the role of trust in the perception of the quality of local food products_ with particular reference...

8/11/2019 The Role of Trust in the Perception of the Quality of Local Food Products_ With Particular Reference to Direct Relationships Between Producer and Consumer

1/16

25/9/2014 The role of trust in the perception of the quality of local food products: with particular reference to direct relationships between producer and

http://aof.revues.org/204?lang=fr 1/16

Anthropology of food4 | May 2005:Local Foods

The role of trust in theperception of the quality oflocal food products: with

particular reference to directrelationships betweenproducer and consumer

ANNE-HLNEPRIGENT-SIMONINETCATHERINEHRAULT-FOURNIER

Rsums

FranaisEnglishCette recherche sintresse la perception de la qualit des produits alimentaires traversles relations directes entre producteurs et consommateurs. Elle sefforce dapporter unclairage sur la manire dont se construisent ou se reconstruisent les liens de proximitentre ces acteurs paralllement un systme de commercialisation plus classique. Elle aplus prcisment pour ambition dtudier linfluence des relations directes entre unproducteur et un consommateur sur la manire dont ce dernier peroit la qualit desproduits alimentaires. Pour rpondre ce questionnement nous avons choisi deux terrainsdiffrents en fonction de la nature des relations dveloppes : la vente directe de viande de

buf apparue suite la crise de la vache folle et lanimation commerciale par des leveursde volaille dans les grandes surfaces. Les rsultats tendent montrer dune part que ladimension relationnelle prend une part effective dans le processus de qualification desproduits alimentaires et dautre part que linfluence quelle exerce est trs troitement lie la nature de la confiance tablie entre les acteurs concerns.

This research examines how the quality of food products is perceived when there is a directrelationship between the producer and consumer. It attempts tothrow light on the way thatcustomer-intimacy links are forged or restored between these two participants in the chainand draws a parallel with the more standard distribution channels. The goal is moreprecisely to study the influence of direct relationship on consumers perception of foodquality. To address these issues we have selected two different areas according to the typeof relationship developed: the farmer-to-consumer sale of beef that emerged after the BSE

crisis and promotional events in the supermarkets organized by chicken farmers. Theresults show that the relational dimension does influence the qualification process of foodproducts, and that this influence is closely linked to the components of trust emerging fromthe relationship.
http://aof.revues.org/34http://aof.revues.org/34http://aof.revues.org/http://aof.revues.org/http://aof.revues.org/34http://aof.revues.org/


2/16



Entres dindex

Keywords : local food, producer-to-consumer relationship, trust, quality, anjou foodstuffs

Texte intgral

Introduction

The relational dimension of quality:the theoretical framework andobjectives of the study

Over the last ten years, the agri-food sector has been affected by a series ofincidents and crises that have revealed just how complex this sector is toconsumers. New risk, safety and quality related demands have thus emerged,leading economic and institutional parties to redefine foodstuff production andmarketing methods1. In this area there is an increasing activity by publicauthorities (official quality labels) and private initiatives in the distribution sector(quality systems, supermarkets own local produce brands). Whilst such labels

for identifying the quality and origin of farm and food products are developing,new forms of trade between the producer and consumer are also emergingsimultaneously (direct producer-to-consumer sales, farmers markets, CSA2, etc.)showing that the participants are following a converging trend that cannot simply

be considered as an economic transaction. These new forms of trade represent anew type of social contract between consumers seeking reassurance and producersseeking legitimacy. On market stalls, the pumpkins suddenly look fuller, the meatseems more tender and the wine smoother3, as if the fact that they come directlyfrom the producer gives them a different or specific quality.

1

In this contribution, we shall attempt to understand how the relationaldimension contributes in part to the notion of quality, alongside the otherdimensions that are more frequently mentioned: nutritional and health value,functional and organoleptic qualities, etc. Using three case studies the directsale of beef, Anjou wine and promotional events organized in hypermarkets by theproducers of red-label poultry we will analyze in detail, the main components oftrust emerging within customer intimacy-links and their role in the qualificationprocess of food products.

2

Firstly we shall provide details of the theoretical framework for the study inorder to identify what contributes to the quality of a foodstuff for different players.Secondly, we shall present the methodological choices we made; and thirdly, weshall show that direct relationships between producers and consumers are varied

and explain how they develop to become trust devices. Finally, we shall concludeby considering the impact of these relationships on the conceptualization of foodquality.

3

To clarify the concept of relationship-linked quality, we must describe thetheoretical framework we used for our research. We will give details here of what

we mean by a direct producer-to-consumer relationship and by quality of foodproducts. This will enable us to envisage the mechanisms consumers use to

4
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://aof.revues.org/376http://aof.revues.org/209http://aof.revues.org/208http://aof.revues.org/207http://aof.revues.org/176


3/16



Direct relationship as a meeting point

Quality: a multidimensional concept

assess the quality of food products and to emphasize the role played by trust in thequalification process of food products.

During the past decade, a lot of research has focused on the exploration of newtypes of adjustment to the market that have emerged and operated, more

particularly by studying how they are embedded in the social environment4. Inthis study we will not cover the way in which these customer intimacyrelationships are set up between producers and consumers, but instead we willfocus on the components of the relationship. The direct relationship we envisagehere is first and foremost based on a meeting between a producer and a consumerat a point of sale, whether the meeting takes place in a market, on a farm, at atrade fair or at a promotional event in a supermarket or hypermarket. Thisdeliberately simplified definition of the relationship is justified by the fact that ourgoal was to pay special attention to the types of relationship observed and todemonstrate the variety and specificity of the three case studies. Although we are

aware of a considerable body of research in the Social Sciences into therelationships between the players, there are very few reports on specific types ofproducer-to-consumer relationships. We have therefore chosen to propose ourown framework to describe and understand these relationships in order toconsider their contribution to the conceptualization of food quality.

5

Over the past thirty years, many definitions of the quality of food products havebeen suggested by sociologists, economists and marketers as well as by the agro-food industry producers. Above all, quality is often viewed as a way to ensure thata product is safe for consumers. For others, quality refers to the capacity of a

product/service to satisfy a set of user expectations(AFNOR, 1982) which arevery varied: hygienic, nutritional, organoleptic (Sylvander, 2002).

6

All these definitions of quality leave plenty of room for subjective interpretationand show how complex the concept is. Indeed, the quality of food can be describedas a multidimensional piece of data. Intrinsic data relating to the product itself isthus combined with more symbolic data calling upon beliefs and the imagination.

According to Cazes-Valette (2001), seven distinct facets could be distinguished todefine quality (Cf. Figure 1). Nutritional quality is the foods overall contribution

to a balanced diet. Its hygienic quality means that it contains no harmful or toxicsubstance and is therefore supposedly good for your health. Over the last few

years the consumer has become increasingly focused on whether the product ispractical to purchase, handle, transport, prepare and use, sofunctional propertieshave now become an increasingly valued dimension for consumers in the western

world. The organoleptic quality is related to the sensory pleasure or displeasurethat the product procures when it is picked, purchased or eaten. Food also has asocial dimension; the way we select, cook or eat food enables us to positionourselves in terms of belonging to a group or in relation to a reference group.These are known as social qualities. A food should also be on the list of eatable

products as defined by the consumers cultural background. This will define thesymbolic quality of the product. Finally, some consumers today expect their foodto be grown using environmentally friendly practices (products from organicfarming or less intensive farming) or permitting the farmers to be paid a fair price(fair trade, for example). These new demands can be grouped together under the

7
http://-/?-http://-/?-


4/16



Figure 1: The different components of food quality - Les diffrentes facettes de laqualit dun aliment.

Cazes-Valettes, 2001.

those that consumers can identify and assess with their sensory capacities(taste, practicality of the product)those that the producer claims, but that consumers cannot checkthemselves (race, raised in the open air, organic, traditional, localproduce, animal welfare, traceable)

Judgment devices

humanistic quality of the food product.

These different dimensions can be grouped together into two main categories,those that relate to the generic quality of the products and those that are more

connected to their specific quality. The general consensus is that the evaluation ofthe generic quality of a food product is largely dependent on its healthiness andnutritional value. The main issue for the producer is to ensure this level of qualitysince the consumer considers it as essential5.

8

Sylvander, Porin et Mainsant (1998) draw a distinction between two types ofspecific properties:

9

Quality of food is an extremely rich concept and its multiple dimensions do notmake the comprehension of consumers choices easy. Indeed, different consumergroups will focus on different quality features. Today, several qualification deviceshave been set up by public authorities, industrialists and producers to help themto identify quality products.

10

A consumer seeking to assess the quality of a food product can first of all referto a series of indicators, such as: an official quality label, the brand or even theprice, or the store. The consumer can also choose not to reason in terms of aquality indicator and use people or organizations instead (advertiser, producer,sales assistant, close relations who know about the product, etc.) (Sirieix etMorrot, 2001). According to Karpik (1996), the exchange of goods or servicesrarely depends on only one qualification device: a network may double the

impersonal mechanisms.

11

We have drawn a clear distinction between two categories of judgment device.The impersonal devices: quality labels, brands, guide books, awards, diplomas andmedals - these have a marked impact on decreasing the difficulties consumershave to face when making a choice, although they do not solve the problemcompletely. Making a choice involves calling upon another set of criteria to assessthe offer: personal mechanisms. In this case, useful information will be actively

12
http://-/?-


5/16



Trust: credibility, integrity and benevolence

When the producer and the consumer meet, the quality of food products isconceptualized differently by the players.

sought from people who are close: friends, family, colleagues, acquaintances.Personal devices tend to be all the more important if there is no publicinformation system. In this case, individuals cannot identify the true properties ofthe product. The personal approach dissipates the consumers doubts and allowsplayers to become involved in the relationship with trust.

For Karpik (1996) trust is a practical operator that supports the delegationrelationship. Qualification devices systematically appear as trust devices.

13

Trust is a complex concept that has elicited the interest of many researchersover the past years, to the extent that it is now often considered as one of the key

variables in the success and stability of trading partnerships. However, twocomplementary approaches of trust seem to be recurrent : the first is related toknowledge based on facts acquired over a period of time and the second is theeffect of a mysterious force that compensates for the fact that knowledge is andalways will be limited: belief. Trust will take root in a composite system combining

knowledge and beliefs. In other words No trust without belief6

.

14

Hence, three major dimensions associated with trust can be distinguished:competence, honesty and altruism according to Hess (1995). Gurviez (1999) stillrefers to them as: credibility, integrity and benevolence.

15

The credibility that individuals grant their trading partners is based on thebelief that the latter has the know-how and the skills required to reach their goalsand carry out an assignment with efficiency and accountability (Ganesan, 1994;Guibert, 1999). This aspect of trust has a cognitive orientation in the sense that itis based on the reputation of a supplier, especially in terms of quality and price(positive word of mouth, advertising, etc.) and is reinforced when positivepurchasing and consumption occur (satisfaction, familiarity, etc.). This belief inthe partners capabilities is built upon the basis of proof that has been gathereddirectly or indirectly.

16

The partners integrity or honesty is mainly related to his goodwill to respect hiscommitment. Integrity is attributing loyal motivations to the partner asregards his commitment to fulfilling the pledge he has made to respect the terms

of trade7.

17

Benevolence is often qualified as the emotional component of trust in the sensethat it is based on a feeling or a vague impression founded on human emotionsrather than an evaluation based on different sets of information. For Mac Allister(1996), emotional trust is not related to an economic transaction alone; it also

reveals an emotional link between two people. For Coleman (1990), this form oftrust is based on the partners identity. It contributes to the development of afeeling of attachment, identification and ties between the partners (emotionalcommitment).

18

Our main concern and motivation here is to understand how trust devicesemerging from direct relationships between a producer and a consumercontribute to the conceptualization of quality food products. Is it possible to talkabout a new dimension of food quality, describing it as the quality of the product,in the same way as the seven previously mentioned facets: nutritional, hygienicquality, social, humanistic, symbolic, functional and organoleptic?

19

This research is mainly descriptive and as such is not based on constructingtestable hypotheses but on studying the relevance of three proposals:

20
http://-/?-


6/16



The effect of the relationship on perceived quality is based on theemergence of trust between the player.The effect of the relationship differs depending on the specific features ofthe product and the context.

Methodology of the study

direct sale of beef from the farm, in partnership with a farmers cooperativethat provides services (slaughterhouse and cutting up carcasses) to thefarmers who sell their products direct to the customer and also runs a homedelivery service to supply beef to private customers.direct sale of wine in partnership with a wine producers professionalorganization that covers the trade associations of the Anjou Saumur

watershed.promotional events organized by red-label poultry farmers in ahypermarket in cooperation with a farmers cooperative society thatsupervises one of the most prominent French quality labels.

The relational dimension of quality

To examine this subject we chose to observe three cases of food products thathave created a direct link between producers and consumers. Each case wasobserved through a partnership with a Pays de la Loire8company or institution:

21

Our investigation method was exclusively qualitative. Therefore, for each ofthese areas of study, we carried out a case study, some participative observationsand interviews with the involved parties.

22

During the first phase of the case studies we met the key people9in each of thepartner companies. This allowed us to improve our understanding of how thedirect relationship had emerged and to collect information concerning the

managements point of view on how the two parties had become involved inbuilding this relationship.

23

During the second stage we used participative observations of the differenttypes of relationships we had defined to improve our understanding of theunderlying logic on which they were based, from both the consumers andproducers standpoint. Three days were devoted to observations in each case studyto identify how the relationship operated, the people involved, the type ofexchange and the rules applied.

24

The third and final phase of investigation was based on semi-directedinterviews carried out from November 2003 to March 2004 with 50 producers

and 80 consumers. The 50 producers (27 wine growers, 16 poultry farmers and 7beef breeders) were interviewed on their farms. Each interview lasted one hour onaverage, was recorded, transcribed and subjected to a contents analysis. Thismethod left considerable freedom for the participants to express themselves andappeared to be the most suitable approach for understanding the meaning of theserelationships for consumers and producers. For the 49 consumers of beef and the9 wine consumers, the investigation conditions were similar. Because of thespecificity of the context (promotional events in a hypermarket) the interviews ofthe 22 red-label poultry consumers were shorter and more controlled. Indeed, it

was not possible to record their comments.

25

The description of the way the observed relationships had emerged, the current26
http://-/?-http://-/?-


7/16



Producer-consumer relationships: a variableintensity

The components of the relationship

The trading dimension

market situation and especially the features of the product in question, suggestthat a relationship between producer and consumer cannot be defined in only one

way. To better understand their plurality, we have chosen to describe them from adual standpoint taking into consideration their intensity, to be characterized usingobservable indicators, and their content that to be observed through participantsexperiences.

The intensity of the relationship expresses in a way the consistency, ordensity of the meeting. This is envisaged here through four indicators: thenumber of meetings, their frequency, the duration of the meeting and lastly

whether or not the involved parties talked to each other.

27

It is possible to position the producer-consumer relationships observed on ascale expressing the level of interactivity between them. The lowest intensitydescribes one brief meeting during which neither party spoke. This situation was

observed mostly at promotional events organized by the red-label poultry farmers.

28

The strongest intensity, on the other hand, describes many, regular meetings,giving rise to long discussions.

29

This first intensity factor suggests that relationships are highly variable,extending beyond the segmentation we made through the three case studies(farmer-to-consumer sale of beef, grower-to-consumer sale of wine andsupermarket promotional events organized by poultry farmers).

30

This very broad range leads us to wonder about the necessity of finding a moreprecise definition of the relationship concept. Should we define a minimuminteraction needed in order to understand its contribution to food quality?

Instead, we felt that it was important both to take into account the intensity of therelationship as an explanatory variable, considering that it may change in time,and to consider these relationships beyond their intensity level, analyzing all thecomponents of the relationship from the standpoint of the parties involved.

31

In order to describe the observed relationships, we chose to analyze the way theconsumers and producers define them. Five components seem to interact in theinterviews we conducted.

32

When a consumer acquires goods or services for a sum of money fixed by themarket, an instantaneous bilateral trading operation takes place and the terms ofthe operation are agreed beforehand, so we can consider that the relationship

between the players has a trading dimension. This dimension was expressed bythe consumers and producers we surveyed who mainly referred to the prioragreement of the terms of the exchange when they described the contents of therelationship; in their opinion, it is particularly advantageous in comparison toother types of trade. First of all, the price is attractive: It costs less than in asupermarket, the product has advantageous functional properties: In its

package its perfect. All you have to do is pop it in the freezer. For the producers,there are also economic advantages, as they make a better profit margin. We sellalmost twice or three times more expensive than we do to the trade. Through thetrading dimension, the interests of the parties, or at least the feeling that they aregaining something in this type of operation is the basis of the relationship.

33
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


8/16



The cognitive dimension

The emotional dimension

The humanistic dimension

The symbolic dimension

A direct producer-to-consumer relationship is also an opportunity to exchangeknowledge. For many consumers it is a way to learn more about products (breed,grape variety, etc.) or to learn about production methods (how the animals arefed, how they are reared, wine-making techniques, etc.): We get our informationconcerning the breed of animal, the type of meat directly from the farmer, its

interesting to know. This fulfils their need for reassurance; the producer seemsto be the most competent person to give this information. Simultaneously, for the

producers a direct relationship with the consumer is an opportunity todemonstrate the features of their products, to talk about their work, to explain

what they do and what their constraints are, and also glean interesting details onwhat the consumers think of their products. The cognitive dimension of therelationship can thus be illustrated as a reciprocal process of exchange ofinformation, knowledge and know-how.

34

Within the scope of the relationships we observed, the emotional dimension isinvolved at different points. In some cases it is anterior to the producer-consumerrelationship, the involved parties are already friends, relations or neighbors:

Were friends, so its easy, friendly, pleasant. In other cases, the emotionaldimension appears during the relationship, repeated meetings and transactionsare gradually replaced by emotions and shared feelings: Theyre not justcustomers. We have a more human relationship, a more friendly one. Withinthe scope of this emotional dimension, the commitment and the trust placed inthe producer are sometimes described as being the variables that participate instrengthening the consumers relationship. (Morgan et Hunt, 1994).

35

Although these three dimensions; the trading, cognitive and emotionaldimensions are used by both producers and consumers to describe the directrelationships in which they participate, there are two other dimensions that refermore specifically to the way the consumers envisage this relationship: thehumanistic dimension and the symbolic dimension.

36

Although what we describe as the humanistic dimension seems new it is notmarginal, but refers to the interdependence and solidarity mentioned by some ofthe consumers who feel that by trading directly with the farmers they aresupporting them: At the same time its a way of helping the farmers. Theseconsumers are really seeking to establish an alternative relationship between theproducer and consumer. They would like the producers to be paid a fair price fortheir products and make sure the profits are not shared between numerousanonymous intermediaries.

37

Finally, the last dimension used by the consumers in the construction of arelationship with the producer is the symbolic dimension. This dimension is moreor less sub-conscious and in the consumers mind it refers to the different ways in

which they imagine how the products are produced and transformed. In a contextof food crises, the producer who sells his goods himself is associated for manyconsumers with traditional farming methods: smallholdings, livestock raised inthe open air, hand-picked grapes, etc. [direct sales always suggests] Quality,small farming, small herds. In my mind that is what direct sales is about, its the

farmer selling direct to the consumer, it means small farming. If there is no

concrete information, the way the consumer imagines the producer or the directsales system will become part of the relationship.

38

These five dimensions: trading, cognitive, emotional, human and symbolic, arenot always used by the participants in the same way. Different types ofrelationships can be distinguished, each of which uses different combinations of

39
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


9/16



Five types of producer-consumer relationships

Figure 2: Five types of producer-consumer relationships (As experienced by theconsumer)

these dimensions. Although some consumers set up a relationship with theproducer based on an emotional and/or symbolic foundation, others prefer toadopt a trading approach.

Based on the interviews we recorded with consumers, we shall thereforedescribe the multiplicity of relationships observed, pooling the results of all threecase studies. We will also give details about the background to the observation ofeach type of relationship.

40

Taking into account the intensity and the dimensions of the relationshipexpressed by the consumers, five typical relationships emerge:

41

Relationship A is intense and characterized by many meetings, these also takeplace outside a trading environment. The producer is a friend, a member of thefamily or a neighbor and belongs to the network of people the producer knows:

its an opportunity to see people I like and that I hold in esteem. Here, thepreexisting emotional dimension takes over. This is the type of relationship weobserved mainly among consumers of beef and some of the consumers of wine

who buy their products directly from the farm.

42

Relationship B also features the consumers emotional involvement. They wantinformation about the product, but beyond that they are seeking to becomeacquainted with the producer and set up a link through more personal exchanges.The main value is above all meeting the person, having a chat, especially with

the wine-growers. At a pinch you could even say that it contributes to the quality

of the wine-tasting session afterwards. These meetings take place regularly, butnot necessarily frequently. They can last quite a long time because the consumer istaken round the farm, or has tasted the wine and sometimes they are just anopportunity for a discussion. In time, the producer becomes a person you like,

with whom you like to have a chat. The symbolic dimension also plays a part inthis type of relationship and is quite strongly involved in this desire for customerintimacy. This type of relationship was observed in all three cases studied (wine,

beef and red-label poultry).

43

Relationship C is very strongly influenced by the symbolic dimension. Theimage of the small farmer selling his own products, whose archetype is the wine-grower, is meaningful and represents values for the consumers. The small farmerand his smallholding are supposed to transfer the properties they represent to

their products; conviviality, trust, good living, intangible assets that aremore and more frequently connected to products and consumed with them.Identifying the producer and/or where he lives counts as much, if not more thanthe official guarantee provided by a quality label. The consumer rarely meets theproducer and sometimes only through an intermediary.

44
http://-/?-


10/16



Trusting relationships

For the consumer, it is the idea of this link with the producer that is moreimportant than the actual relationship itself, whether the link is a direct or not. Idont know whether the one who comes along is the farmer or not. He is one of

the farmers, that I do know. And there is a link. The symbolic dimension is alsomaintained by the producers who give out signals that signify that they areaccessible, can be contacted, are available and that the relationship can becomea personal and active one at any point in time. It is also in this type of relationshipthat the human dimension is most clearly expressed. This type of relationship was

also observed in all three case studies (wine, beef and red-label poultry).

45

Relationship D is characterized by a strong trading dimension rather than by itsintensity, which may vary. This type of relationship is principally constructedaround the consumers interests; and the latter has a very rational approach to therelationship he has with the producer, usually considering that the systemoperates well and is less costly. In his eyes he has no special relationship with theproducer; their relationship is envisaged as a commercial one between a supplierand a customer. You cant really say that there is any link. The cognitivedimension is also present insofar as the consumers appreciate having informationon the products, its features, its origin, the production methods. Here again, the

same type of relationship was observed in all of the three case studies.

46

Finally, in relationship E, the intensity of the relationship between the producerand the consumer is at its lowest level, the meeting between the two parties islimited to eye contact and no words are spoken. However, even in this type ofrelationship the consumers feel that it is possible to obtain information on theproduction methods and say that they feel reassured when the farmer is there. So,two dimensions seem to contribute to this singular type of relationship: 1) thecognitive dimension although it is not really implemented in a concrete way, it isperceived as being potentially active and 2) the symbolic dimension to theextent that the mere presence of the farmer is meaningful and represents a set of

values. The relationships observed during the promotional events organized insupermarkets and hypermarkets by red-label poultry farmers illustrate this type ofrelationship best.

47

Thus, from the consumers standpoint, five distinct types of relationship seemto emerge. Each of these features a varied degree of intensity and a differentcombination of the various dimensions that contribute to the relationship(trading, cognitive, emotional, human and symbolic). However, all have acommon component: trust.

48

All the consumers mention trust when they describe the relationship they havewith the producers. However, the consumers trust can be revealed through anumber of different entities: the product, the brand, the sales system, thesalesperson, the producer or even the organization and a number of components:

benevolence, credibility, integrity, accessibility, etc. According to these entities,trust will not be expressed in the same way and may be shown in a different form(Cf. Figure n3).

49
http://-/?-


11/16



Figure 3: Components of trust associated to the different relationships - Les formesde confiance associes la relation

In relationship A, trust is mainly interpersonal because it is based on thepartners identity. Thus, it is benevolence, through friendship between parties

which constitutes trust: Hes a friend. We trust him. Its important. It isprincipally because these people know the producer that they buy his products.

50

The credibility given to a partner, based on the collection of direct or indirectproof, is not often seen here. The consumers do not seem to seek any, or at anyrate, very little specific information on the products. This suggests that a part ofthe knowledge acquired is given directly during informal discussions betweenfriends, outside the buying and selling periods: We know them very well. Wehave already had opportunities to talk about all that in the past.

51

In relationship B, the consumers trust is expressed mainly with regard to theproducer. Although it is mainly based on the producers perceived benevolence,the know-how and the commitment of the latter are also important components.The trust observed here is therefore more complex because it is made up of severalcomponents.

52

The consumers feel that the producers identity is very important but, contrary

to the previous relationship here the producer does not appear as a friend butmore as a familiar person, someone pleasant and nice that the consumer hasgrown to know through his experiences of purchasing. We know them all and Ithink that counts. There is a certain trust however. The producers perceived

benevolence can also be explained by the fact that he asks the consumer whetherthe product has met his expectations: I go around the farms, Im in contact withthese people all the time. I see Laurent and he asks me What did you think of

it?. Benevolence becomes even stronger when the producer pays specialattention to his customers.

53

Beyond the trust that is based on the producers identity, the consumers trust

can also be expressed by the fact that he thinks the producer has a specialcompetence or know-how. This kind of trust is based on the credibility of theproducer. My trust is based on the fact that I think they are people who do their

job particularly well. It can also be measured by the fact that the consumers feelthat the producers reputation is important: If Id purchased it in the

54


12/16

25/9/2014 The role of trust in the perception of the quality of local food products: with particular reference to direct relat ionships between producer and


Conclusion: the producer-to-consumer relationship as a judgment

supermarket I wouldnt have trusted it. But here, they have a good reputation.

This perceived integrity and honesty of the producer is an additional factor:

My trust is based on the fact that I believe the farmers are involved () andhonestly; we feel that if they offer us their products its above all to satisfy thecustomer.

55

In relationship C, trust is based on a system of beliefs rather than on what theconsumer really knows. Here again benevolence is predominant, but it isexpressed through the person who sells. In this case, it is not the producer: I trust

the system and the way its organized. Most of the people in this group were theconsumers whose goods were delivered to the doorstep.

56

Beyond the relationship component, the credibility with which people and morebroadly the sales system are credited also reinforces the consumers trust: I trustthem. I trust them more than the supermarket because I know where it comes

from.

57

We can also see that the consumers feel that the producers commitment isimportant, although they are not in direct contact. Because he fulfils his promise,the producers commitment is perceived by the consumers as a strong sign of theirpartners integrity. Because the producer puts his name on his products, because

he takes the orders himself or through an intermediary or representative anddelivers the goods to the consumers doorstep, he is honest and the system can betrusted: We know who sold it to us, so if it isnt good hes trapped, hell be heldresponsible.

58

This commitment also allows the consumer to benefit from several means ofgetting into contact with the producer. Even if the interactions between theproducer and consumer are quite weak in this type of relationship, the directrelationship seems to be potentially active and that is especially important. Theaccessibility of the producer reinforces the consumers trust in him and in thissense can be seen as one of the main components of trust, different from

benevolence, credibility and integrity.

59

In relationship D, the consumers trust is not expressed with regard to theproducer, but is based more on the credibility of the sales system or the product.Here consumers prefer the direct sales system because it is less risky: I think that

I dont need to worry about quality, hygiene and so on. It is cheaper and morepractical: It is true that when you work its practical, I know Ive got a piece ofmeat in the freezer.

60

Lastly, in relationship E, the producers integrity and accessibility are the maincomponents of trust. The consumers feel that, because he dares to show himself,to come and see them, above all in an environment like a supermarket which isnot familiar to him, the producer has respected his commitment, that is to say:

produced a quality product. By being there and spending time with theconsumers, in addition to doing his job as a farmer, he shows his integrity. He isnot a sales rep like the others, he is first and foremost a farmer and that is whatsreassuring.

61

Also, even if the consumers dont often take advantage of his presence to getinformation, they know that they can do so if needed, either to get some ratherspecific information or advice, or even to say that they are not satisfied. Hereagain, the accessibility of the producer reinforces the consumers trust in him.Even if the interaction is weak, each party knows that the relationship is easilyactivated if necessary.

62
http://-/?-http://-/?-


13/16



device

Bibliographie

Des DOI (Digital Object Identifier) sont automatiquement ajouts aux rfrences par Bilbo,l'outil d'annotation bibliographique d'OpenEdition.Les utilisateurs des institutions abonnes l'un des programmes freemium d'OpenEditionpeuvent tlcharger les rfrences bibliographiques pour lesquelles Bilbo a trouv un DOI.Format

APAMLAChicagoLe service d'export bibliographique est disponible pour les institutions qui ont souscrit undes programmes freemium d'OpenEdition.Si vous souhaitez que votre institution souscrive l'un des programmes freemium

As Karpik already suggests (in Mangematin and Thuderoz, 2003), this studyconfirms the interest in considering trust as a concept which takes root in acomposite system combining knowledge and beliefs. The different forms of trust

we observed in producer-to-consumer relationships show us that knowledge ofthe products, acquaintance with the producers and belief contribute to trust. For

some of the consumers (relation type A, B or C), this emotional attachment withthe producer reduces the part of uncertainty towards the choice of foodstuffs. Forother consumers (relations D and E) who did not know either the products, theproduction place or the producer himself, the belief granted to the system, basedon their own representations and values, is the most important in the constructionof trust.

63

Moreover, beyond the three dimensions of trust: credibility, integrity andbenevolence, traditionally distinguished in a lot of studies (as Hess, 1995; Ganesanet Hess, 1997; Sirieix et Dubois, 1999; Gurviez, 1999), this research shows that thepossibility for a consumer to contact the producer -what we call producersaccessibility- is also very important in the emergence of trust. If the concept of

trust has received a great deal of attention during the past few years, trust ofaccessibility is not very developed in the literature. We therefore think that manycontributions could be made, especially in areas like this one, which is today lessstudied.

64

The second major contribution of this study will concern the influence of directrelationships on perceived quality. The direct producer-to-consumer relationshipcan be viewed as a judgment device of food quality, sometimes based onimpersonal trust and other times based on personal trust. Although perceivedquality is traditionally based on the evaluation of nutritional, hygienic,organoleptic, social, symbolic, functional and humanistic dimensions, this study

shows two kinds of qualification process:

65

On the one hand direct relationships modify the perception of the genericquality as much as the specific quality of food products (sensory, symbolic,humanistic qualities, etc.): It tastes really different, its clear, its not the same atall; In beef, we found a taste that we had lost; The taste is stronger, it makes

things different.

66

On the other hand that direct relationships appears (when the emotionalcomponents of the relationship is very strong) as a new dimension of food quality.Indeed, some consumers buy those products only because they have an emotionalrelationship with the producer (he is a friend, a member of the family): We buy

our meat there because the farmers are members of our family.

67

Therefore, might we suggest that, for some consumers, or some of theirpurchases, an exchange of a more social than commercial nature is desired?

68
http://-/?-http://-/?-


14/16



d'OpenEdition et bnficie de ses services, crivez : [email protected].

Format

APAMLAChicagoLe service d'export bibliographique est disponible pour les institutions qui ont souscrit undes programmes freemium d'OpenEdition.Si vous souhaitez que votre institution souscrive l'un des programmes freemiumd'OpenEdition et bnficie de ses services, crivez : [email protected].

FormatAPAMLAChicagoLe service d'export bibliographique est disponible pour les institutions qui ont souscrit undes programmes freemium d'OpenEdition.Si vous souhaitez que votre institution souscrive l'un des programmes freemiumd'OpenEdition et bnficie de ses services, crivez : [email protected].


Format

AFNOR (Association Franaise de NORmalisation), 1982, Grer et assurer la qualit :recueil de normes franaises.

BECKERT J., 2000, Economic action and embeddedness: the problem of the structure ofaction, Workshop on New Economic Sociology in Europe, Stockholm, June 2nd.

CAZES-VALETTE G., 2001, Le comportement du consommateur dcod parlanthropologie. Le cas des crises de la vache folle, Revue Franaise de Marketing,183/184, 99-113.

COLEMAN J. S., 1990, Foundations of Social Theory, Press of Harvard University,Cambridge, 993.DOI : 10.1007/BF00997791

DUBUISSON-QUELLIER S., 2002, Qualits de produits et figures du consommateur,Manires de produire et de vendre en conchyliculture, Sciences de la Socit, 56, mai, 79-97.

GANESAN S., 1994, Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-SellerRelationships,Journal of Marketing, 58, avril, 1-19.DOI : 10.2307/1252265

GANESAN S. et HESS R., 1997, Dimensions and Levels of Trust: Implications for

Commitment to a Relationship,Marketing Letters, 8, 4, 439-448.GRANOVETTER M., 1985, Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem ofembeddedness.American Journal of Sociology, 91, 3, 481-510.

GUIBERT N., 1999, La confiance en marketing : fondements et applications,Recherches

et Applications en Marketing, 14, 1, 1-19.DOI : 10.1177/076737019901400101

GURVIEZ P., 1999, Le rle de la confiance dans la perception des risques alimentaires parles consommateurs,Revue Franaise de Marketing, 183/184, 87-98.

HESS J., 1995, Construction and assessment of a scale to measure consumer trust,American Marketing Association, summer, 20-26

KARPIK L., 1996, Dispositifs de confiance et engagements crdibles, Sociologie dutravail, 4, 527-550.

LE VELLY R., 2002, Embeddedness, a sociological theory of market transactions,Sociologie du travail, 44, 37-53.

MAC ALLISTER D.J., 1996, Affect and Cognition Based Trust As Foundations In

Interpersonal Cooperation In Organizations,Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1, 24-59.

MANGEMATIN V., THUDEROZ C., 2003, La confiance en questions, les mondes deconfiance, CNRS Editions, Paris, 295.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/076737019901400101http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252265http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00997791mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


15/16



APAMLAChicagoLe service d'export bibliographique est disponible pour les institutions qui ont souscrit undes programmes freemium d'OpenEdition.Si vous souhaitez que votre institution souscrive l'un des programmes freemiumd'OpenEdition et bnficie de ses services, crivez : [email protected].


Notes

1DubuissonQuellier, 20022Community Supported Agriculture3Pradelle, 19964See for example Granovetter 1985; De la Pradelle, 1996; Steiner, 1999; Beckert, 2000; Le

Velly, 20025Sylvander, 20026Simmel, 19877Gurviez, 19998Area located in the West of France9People involved in the process of building direct relationships, present in the structure

when those relationships emerged (managing directors, elected officials, board members,heads of communication and marketing departments)

Table des illustrations

URL https://reader010.{domain}/reader010/html5/0611/5b1e388d40113/5b1e3896ae268.png

Fichier image/png, 16k

URL https://reader010.{domain}/reader010/html5/0611/5b1e388d40113/5b1e3897c98ad.png


URL https://reader010.{domain}/reader010/html5/0611/5b1e388d40113/5b1e3898befe6.png


MORGAN R.M. et HUNT S.D., 1994, The Commitment-Trust Theory of RelationshipMarketing,Journal of Marketing, 58, juillet, 20-38.DOI : 10.2307/1252308

PRADELLE M. (De La), 1996,Les Vendredis de Carpentras, faire son march en Provenceou ailleurs, Fayard, Paris, 374.

SIMMEL G., 1987,Philosophie de largent, Paris, PUF (dition originale 1900)

SIRIEIX S. et DUBOIS P-L., 1999, Vers un modle qualit-satisfaction intgrant la

confiance,Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 14, 3, 1-22.DOI : 10.1177/076737019901400301

SIRIEIX S. et MORROT G., 2001, Orientations de la confiance et comportement dachat :le cas de lachat de vin, Actes du Congrs de lAssociation Franaise de Marketing,Deauville, 17.

STEINER P., 1999,La sociologie conomique, Coll. Repres, Ed La dcouverte, 122.

SYLVANDER B., PORIN F., MAINSANT P., 1998, Les facteurs de succs dans lagroalimentaire, VII journes des Sciences du muscle et technologies de la viande, Rodez, 14.

SYLVANDER B., 2002, Avis sur la notion de qualit. Rapport du groupe de travailconstitu par le Conseil National de lAlimentation, 47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/076737019901400301http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252308http://aof.revues.org/docannexe/image/204/img-3.pnghttp://aof.revues.org/docannexe/image/204/img-2.pnghttp://aof.revues.org/docannexe/image/204/img-1.pngmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


16/16


Pour citer cet article

Rfrence lectronique

Anne-Hlne Prigent-Simonin et Catherine Hrault-Fournier, The role of trust in theperception of the quality of local food products: with particular reference to directrelationships between producer and consumer ,Anthropology of food[En ligne], 4 | May2005, mis en ligne le 01 mai 2005, consult le 25 septembre 2014. URL :http://aof.revues.org/204

Auteurs

Anne-Hlne Prigent-Simonin

Ecole Suprieure dAgriculture dAngers, Laboratoire de Sciences Socialesah[point]prigent(at)groupe-esa[point]com

Catherine Hrault-Fournier

Ecole Suprieure dAgriculture dAngers, Laboratoire de Sciences Socialesc[point]herault(at)groupe-esa[point]com

Droits dauteur

All rights reserved
http://aof.revues.org/6233http://aof.revues.org/6232

the role of trust in the perception of the quality of local food products_ with particular reference...

Documents