityy for food service, there’s noquestion about that – but then the best is who ischeapest. We don’t care so much which name is

behind that source.’ (Respondent B, Germany)‘If you had never left Europe you know whereNorway is, but why does this product go first toChina to come back to my plate in Germany?’(Respondent D, Germany)

‘Fish farming can be ISO 9002 and all that, butstill prefer the one that the fisherman has (caught).Still prefer the free animal.’ (Respondent F, Greece)

‘Not so much trust in these countriesy micro-biological problems in South America and China.’(Respondent G, Italy).

‘If there should be a court case, we have several inthe past, if you can show you have been veryattentive to the residues matter, they will be muchmore flexible towards you.’ (Respondent H, Italy).

‘They trust also the companies. They buy becausethey trust the capacity of the exporters to assure agood product, to maintain quality, to maintainhygieney it’s a question of credibility.’ (Respon-dent J, Italy)

‘The interesting thing is you don’t get to thebuyer (of a supermarket chain) until you’ve gonepast quality controly I must be accredited, I mustbe approved, I must have a farm assurance scheme,I must have traceability.’ (Respondent O, UK)

Visual perception‘The quality, first they look with their eyes, andthen the tasteyYou need good appearance, youneed shelf-life, good taste, then you need health.’(Respondent C, Germany)

‘In Italy the consumers have a good eye – thatmeans they want good quality, nice colour, bigfruit, beautiful packaging, this is a differencebetween Italy and Holland for example.’ (Respon-dent K, Italy).

Appendix C. How important is country image inthe distribution channel?‘The final consumer is not that much concerned atthe moment because he does not know all thedetails and he does not know whether Malaysian

prawns are better prawns than from Bangladesh. Heis not aware.’ (Respondent B, Germany)

‘If you ask a fish monger he will have a verydistinct view on specific items. He will say mussels,this specific mussel, I only buy in France. And thisspecific lobster, I only buy in France. And thatspecific surimi, I only buy there. People know Ihave to buy tuna from Mozambique, or from Omanbecause that is absolutely top quality. I think wehave to take that into mind that this is valid.’However, ‘Most of the fish by quantity goes overthe discount chain. There is nobody interested in

the country, it’s just interesting to see that fish – it’scheap, it’s secure, and it’s tasty.’ (Respondent D,Germany)

‘The company is important, traceability is a hotitem, and the country is the last issue. And I think itis more or less related to freight charges and doingthe way of business.’ ‘It is not stipulated to acountry. We don’t say Spain is a safe or cleancountry. We source from a certain Spanish com-pany which we know by heart. We know the owner,we know how they treat the product.’ ‘A lot of Dutch people consider apples as local, although webuy them from South America.’ (Respondent E,Netherlands)

‘If you go outside and you tell from where are youcome from, and you say New Zealand, they will say‘Ah! New Zealand Lamb!’ Yes, this is well known.’(Respondent F, Greece)

‘Imported raw materials are made into a Eur-opean product. The origin of the product is not soimportant.’ (Respondent G, Italy)

‘I would say that this is product-specific.Because consumers associate certain product withcertain country-of-origin, and this is well accepted.So, in case of orange, I would say consumers

appreciate it coming from Italy, but Spain is a goodalternative because everyone has in mind thatorange from Spain are good quality.’ (RespondentK, Italy)

‘From an image point of view I don’t think itwould have helped, it may even have hindered if we had put New Zealand on it in any sort of shapeand form. I mean other more bespoke-type pro-ductsy are developing a sort of brand imagearound New Zealand and that’s quite creative.’(Respondent L, UK)


124




‘That (product) was hugely Australian before andwe have toned it downy Australia should be proudof that because it’s got symbolism – Australiansymbolism. I would hope they are purchasing itbecause they want to try something different: Oh,

Australian! And bearing in mind that the averagecustomer only has half a second to look at aproduct, register – nice label, interesting pack,pretty colours, let’s go back for another look.’(Respondent M, UK)

‘Brand New Zealand is the first point I think– NewZealand within the wine business – people thatknow wines know that New Zealand Sauvignon isthe best in the world.’ (Respondent N, UK)

‘In the multiple and supermarket areas it [coun-try-of-origin] is important. If we’re talking inmanufacturing and processing areas then it has

lost its identity. It’s another article really. In thecatering sector again it’s lost its identity.’ (Respon-dent O, UK)

‘A country-of-origin sub-brand has been used for‘Italian’ and ‘British-grown’. In the case of ‘Italian’

this had to do with perceptions of ‘innovative’,‘new’, ‘fashionable’, ‘trendy’, ‘quality’ – not foodsafety.’ (Respondent Q, UK)

About the authors

John Knight is Senior Lecturer in the Departmentof Marketing at the Otago School of Business,Dunedin, New Zealand. His current research inter-ests concern public acceptance of biotechnology,international marketing, and technical trade bar-riers.

David Holdsworth is Lecturer in the Departmentof Marketing at the Otago School of Business. Hiscurrent academic and consulting interests aremodelling consumer preferences in ecotourismand education.

Damien Mather is Lecturer in the Department of Marketing at the Otago School of Business. Hiscurrent research interests include heterogeneouschoice, Rasch and general linear mixed models.

Accepted by Professor Guliz Ger, Departmental Editor, 14 July 2006. This paper has been with the authors for two revisions.


125




Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

country-of-origin and choice of food imports

Documents