Abstract
Cultured meat, i.e. meat produced in-vitro through the cultivation of animal stem cells, is a radical innovation that prepares to enter the market in the near future. It has the potential to substantially reduce the negative externalities of today’s meat production and consumption and pave the way for a more sustainable global food system. However, this potential can only be realized if cultured meat penetrates the mass-market, which renders consumer acceptance a critical bottleneck. Using structural equation modeling, the present paper investigates the role of hitherto neglected organizational factors (trustworthiness, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and extrinsic motives) as antecedents of consumer acceptance of cultured meat. To this end, a pre-post intervention design in terms of a two-part online questionnaire was used with the final sample consisting of 966 participants. We found that in addition to established antecedents on the product level, organizational trustworthiness and CSR have a significant influence on consumers’ willingness to buy cultured meat. The findings indicate that organizational factors matter for consumer acceptance of cultured meat.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Today’s global food system leaves an enormous environmental footprint. A recent study in Nature Foods concludes that the global food system accounts for 35% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, with animal-based products being responsible for 57% of these outcomes (Xu et al. 2021). Given that a large portion of these emissions is generated by meat production (Poore and Nemecek 2018) and since the global demand for meat will continue to grow (Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012), the negative external effects of the global food system are likely to magnify in the future.
A new direction to reduce the environmental footprint of the global food system is provided by cultured meat. Simply put, cultured meat is manufactured in-vitro, i.e. outside of a living animal through the use of animal stem cells and tissue-engineering techniques (Post 2012, 2014; Rischer et al. 2020). Notably, cultured meat has the potential to become a (nearly) perfect substitute for conventional meat (Datar et al. 2016; Treich 2021) as it goes along with the promise to have the same taste, appearance, and nutritional value as conventional meat (Djisalov et al. 2021; Post 2014). Moreover, it is anticipated that cultured meat products will be price-competitive with their conventional counterparts in the long run (Bryant 2020). However, as the in-vitro technology is still in an early phase of development, various technical and regulatory challenges need to be overcome for the large-scale production of cultured meat (Chen et al. 2022; Choudhury et al. 2020; Humbird 2021; Stephens et al. 2018). Accordingly, cultured meat has yet to prove in practice that it can replace conventionally produced meat.
Producing meat outside a living organism is a radical innovation that has the potential to promote sustainable development. A recent life-cycle assessment of cultured meat suggests that it will become the most environmentally friendly meat product if sustainable energy is used for its production (Sinke and Odegard 2021). Accordingly, a widespread integration of cultured meat into human diets can improve the sustainability performance of the global food system (Jairath et al. 2021). Under the assumption that cultured meat is real meat with (nearly) the same properties as conventional meat, its major advantage is the facilitation of a sustainable consumption “without sacrifice”. The possibility to consume sustainably without the need to give up on certain product features, such as taste and price, is a critical precondition for the promotion of more sustainable consumption habits (Luchs et al. 2012). However, widespread consumer acceptance of cultured meat cannot be taken for granted as consumers tend to reject innovations that radically break with familiar logics and habits (Heidenreich and Kraemer 2015; Heiskanen et al. 2007). This particularly applies to radical innovations in the food sector since the ingestion of new and unknown foods is potentially a direct danger to human health, leading consumers to be especially skeptical toward new foods (Pliner et al. 1993; Pliner and Salvy 2006).
Drawing on the example of a potential seller of cultured meat—a restaurant planning to serve cultured meat burgers—the present study aims to contribute to a better understanding of the factors that influence consumer acceptance of this food innovation. While consumer acceptance of cultured meat has begun to receive growing attention in academia in recent years (for an overview see Bryant and Barnett 2018, 2020; Pakseresht et al. 2022), existing studies on this topic are dominated by a product focus, i.e. consumer perceptions of product characteristics, such as taste (Rolland et al. 2020), naturalness (Wilks et al. 2021), nutritiousness (Gómez-Luciano et al. 2019), food safety (Bryant et al. 2020), and environmental performance (Palmieri et al. 2020), as well as a focus on consumers’ individual characteristics, such as demographics (Mancini and Antonioli 2019), frequency of meat consumption (Franceković et al. 2021), and attitudes toward new foods (Siegrist and Hartmann 2020). In contrast, the role of organizational factors, i.e. perceptions, evaluations, and cognitions about organizational attributes and actions (Brown and Dacin 1997), has been widely neglected thus far (for an exception, see Lin-Hi et al. 2022).
The present study is devoted to organizational factors in terms of organizational trustworthiness, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and the attribution of extrinsic motives as potential antecedents of consumer acceptance of cultured meat. We created a website of a fictitious restaurant that will offer cultured meat burgers and asked participants to evaluate its trustworthiness, corporate social responsibility, and the attributions of extrinsic motives. By investigating organizational trustworthiness and CSR, the study focuses on organizational factors that have been identified in the sustainability management literature as levers that enable companies to contribute to sustainable development (Gimenez and Tachizawa 2012; Hoejmose et al. 2012; Huq et al. 2014). For example, Meqdadi et al.’s (2017) findings suggest that trust plays an important role in spreading sustainability initiatives across supplier networks and the study by Orazalin (2020) indicates that companies with effective CSR strategies exhibit better environmental and social performance. Trust and CSR have also been demonstrated to be related to consumer acceptance of sustainable products. For instance, Konuk (2019) has found that trust in fair trade food labels has a positive effect on consumers’ willingness to buy these products and Nosi et al. (2020) have shown that there is a positive relationship between CSR image and consumer attitudes toward organic quinoa. Finally, the study integrates attributions of organizational motives. Given that cultured meat completely breaks with the traditional idea of meat production and is therefore perceived as unexpected and surprising (Van der Weele and Driessen 2019; Van der Weele and Tramper 2014), consumers are likely to engage in attributional reasoning and try to understand an organization’s motivation to sell cultured meat. Literature shows that stakeholders tend to be skeptical toward responsible organizational behaviors when they suspect extrinsic motives behind them, as demonstrated by studies on the introduction of an environmental innovation (Jahn et al. 2020) and on a corporate-initiated partnership with consumers to protect the environment (Romani et al. 2016).
Altogether, the present analysis of organizational factors builds on existing relationships in the sustainability management literature and asks the question of whether these factors also play a role in consumer acceptance of cultured meat. It can be argued that organizational factors are particularly relevant for consumer acceptance of cultured meat given its status as a radical innovation. From the perspective of individuals, a core characteristic of radical innovations is a high level of uncertainty regarding the consequences of their use, for example, in terms of the lack of reliable knowledge about the potentially functional and social disadvantages (Kleijnen et al. 2009; Ram and Sheth 1989; Rotolo et al. 2015).Footnote 1 In order to reduce uncertainty in purchasing decisions, consumers often rely on organizational factors (Brown 1998; Brown and Dacin 1997). Generally speaking, “what consumers know about a company can influence their reactions to the company’s products” (Brown and Dacin 1997, p. 79). In a nutshell: Organizational factors allow consumers to make inferences about unobservable product characteristics (Brown and Dacin 1997; Grabner-Kräuter 2002).
By investigating organizational trustworthiness, CSR, and the willingness to buy cultured meat, this study merges several topics that have been examined in the Journal of Business Economics: Sustainable consumption (Falke et al. 2022; Hankammer et al. 2021), consumer acceptance (Geiger et al. 2017; Kohl et al. 2018), diffusion of innovations (Schlichte et al. 2019; Stummer et al. 2021), and CSR (Graf and Wirl 2014; Neitzert and Petras 2022).
The remainder of the article is structured as follows: The next section outlines our research hypotheses, whereby in the first step, we focus on the antecedents on the product level in terms of product characteristics and emotional benefits, i.e. psychological advantages that consumers perceive from consumption. In the second step, we examine the role of the three organizational-level factors (trustworthiness, CSR, and extrinsic motives) in stimulating consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Section 3 provides the details on the design of the empirical study and in Sect. 4, we present the data analysis and results. The findings are discussed in Sect. 5. Section 6 describes the limitations of the study and Sect. 7 concludes the paper.
2 Hypotheses development
The market success of (new) products is closely related to the added value they provide to customers vis-à-vis incumbent products. In a nutshell: The higher the added value, the better consumers’ purchase-related attitudes. Customer value thereby derives from various sources and in the first place, from specific product characteristics, such as quality, user-friendliness, design, and added services (Gale 1994; Woodall 2003). Notably, customer value is a perceptual construct, which means that it is not solely derived from objective factors but is based on individuals’ subjective interpretations thereof (Woodruff 1997). Subjective assessments of product value are especially salient in the context of radical innovations since consumers’ knowledge about and experience with radical innovations is naturally limited.
In relation to food products, visual appearance, taste, texture, nutritional value, and food safety are among the most important product characteristics to generate customer value (Deliza et al. 2003; Shepherd 1990). Given that the first sensory contact with food is usually through the eyes (Wadhera and Capaldi-Phillips 2014), visual appearance of food plays a critical role in consumers’ decision making. Put simply, food that looks unappetizing puts consumers off, whereas food that looks appetizing “makes the mouth water”. In addition to visual impression, taste is a central factor in consumers’ food choice (Clark 1998; Liem and Russell 2019). The more preferred taste and the associated pleasure a product promises, the higher the chances for consumer acceptance. Even though the perception of this property seems to occur at a subconscious level, another significant factor involved in determining how people feel about food is its texture (Szczesniak and Kahn 1971). The optimum for each texture characteristic varies by food type (Jeltema et al. 2015), and it is especially appreciated when the texture is typical of the specific food, such as the juiciness of meat or fruit (Szczesniak and Kahn 1971). Since food consumption not only allows individuals to satisfy specific cravings, but also provides them with nutrients, nutritional value is another central product characteristic (Drichoutis et al. 2008; Kiesel et al. 2011). A good nutritional value allows consumers to comply with dietary guidelines and maintain a balanced diet. Finally, food safety is a fundamental aspect in food choice as food is directly absorbed into the body and thus, goes along with potentially harmful consequences for human health (Yeung and Morris 2001). In regard to new and unknown foods, food safety is particularly salient from consumers’ perspective due to the especially high (perceived) risk of getting sick or poisoned (Rozin 1976).
All of these product characteristics have already been found to affect the acceptance of cultured meat. For example, Tucker (2014) has shown that almost all study participants rejected cultured meat based on their sensory perceptions and that sensory appeal, such as appearance and texture, is crucial to consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Weinrich et al. (2020) have extended the findings on sensory expectations and found that consumers’ perceptions of bad taste of cultured meat negatively affected their intentions to try and consume the product. Moreover, Gómez-Luciano et al. (2019) have demonstrated that besides taste, the nutritional value of cultured meat is one of the most influential factors in consumer acceptance. In addition, the study by De Oliveira et al. (2021) has found that the most important attributes affecting consumer acceptance of cultured meat are safety and health aspects, such as the expected risk of zoonotic diseases and the expected food safety conditions. Accordingly, and in line with existing research, we put forth the following hypothesis:
H1: Positive perceptions of product characteristics (visual appearance, taste, texture, nutritional value, health and safety) have a positive impact on the acceptance of cultured meat.
Another source of customer added value on the product level are emotional benefits (Hartmann and Apaolaza Ibáñez 2006; Havlena and Holbrook 1986). Emotional benefits complement functional benefits and allow consumers to satisfy different psychological needs. Important emotional benefits of consuming a product include self-gratification (Kahneman and Knetsch 1992), social status enhancement (Griskevicius et al. 2010), and pride (Chang 2011). Notably, such emotional benefits differ from the previously described perceptions of product characteristics as they are embedded in consumers’ social contexts and are relevant for their social relationships.
Research demonstrates that emotional benefits are an important driver of sustainable consumption (Hartmann and Apaolaza Ibáñez 2006; Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibáñez 2012). This is because sustainable products often go along with (perceptions of) disadvantages relative to conventional products, especially in regard to functional value attributes, such as price and (perceived) quality (Chang 2011; De Pelsmacker and Janssens 2007; Luchs et al. 2010). The realization of emotional benefits can compensate for the (perceived) loss in functional value and hence, promote the acceptance of a product with sustainability attributes. In the food sector, emotional benefits have been found to play an important role in the choice of sustainable products. For example, Apaolaza et al. (2018) have shown that the consumption of organic products is associated with increased emotional well-being, and Iweala et al. (2019) have demonstrated that choosing fair trade products evokes the feeling of warm glow. Since cultured meat has the power to become not only the most environmentally friendly meat product (Sinke and Odegard 2021) but also offers the potential to stop animal suffering (Hopkins and Dacey 2008), its consumption represents a form of prosocial behavior which, in turn, should provide consumers with emotional benefits and increase the perceived value of cultured meat. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
H2: Perceived emotional benefits have a positive effect on the acceptance of cultured meat.
In light of consumers’ lack of knowledge about and experiences with radical innovations, radical innovations distinguish themselves through a high degree of uncertainty (O’Connor and Rice 2013; Rotolo et al. 2015). In this sense, radical innovations can be classified as credence goods whose market success hinges upon the question in how far consumers’ subjective feelings of uncertainty can be reduced. Since the possibilities to reduce uncertainty on the product level are naturally limited for radical innovations not yet available on the market, consumers search for information beyond the product itself (Grabner-Kräuter 2002; Maignan and Ferrell 2001). This means that secondary associations, i.e. associations not directly linked to the product, become relevant for purchasing decisions, including perceptions related to the organization (Keller 1993). Organizational factors offer a context for the evaluation of products and constitute a “basis for inferences about missing product attributes” (Brown and Dacin 1997, p. 80).
In this respect, organizational trustworthiness has been identified as a crucial factor for uncertainty reduction in previous research (Dirks and Ferrin 2001; Hart and Saunders 1997; Kramer 1999; Morgan and Hunt 1994). Especially for purchasing decisions, where information deficiencies are omnipresent, trust can complement or even replace the search for product-related information (Grabner-Kräuter 2002). Because perceived organizational trustworthiness signals a producer’s or seller’s benevolence, integrity, and competence (Mayer et al. 1995), it constitutes an important factor in the formation of product evaluations, especially when product performance is perceived as ambiguous (Gürhan-Canli and Batra 2004). Therefore, the uncertainty-reducing function of organizational trustworthiness can also promote the acceptance of radical innovations in the food sector (Siegrist et al. 2007). Hence, we formulate the following hypothesis:
H3: Organizational trustworthiness has a positive effect on the acceptance of cultured meat.
There is a broad academic debate on the question of how organizations can enhance their trustworthiness in the eyes of their stakeholders (e.g., Ben-Ner and Halldorsson 2010; Pirson and Malhotra 2011; Sirdeshmukh et al. 2002). Among the different factors that have been identified in this regard, CSR has been found to be a powerful means for trust building (Lin-Hi et al. 2015; Pivato et al. 2008; Swaen and Chumpitaz 2008). This is because CSR signals that an organization is concerned about the well-being of stakeholders and society as a whole (Bhattacharya et al. 2009; Siegel and Vitaliano 2007) and therewith reduces stakeholders’ perceived risk to be exploited in an exchange relationship (Lin-Hi et al. 2015). The positive link between CSR and trust from consumers’ perspective has been demonstrated by several empirical investigations (Lin et al. 2011; Pivato et al. 2008; Stanaland et al. 2011; Swaen and Chumpitaz 2008), leading Pivato et al. (2008, p. 3) to postulate that “the first result of a firm’s CSR activities is stakeholder trust.”
In addition, CSR positively influences consumers’ product evaluations and, for example, leads to enhanced perceptions of product value (Grabner-Kräuter et al. 2018; Mohr and Webb 2005) and higher levels of perceived product reliability and quality (Chernev and Blair 2015; Maignan and Ferrell 2001; McWilliams and Siegel 2001). Hence, CSR can function as a signal for unobservable product characteristics (Calveras and Ganuza 2018; Siegel and Vitaliano 2007; Swaen and Chumpitaz 2008) which, in turn, reduces perceived uncertainties and positively affects consumers’ purchase intentions (Grabner-Kräuter et al. 2018). Accordingly, it can be expected that CSR has a positive influence on consumer acceptance of radical innovations such as cultured meat, for which secondary associations are particularly important given the inability of consumers to fully judge their primary attributes. The link between CSR and the intention to buy or use an innovative product has received support from empirical investigations of genetically modified foods (Pino et al. 2016). Moreover, it has been shown that negative information about a cultured meat producer regarding its CSR performance has a negative effect on consumer acceptance of cultured meat (Rabl and Basso 2021). Therefore, we posit the following hypotheses:
H4i: CSR has a positive effect on organizational trustworthiness.
H4ii: CSR has a positive effect on the acceptance of cultured meat.
Based on the notion that “people care less about what others do than about why they do it” (Gilbert and Malone 1995, p. 21), research in the trust domain indicates that the attribution of motives to organizational actions affects organizational trustworthiness (McAllister 1995; Rempel et al. 1985). A categorization of organizational motives is provided by the differentiation between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motives refer to an organization’s motivation to contribute to the well-being of society, whereas extrinsic motives are self-interest-driven and include, for example, financial incentives and strategic considerations (Du et al. 2007; Jahn et al. 2020). Typically, it is argued that organizational behaviors motivated by extrinsic rationales are, by tendency, perceived as unethical and are therefore often not accepted by consumers (Becker-Olsen et al. 2006; Vlachos et al. 2009). This is because extrinsic attributions convey the impression that an organization lacks moral traits such as benevolence and integrity. Since these traits belong to the fundamental antecedents of trustworthiness (Mayer et al. 1995), their attribution to an organization diminishes its perceived trustworthiness. Indeed, the negative relationship between the attribution of extrinsic motives and organizational trustworthiness has received empirical support in previous studies (Terwel et al. 2009; Vlachos et al. 2009).
Likewise, research suggests that the attribution of motives to organizational activities affects consumers’ acceptance of their products. For example, studies have shown that the attribution of extrinsic motives to advertising activities, sponsorships, environmental innovations, and cause-related marketing activities affects outcomes such as brand attitudes, attitudes toward the company, organizational credibility, brand loyalty, and product evaluation (Jahn et al. 2020; Kim et al. 2020; Moosmayer and Fuljahn 2013; Woisetschläger et al. 2017), all of which are important promoters of consumers’ willingness to buy a product (Aaker 1991). Furthermore, studies in the context of CSR have established a direct relationship between the attribution of extrinsic motives and purchase intentions (Becker-Olsen et al. 2006; Ellen et al. 2006). Accordingly, we expect that the attribution of extrinsic motives for doing business in the cultured meat sector should decrease consumer acceptance of cultured meat and postulate the following hypotheses:
H5i: The attribution of extrinsic motives has a negative effect on organizational trustworthiness.
H5ii: The attribution of extrinsic motives has a negative effect on the acceptance of cultured meat.
3 Study design
3.1 Procedure
We deployed a pre-post intervention design in terms of a two-part online questionnaire. After participants completed the first part of the questionnaire, they were directed to a website that served as an intervention, whereupon the second part of the questionnaire followed. The pre-post design was chosen because it allowed us to observe the difference in consumer acceptance before and after the intervention, accounting for additional effects due to the presentation of organizational information. This approach has been applied in other empirical studies to investigate the impact of new variables (e.g., Braddy et al. 2008; Hornsey et al. 2021; Mariconda and Lurati 2015).
In the first part of the questionnaire, after giving informed consent, participants were provided with textual information and illustrations to ensure they had basic knowledge about cultured meat and knew the products that could be made from it (e.g., meatballs, sausages, and burgers). Subsequently, participants answered several questions about their general willingness to buy a cultured meat burger in an undefined restaurant, the burger’s perceived characteristics, and the emotional benefits of consuming it.
The second part of the survey involved an intervention with a subsequent questionnaire. For the intervention, participants were directed to a website of a fictitious burger restaurant planning to offer cultured meat burgers in the future (“Alice in Burgerland”, see Appendix 1). The website contained the restaurant’s menu, including current pricing for burgers, sides, and drinks, as well as the information that burgers with cultured meat would soon be offered at the same price as conventional burgers. In addition, the website informed participants about organizational figures (e.g., number of employees), the restaurant’s competencies (e.g., experiences in the industry), and its social engagement (e.g., planting trees). To ensure that participants spent sufficient time on the website to read all the relevant information, a minimum of 120 s had to pass—a value based on a pilot test – before the “Continue” button appeared and participants could proceed with the survey.
After viewing the website, participants were directed back to the survey to answer the second part of the questionnaire. Again, participants were asked about their willingness to buy a cultured meat burger, but this time under the condition that it was offered by “Alice in Burgerland”. In addition, participants were asked to evaluate “Alice in Burgerland” in terms of its trustworthiness, CSR performance, and the attribution of extrinsic motives for doing business in the cultured meat sector. Finally, an attention check took place, followed up by questions on demographic information.
3.2 Data collection and sampling
Data collection took place over a period of seven days in August 2021 with a sample from Germany recruited through a market research institute. Participants received a monetary compensation for completing the questionnaire fully and conscientiously. The survey was designed following the recommendations of Podsakoff et al. (2003) to account for common method bias, for instance, by ensuring that participants were guaranteed the anonymity of their responses.
In total, 1065 participants filled out the questionnaire. Several steps of data cleaning took place. First, all participants who failed to pass the attention check and/or interrupted the questionnaire temporarily were excluded from the dataset. Second, responses with more than 30% missing data as well as those with systematic response patterns were excluded. Third, a speeding check was conducted by sorting out those participants who took less than one third of the median time to fill out the questionnaire.
The final sample consisted of 966 participants of which 473 were male, 492 female, and one identified as diverse. The mean age was M = 45.46 (SD = 14.3). Marginal quotas for age and gender were chosen. The gender distribution as well as the average age of the final sample thus roughly corresponded to the distribution of the population in Germany, which consists of 49.3% men and 50.7% women (Statistisches Bundesamt 2019) and has an average age of 44.6 years (Statistisches Bundesamt 2021). In terms of education, there was a certain tendency toward higher education compared to the German population (Statistisches Bundesamt 2019). More specifically, 24.84% of the participants stated that they had completed a university degree and 17.29% indicated that their highest degree was a (specialized) university entrance qualification. Comparatively fewer participants indicated that they had completed vocational training (36.54%), had a secondary school leaving certificate (15.84%), a lower secondary school leaving certificate (4.97%) or no school leaving qualification (0.31%). Two participants (0.21%) did not provide information on this question. Of the final sample, 867 participants stated that they followed either an omnivorous (N = 646; 66.87%) or a flexitarian (N = 221; 22.88%) diet. The remaining 99 participants were either vegetarian (N = 52; 5.38%), pescetarian (N = 28; 2.90%), or vegan (N = 19; 1.97%). The distribution of the diet types in our sample roughly resembles the overall distribution of diet types in Germany. Specifically, there were only slightly more participants following an omnivorous diet and less participants following a flexitarian diet compared to recent dietary data with 62.7% omnivores and 27.3% flexitarians (Veganz Group AG 2021).
3.3 Measures
The questionnaire was written and presented in German. English items were translated according to typical procedures. All items, except the items for product characteristics, were rated on a 7-point Likert-scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). Table 2 in Appendix 2 provides the measurement items used in this study.
Acceptance: In line with existing research on consumer acceptance (e.g., Mancini and Antonioli 2020; Siegrist et al. 2018), acceptance of cultured meat was operationalized in terms of willingness to buy and measured pre and post intervention. We used the scale from Lin-Hi et al. (2022) which is based on Fenko et al. (2016). A sample item pre-intervention is: “I would consider ordering a burger with cultured meat at a restaurant” and post-intervention: “I would consider ordering a burger with cultured meat at Alice in Burgerland”. Overall, the scale achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95–0.96.
Product characteristics: To assess participants’ perceptions of the properties of cultured meat, a 7-point bipolar scale with anchors appropriate to the respective item, such as “not at all good”—“very good” for taste, was used. The established seven-item scale on product characteristics by Saeed and Grunert (2014) served as a basis from which items suitable for meat were selected and extended by one item regarding appearance. The final scale assessed how “tasty”, “visually appealing”, “nutritious”, “juicy”, and “healthy” participants believed cultured meat would be. The scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93.
Emotional benefits: Emotional benefits of consuming cultured meat were operationalized through feelings of warm glow. In line with typical scales to measure warm glow (e.g., Boobalan et al. 2021; Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibáñez 2012; Hartmann et al. 2017), a four-item scale related to increased animal welfare was constructed with items like: “Eating a burger with cultured meat would give me a feeling of personal satisfaction as I can hereby contribute to animal welfare”. The scale achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95.
Organizational trustworthiness: To measure consumers’ perceptions of organizational trustworthiness, a three-dimensional scale by Gefen and Straub (2004) was used. It is comprised of 10 items that measure organizational integrity (α = 0.91), ability (α = 0.92), and benevolence (α = 0.91). A sample item is: “I expect that Alice in Burgerland puts customers’ interests before their own”.
CSR: To assess perceived CSR, a German four-item scale from Lin-Hi et al. (2020) was used, which itself is based on a scale developed by Stanaland et al. (2011). A sample item is: “Alice in Burgerland is committed to well-defined ethics principles”. The scale achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93.
Extrinsic motives: The extrinsic motives participants attributed to “Alice in Burgerland” were measured by an established scale from Swaen and Chumpitaz (2008). Participants were asked whether they thought the restaurant was announcing to sell cultured meat burgers because “this gives them good publicity”, because “this lets them increase profits”, and because “this gets them more customers”. The scale achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83.
Control variables: Given existing findings regarding the link between the acceptance of cultured meat and age (Palmieri et al. 2020), gender (Bryant and Dillard 2019), and diet type (Bryant et al. 2019a), these three factors served as control variables regarding the willingness to buy cultured meat. To control for dietary preferences, participants were given a choice of five typical diets (e.g., omnivore, vegetarian, etc.) which were then summarized into the dichotomous variable of meat-eater vs. non-meat-eater.
4 Data analysis and results
Data preparation and all analyses were conducted in RStudio 1.3.1093 using the R-package “lavaan” (Rosseel 2012). A structural equation model (SEM; see Fig. 1) was tested which has the advantage of jointly testing the factorial structure of the individual variables as well as the pathways proposed in the hypotheses. A robust maximum likelihood estimator (MLR; e.g., Brown 2015) was applied to calculate fit indices robust to non-normality. Additionally, age, gender, and dietary type were entered as control variables.
For evaluating the convergent and discriminant validity of the measures, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was deployed on a measurement model consisting solely of the latent factors and their respective indicators. The measurement model yielded a good fit with the data (χ2 = 1309.192 (499), p < 0.0001, χ2/df = 2.62, CFI = 0.966, TLI = 0.962, RMSEA = 0.041, SRMR = 0.054) as the fit measures surpassed the thresholds established in the literature (Schermelleh-Engel et al. 2003). The standardized factor loadings were statistically significant and ranged from 0.667 to 0.972, supporting the assumption of convergent validity among the measures. Additionally, the average variance extracted (AVE) for all constructs was higher than 0.5, further indicating convergent validity (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). The distinctiveness of the assessed variables, i.e. discriminant validity, was demonstrated by using a confidence interval approach. For each pair of factors, an interval was constructed as the correlation of the two plus minus its standard error and then it was assessed whether the number 1 was included. As this was not the case for any of the factor pairs, discriminant validity could be assumed (Koufteros 1999; Marcoulides 1998). Subsequently, internal consistency was addressed by observing the composite reliabilities, which all exceeded the recommended value of 0.7 (Hair et al. 2019) (see Table 1).
4.1 Preliminary analyses
Before carrying out the main analyses, a one-sample t test was conducted which compared the mean value of willingness to buy cultured meat before (M = 4.33, SD = 1.7) and after (M = 4.72, SD = 1.76) the intervention. The difference between the two mean values was significant (t(966) = − 13.21, p < 0.0001) and the average willingness to buy cultured meat was higher after viewing the website. This finding is a first indication that consumer acceptance of cultured meat can be influenced by information about the corresponding organization.
We observed rather high correlations between some of our variables, in particular, between organizational trustworthiness and CSR, as well as between the subdimensions of organizational trustworthiness. This is not surprising given that large correlations between these variables are to be expected due to the nature of their mutual relationship as proposed by theory. However, the correlations we observed appeared to be high compared to the literature and thus, we had to assure that this would not interfere with our main analyses. Hence, we examined both the distinctiveness of our constructs and potential multicollinearity.
High correlations may indicate that the constructs being measured are not distinct from each other, i.e. that they are part of the same construct (Brown 2015). Although this is unlikely in our case, given that discriminant validity has been established and the proposed factorial structure has strong theoretical support, we nevertheless wanted to take a closer look at this possibility. We followed the approach of Leiter and Durup (1994) as well as McCrory and Layte (2012) and the methodological advice from Byrant et al. (1999) to test competing models to ensure construct distinctiveness. Specifically, we accounted for high correlations between the subdimensions of trustworthiness (see Table 1) by collapsing the items onto a single factor and comparing it to the initially proposed second-order model where the three dimensions were left as separate factors loading onto a higher organizational trustworthiness construct. Compared to the second-order model, the corrected chi-square worsened significantly when all items loaded onto a single factor (Δχ2SB = 108.85(3), p < 0.0001; Satorra and Bentler 2001). Since this means that the single factor model performs worse, we measured organizational trustworthiness with the initial second-order model.
Additionally, we considered the high correlation between CSR and trustworthiness (0.939; see Table 1). To assess whether the two constructs were distinctive, the initially proposed measurement model was compared to a single factor model in which CSR was regarded as a fourth sub-dimension of organizational trustworthiness. The single factor model yielded a worse fit (Δχ2SB = 3.12(5), p = 0.682; Satorra and Bentler 2001) and, hence, was not superior to the one where CSR and organizational trustworthiness were modelled as separate factors, which led us to stick to the initially proposed model.
High correlations may further indicate potential multicollinearity within the sample, which may cause problems in SEM calculation and affect hypothesis testing. In examining this further, we calculated the Variance Inflation Factors (VIF), a standard indicator for assessing multicollinearity (O’Brien 2007), for the predictor variables (VIFProduct = 2.33, VIFWarmGlow = 2.33, VIFTrust = 9.55, VIFCSR = 10.13, VIFMotives = 1.02, VIFWTBPre = 1.61). The VIFs of the two highly correlated variables in organizational trustworthiness and CSR fell around the acceptable threshold of 10 (Gareth et al. 2013; Vittinghoff et al. 2006). In addition, the literature points out that VIFs alone should not inform the decision to accept or reject a predictor as it has to be viewed contextually (O’Brien 2007). We surmise that multicollinearity was not a problem in our sample due to the following reasons: First, discriminant validity was present, which is a highly relevant indicator for judging multicollinearity in the context of SEM (e.g., Farooq 2016). Second, and in line with Grewal et al. (2004), we concluded that our model was robust to multicollinearity as we had a high R2, good reliability, and a large sample (see also Dagger and O’Brien 2010; Ehrgott et al. 2011).
4.2 Main analyses and results
The results of the structural model in which we estimated all path coefficients are shown in Fig. 1. Overall, the final model had a good fit with the data (χ2 = 1667.475(605), p < 0.0001, χ2/df = 2.76, CFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.954, RMSEA = 0.043, SRMR = 0.056). Moreover, the model accounted for R2 = 75% of variance in the pre-intervention exposure willingness to buy cultured meat and for R2 = 86.2% of variance in the post-intervention exposure willingness to buy cultured meat.
Generally, our indicated p values are based on one-tailed testing as we addressed directional research hypotheses (Cho and Abe 2013; Jones 1952).
In Hypothesis 1, we expected that positive perceptions of product characteristics would have a positive effect on the acceptance of cultured meat. Indeed, characteristics of cultured meat significantly predicted participants’ willingness to buy (β = 0.224, p < 0.0001). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.
In Hypothesis 2, we anticipated that perceived emotional benefits would have a positive influence on the acceptance of cultured meat. Indeed, feelings of warm glow as an operationalization of the emotional benefits of consuming cultured meat significantly predicted its acceptance (β = 0.664, p < 0.0001). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
In Hypothesis 3, we postulated that organizational trustworthiness would have a positive influence on the acceptance of cultured meat. Organizational trustworthiness had a significant impact on the willingness to buy cultured meat in the post-intervention exposure (β = 0.141, p = 0.027). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported.
In Hypothesis 4i, we assumed that CSR has a positive effect on organizational trustworthiness and in Hypothesis 4ii, we postulated that CSR has a positive effect on cultured meat acceptance. To test these hypotheses, the direct effects of CSR were analyzed, which yielded significant direct impacts on trustworthiness (β = 0.945, p < 0.0001) and willingness to buy (β = 0.126, p = 0.045). Additionally, we observed a significant indirect effect of CSR on willingness to buy mediated by trustworthiness (β = 0.134, p = 0.027). To further test the indirect effect, we used the bootstrap approach (Hayes 2013; Shrout and Bolger 2002), whereby we bootstrapped 5000 samples using a maximum likelihood estimator to obtain confidence intervals for the indirect path estimates. As we only considered directional hypotheses, we followed Preacher et al. (2010) and computed 90% confidence intervals in order to assess one-tailed significance tests (α = 0.05). The CI for the indirect effect of CSR on willingness to buy did not include zero (β = 0.191, CI [0.022; 0.363]), supporting the previous indication that trustworthiness partially mediates the relationship between CSR and the acceptance of cultured meat. Therefore, Hypotheses 4i and 4ii were both supported.
In Hypothesis 5i, we argued that the attribution of extrinsic motives negatively affects organizational trustworthiness and in Hypothesis 5ii, we anticipated that the attribution of extrinsic motives negatively affects the acceptance of cultured meat. Analogously to Hypotheses 4i and 4ii, we tested the direct as well as mediated paths, and found that neither the direct pathway towards organizational trustworthiness (β = 0.019, p = 0.174) nor the direct (β = − 0.022, p = 0.112) or indirect pathway (β = 0.003, p = 0.200) towards willingness to buy cultured meat were significant. Likewise, the bootstrapped indirect path estimate did include zero (β = 0.004, CI [− 0.001; 0.017]). Hence, Hypothesis 5i as well as Hypothesis 5ii were not supported.
5 Discussion
The present study was conducted in Germany. A few studies on consumer acceptance of cultured meat have been already carried out in this setting. For example, the first study in Germany has shown that the acceptance of cultured meat was moderate (Weinrich et al. 2020), with 57% of respondents reporting they would be willing to try it. A later study by Dupont et al. (2022) has found that 65% of German consumers were willing to try a cultured meat burger, and nearly 47% reported to be willing to replace conventional meat with cultured meat. A significantly higher willingness to consume cultured meat burgers was found among German children and adolescents when compared to other meat alternatives such as insect burgers (Dupont and Fiebelkorn 2020). In a cross-country comparison with French consumers, Germans expressed comparably high levels of enthusiasm toward cultured meat (Bryant et al. 2020), but in contrast, they showed relatively low acceptance of cultured meat relative to consumers from countries such as Mexico (Siegrist and Hartmann 2020). Finally, a recent study with German consumers has demonstrated that perceptions of organizational competence affect consumers’ willingness to buy cultured meat and startups and established companies have distinctive advantages in this regard (Lin-Hi et al. 2022). Finally, Moritz et al. (2022) have investigated a particular form of acceptance by focusing on political and policy actors in Germany.
5.1 Theoretical contribution
Given that the current research on consumer acceptance of cultured meat has been centered on product-related and consumer-related factors, its antecedents on the organizational level have been widely neglected. The lack of scholarly attention to organizational-level factors is also reflected in the fact that the existing debate on the acceptance of this food innovation has so far primarily taken place in food-related journals, such as Appetite (e.g., Bryant and Barnett 2019; Slade 2018; Wilks et al. 2021), Meat Science (e.g., Bryant et al. 2019b; Siegrist et al. 2018; Weinrich et al. 2020), and Food Quality and Preferences (e.g., Baum et al. 2021; Dupont and Fiebelkorn 2020; Gómez-Luciano et al. 2019). Thus, the innovation of cultured meat has not yet gained attention in management research.
The present paper makes several contributions to the literature on consumer acceptance of cultured meat and acceptance of innovations in general. First, it indicates that not only product-related factors function as antecedents of the acceptance of cultured meat but also second-order associations on the organizational level. Specifically, the results demonstrate that, in addition to product-related characteristics, higher levels of trustworthiness and perceptions of CSR can promote the acceptance of cultured meat. While existing research suggests that the positive relationship between trust and willingness to buy holds across different products and industries (Wang et al. 2022; Zaza and Erskine 2022; Zhuang et al. 2021), empirical findings on the link between CSR and buying intentions are inconclusive by tendency (Ali et al. 2010; Lee and Yoon 2018; Öberseder et al. 2014). Thus, the question arises as to what extent the paper’s finding on CSR are transferable to other contexts. We expect that our finding is not limited to cultured meat but also holds for other innovations. Given that consumers usually cannot fully assess the attributes of innovations when they are introduced to the market, innovations are typically surrounded by a considerable degree of acceptance-hindering uncertainty (Hoeffler 2003; Rogers 2003). Since CSR is a signal of a positive character of a company (Mohr and Webb 2005; Siegel and Vitaliano 2007), it reduces consumers’ perceptions of uncertainty and risk in buying decisions (Stanaland et al. 2011; Upadhye et al. 2019). In addition, it can be argued that the effect of CSR on acceptance should be stronger the higher the level of perceived uncertainty of an innovation. This view is echoed in the argument of Bhattacharya et al. (2021) who state that CSR is particularly relevant in higher-risk contexts. Accordingly, CSR should be especially potent in promoting the willingness to buy radical innovations given their high degree of novelty and the associated lack of familiarity.
Notably, we have collapsed commonly scrutinized product-related characteristics of cultured meat (visual appearance, taste, texture, nutritional value, and health and safety) onto one overarching factor which showed both a high reliability (α = 0.93) and a valid factorial structure within the overall measurement model. All tested attributes loaded highly (0.756–0.895) and significantly (p < 0.0001 for all loadings) onto this factor, suggesting that summarizing these variables into one scale is an approach that can be used in future research.
Second, the paper transfers existing findings from sustainability management literature to the domain of consumer acceptance of cultured meat. In this respect, the result that warm glow has a positive effect on the acceptance of cultured meat echoes the finding that emotional benefits matter in sustainable consumption (Boobalan et al. 2021; Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibáñez 2012; Hartmann et al. 2017; Sun et al. 2020). This provides a first indication that the literature on sustainable consumption can be applied to the study of cultured meat. In addition, by examining the role of organizational trustworthiness and CSR, the paper illuminates on the factors that are commonly regarded as facilitators of the synergetic interplay between ecological, economic, and social goals. On the one hand, the positive effects of trustworthiness and CSR on consumer acceptance indicate that (sustainability) management literature provides a valuable framework for managerial research on cultured meat. On the other hand, a high correlation between organizational trustworthiness and CSR raises some questions. On a general level, the question arises as to whether different organizational factors engender distinct effects on consumer acceptance of cultured meat. The high correlation between organizational trustworthiness and CSR could be the effect of study participants’ inability to meaningfully distinguish between these organizational factors. One explanation for such a potential effect is provided by the novelty of cultured meat. In fact, almost two thirds of participants stated that they were not very familiar with this innovation before taking part in the study. The lack of familiarity with the main subject of this study could have instilled the fatigue effect among participants: Due to the high amount of new information about cultured meat, participants might have experienced a high cognitive load (e.g., Paas and Van Merriënboer 1994; Paas et al. 2003; Sweller 2011). Accordingly, they might have already depleted most of their cognitive resources by processing completely new information, so that they were unable to distinguish the organizational factors in terms of trustworthiness and CSR, but simply rated the organization based on an overall impression. Since both trustworthiness and CSR are positively valenced constructs, a fatigue effect could explain the high correlation between the two factors.
Third, the lack of support for the hypotheses that the attribution of extrinsic motives has an effect on organizational trustworthiness and on the acceptance of cultured meat differs from existing research. Several studies have shown that extrinsic motives are generally negatively associated with organizational trustworthiness (Terwel et al. 2009; Vlachos et al. 2009, 2010). However, researchers have already pointed out that a strict differentiation between extrinsic and intrinsic might be too coarse (Ellen et al. 2006). In this respect, it has been argued that, besides considering extrinsic motives as opportunistic, consumers might also recognize that an organization needs to make profits while contributing to social welfare, so that intrinsic and extrinsic motives do not have to be seen as strictly opposite constructs (Du et al. 2007; Myers et al. 2013). In fact, previous research has also shown that extrinsic motives are not generally perceived negatively if they are evaluated by differentiating between strategic and purely egoistic motives, i.e. by separating “legitimate” profit-orientation from “selfish” impulses (Ellen et al. 2006).
Notably, the present paper does not only contribute to research on consumer acceptance of cultured meat but also to the literature on the acceptance of innovations in general. In our study, we tested a framework that considers several predictors of consumer acceptance which offers important insights into the dynamics that are at play when presenting innovations to consumers. Specifically, we contribute to a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms between CSR and consumer acceptance of innovations by introducing a three-dimensional construct of organizational trustworthiness as a mediator. In doing so, we answer existing calls to explore causal chains related to the interplay between CSR and consumer responses, for instance, in terms of responses to innovations (Deng and Xu 2017; Hofenk et al. 2019; Romani et al. 2013).
Another contribution is related to the effect of CSR on consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Existing research on the acceptance of innovations is rooted in an instrumental paradigm, whereby user’s assessment of personal advantages/disadvantages from adopting an innovation or technology forms the center of the debate (e.g., Davis 1989; Featherman and Pavlou 2003; Kulviwat et al. 2007). Our study advances existing literature by highlighting the relevance of the normative dimension in the formation of acceptance. Ethics-related variables, such as CSR perceptions, thereby might be especially relevant for the acceptance of radical innovations since radical innovations, as already argued, are characterized by a high degree of uncertainty (O’Connor and Rice 2013). Given that uncertainty perceptions are subjective and have a non-rational dimension (Cross 1998), reducing uncertainty via instrumental approaches is limited. At the same time, ethics are a trusted mechanism for people to cope with uncertainty (Francot 2014) which, in turn, renders ethics-related variables suitable for promoting the acceptance of radical innovations.
Furthermore, the paper contributes to the general research on the acceptance of innovations through the specific timing of data collection. Specifically, the data stems from an emerging innovation, i.e. an innovation that has not yet been introduced to the local market. The investigation of the potential antecedents of consumer acceptance of an innovation prior to its introduction offers the opportunity to assess the predictive validity of findings after the launch of the innovation at different points of its diffusion lifecycle. Such pre-post launch comparisons are helpful in evaluating the quality of current research approaches and hence lay the foundation for the development of more advanced approaches for the sake of making better predictions about future phenomena. Additionally, such comparisons would also allow for a better assessment of the contributions that the current conceptual frameworks in the sustainability management literature make to the diffusion of innovations for sustainable development.
Finally, our findings can be related to the debate on frameworks for sustainability management. CSR is a vehicle for companies to contribute to sustainable development (Behringer and Szegedi 2016; Herrmann 2004; Moon 2007), whereby a specific stream of research focuses on sustainability-oriented innovations (Bacinello et al. 2020; Shahzad et al. 2020; Yoon and Tello 2009). For example, studies show that CSR has a positive effect on firms’ adoption of sustainability-oriented innovations (e.g., Poussing 2019), sustainable innovation ambidexterity (e.g., Khan et al. 2021), and sustainability-oriented invention patents applications (Hong et al. 2020). In this debate, CSR is understood as a mechanism that enhances organizational capability to innovate for sustainability. Our study adds a new layer to this debate by demonstrating that CSR improves consumer acceptance of innovations. This perspective matters for CSR as an effective framework for fostering sustainability management since sustainability-oriented innovations can only exert their beneficial effects if they are accepted by consumers.
5.2 Practical contribution
Given that today’s meat production and consumption leave an immense environmental footprint, cultured meat holds the promise to improve the sustainability performance of the global food system (Balasubramanian et al. 2021; Rischer et al. 2020). In addition to the technical challenges that need to be overcome (Zhang et al. 2020), consumer acceptance is a critical bottleneck for this innovation to become a mass-market product and realize its sustainability potential (Post et al. 2020). Ultimately, consumer acceptance is a fundamental precondition for cultured meat to be able to penetrate the mass-market and replace the environmentally-unfriendly way of today’s meat production and consumption.
After in December, 2020 Singapore approved a cultured meat product for commercial sale as the first country in the world (Ives 2020), regulatory pathways to market are also beginning to emerge in the EU and US (Dent 2021). Already now, companies around the world are preparing to enter into the market for cultured meat. Accordingly, it is valuable to begin to devote systematic attention to the factors that promote consumer acceptance. In a nutshell and in more managerial terms: There is a need to better understand the drivers that promote the market success of cultured meat.
The findings of the present paper demonstrate that the acceptance of cultured meat is not only determined by product characteristics but also by organizational factors. At the same time, the results indicate that organizational factors can spill over to consumer attitudes toward innovative products. The link between organizational factors and product evaluations is particularly important for radical innovations as they are surrounded by a high degree of uncertainty. Organizational factors provide a possibility for consumers to cope with uncertainties which, in turn, can result in higher levels of consumer acceptance. In sum, it seems to be valuable for future marketing strategies for cultured meat to not only focus on the product-related factors but also on managing and highlighting positive organizational factors.
Finally, the study suggests that emotional benefits consumers derive from the consumption of cultured meat positively influence their acceptance of this product. Since higher customer value typically improves product sales, the promotion of emotional benefits is a potential lever to drive the market success of cultured meat. Based on this, it appears to be valuable to communicate the social relevance and the high sustainability potential of cultured meat in order to increase emotional benefits for consumers.
6 Limitations and future research
As with all research, the present study has some limitations. First, we examined the acceptance of cultured meat on the intentional and not on the behavioral level. Although intentions and behavior are related, they do not always go hand in hand (Sheeran and Webb 2016). In particular, in the field of sustainable consumption, the intention-behavior-gap is a widespread phenomenon (Carrington et al. 2014; ElHaffar et al. 2020). However, because cultured meat is presently not accessible to most consumers, it is not possible to measure consumers’ reactions towards cultured meat in terms of real buying behavior. Thus, as long as cultured meat is still in development phase, future research should use different methodological approaches to investigate consumer acceptance from different perspectives and therewith, prepare the ground for assessing real consumer behavior when cultured meat becomes available on supermarket shelves.
Second, given the high correlation between organizational trustworthiness and CSR, the distinctiveness of constructs and multicollinearity is another limitation of our study. However, the theoretical background of the model, discriminant validity, the testing of competing models, and the application of criteria from the literature suggest that our main analyses do not generally suffer from these issues. Nevertheless, no definite conclusion can be drawn whether trustworthiness and CSR affect the acceptance of cultured meat individually or in combination. Therefore, on the one hand, the findings show that organizational attributes are significant predictors of consumer acceptance of cultured meat. On the other hand, due to the high correlation, we cannot make any statements regarding the relative importance of either factor and the manner in which they interact with one another in this particular context. There are several ways to approach these limitations in future research: In order to ascertain whether the high correlation between CSR and trustworthiness was specific to our study or is a general phenomenon for the acceptance of cultured meat, the study could be replicated with a different sample. Furthermore, since experimental approaches avoid the problem of multicollinearity (Slinker and Glantz 1985), an experimental study could be carried out in which trustworthiness and CSR are manipulated both independently from each other and in combination, which would allow to examine the individual and combined influence of these variables on the acceptance of cultured meat. In general, more research is needed to understand the impact of organizational factors on consumer acceptance of cultured meat.
Third, in addition to the product characteristics we chose for our study, previous research has shown that other variables on the product level, such as perception of naturalness (e.g., Siegrist and Hartmann 2020; Siegrist and Sütterlin 2017; Siegrist et al. 2018; Wilks et al. 2021) and environmental friendliness (Circus and Robison 2019; Palmieri et al. 2020; Verbeke et al. 2015) influence consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Thus, we did not include all possible variables that may be of relevance when considering acceptance from a product characteristics perspective. Nonetheless, in our model, product characteristics are only relevant to acceptance in the pre-intervention stage. Since the impact of organizational factors on acceptance is tested in the post-intervention phase and since the correlations between product characteristics and organizational factors have not been modelled, their role as antecedents of acceptance is independent of the actual product characteristics chosen (or not chosen) in the present study. Nevertheless, future research on consumer acceptance of cultured meat would benefit from the inclusion of additional product characteristics-related variables, which could be gleaned from existing research on other food innovations.
Fourth, the study was conducted with a sample of German consumers. Yet, previous studies have demonstrated that regional and cultural variables have an effect on consumer acceptance of cultured meat (e.g., Bryant et al. 2019a; Bryant and Sanctorum 2021). In consequence, the generalizability of the study’s results is limited. Accordingly, it would be interesting to investigate potential effects of organizational factors in different cultural and regional settings. In this respect, a replication study in a cross-cultural setting could contribute to a better understanding of the role of organizational factors for consumer acceptance of cultured meat.
Fifth, our study participants were recruited by an online market research company. Although care was taken to generate data that as closely as possible represents the general population in terms of socio-demographic characteristics such as gender and age, a sampling bias cannot be ruled out. Participants in market research are mainly motivated by financial gains and may not be interested in the topic (Gómez-Luciano et al. 2019) which, in turn, could reduce their attention (Goodman et al. 2012). Against this backdrop, it seems to be valuable to replicate the study in future research with different samples.
7 Conclusion
When Winston Churchill famously claimed that we “shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium” in 1931, the idea of cultivating meat in a bioreactor seemed like pure science fiction. Yet, the vision of cultured meat is on the way of becoming reality. On the technical side, producing meat outside the living organism in a sustainable way is already possible on a small scale (Sinke and Odegard 2021) and the barriers to the scale-up of the production are being gradually removed. In light of this, the question of how cultured meat can be successfully introduced to the mass-market is becoming increasingly important.
The findings of the present study suggest that the acceptance of cultured meat is not only determined by the product itself but also by factors related to organizations. Hence, the study demonstrates that (sustainability) management research is able to contribute to consumer acceptance of cultured meat by revealing new antecedents. Yet, as mentioned before, management research has thus far neglected the innovation of cultured meat. Against the backdrop of the sustainability potential of cultured meat, it is to be hoped that this paper captures (sustainability) management scholars’ attention to this innovation.
Data availability
The datasets analyzed in the present study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Notes
In the context of food innovations, uncertainty regarding health implications is particularly salient for consumers as foods are directly absorbed into the body (Yeung and Morris 2001).
References
Aaker DA (1991) Managing brand equity: capitalizing on the value of a brand name. Free Press, New York, NY
Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J (2012) World agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 revision. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome
Ali I, Rehman KU, Yılmaz AK, Nazir S, Ali JF (2010) Effects of corporate social responsibility on consumer retention in the cellular industry of Pakistan. Afr J Bus Manag 4:475–485. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM.9000245
Apaolaza V, Hartmann P, D’Souza C, López CM (2018) Eat organic–Feel good? The relationship between organic food consumption, health concern and subjective wellbeing. Food Qual Prefer 63:51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.07.011
Bacinello E, Tontini G, Alberton A (2020) Influence of maturity on corporate social responsibility and sustainable innovation in business performance. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27:749–759. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1841
Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 16(74–94):1. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
Balasubramanian B, Liu W, Pushparaj K, Park S (2021) The epic of in vitro meat production—a fiction into reality. Foods 10:1395. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10061395
Baum CM, Bröring S, Lagerkvist CJ (2021) Information, attitudes, and consumer evaluations of cultivated meat. Food Qual Prefer 92:104226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104226
Becker-Olsen KL, Cudmore BA, Hill RP (2006) The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. J Bus Res 59:46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001
Behringer K, Szegedi K (2016) The role of CSR in achieving sustainable development-theoretical approach. Eur Sci J 12:10–25
Ben-Ner A, Halldorsson F (2010) Trusting and trustworthiness: what are they, how to measure them, and what affects them. J Econ Psychol 31:64–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.10.001
Bhattacharya A, Good V, Sardashti H, Peloza J (2021) Beyond warm glow: the risk-mitigating effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR). J Bus Ethics 171:317–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04445-0
Bhattacharya CB, Korschun D, Sen S (2009) Strengthening stakeholder–company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. J Bus Ethics 85:257–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9730-3
Boobalan K, Nachimuthu GS, Sivakumaran B (2021) Understanding the psychological benefits in organic consumerism: an empirical exploration. Food Qual Prefer 87:104070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104070
Braddy PW, Meade AW, Kroustalis CM (2008) Online recruiting: the effects of organizational familiarity, website usability, and website attractiveness on viewers’ impressions of organizations. Comput Hum Behav 24:2992–3001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.05.005
Brown TA (2015) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press, New York, NY
Brown TJ (1998) Corporate associations in marketing: antecedents and consequences. Corp Reput Rev 1:215–233. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540045
Brown TJ, Dacin PA (1997) The company and the product: corporate associations and consumer product responses. J Mark 61:68–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299706100106
Bryant CJ (2020) Culture, meat, and cultured meat. J Anim Sci 98:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaa172
Bryant CJ, Anderson JE, Asher KE, Green C, Gasteratos K (2019a) Strategies for overcoming aversion to unnaturalness: the case of clean meat. Meat Sci 154:37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.04.004
Bryant C, Szejda K, Parekh N, Deshpande V, Tse B (2019b) A survey of consumer perceptions of plant-based and clean meat in the USA, India, and China. Front Sustain Food Syst 3:11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00011
Bryant C, Barnett J (2018) Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: a systematic review. Meat Sci 143:8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.008
Bryant CJ, Barnett JC (2019) What’s in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names. Appetite 137:104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.021
Bryant C, Barnett J (2020) Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: an updated review (2018–2020). Appl Sci 10:5201. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10155201
Bryant C, Dillard C (2019) The impact of framing on acceptance of cultured meat. Front Nutr 6:103. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2019.00103
Bryant C, Sanctorum H (2021) Alternative proteins, evolving attitudes: comparing consumer attitudes to plant-based and cultured meat in Belgium in two consecutive years. Appetite 161:105161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161
Bryant C, van Nek L, Rolland N (2020) European markets for cultured meat: a comparison of Germany and France. Foods 9:1152. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091152
Byrant FB, Yarnold PR, Michelson EA (1999) Statistical methodology: VIII. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in emergency medicine research. Acad Emerg Med 6:54–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.1999.tb00096.x
Calveras A, Ganuza JJ (2018) Corporate social responsibility and product quality. J Econ Manag Strategy 27:804–829. https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12264
Carrington MJ, Neville BA, Whitwell GJ (2014) Lost in translation: exploring the ethical consumer intention–behavior gap. J Bus Res 67:2759–2767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.022
Chang C (2011) Feeling ambivalent about going green. J Advert 40:19–32. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367400402
Chen L, Guttieres D, Koenigsberg A, Barone PW, Sinskey AJ, Springs SL (2022) Large-scale cultured meat production: trends, challenges and promising biomanufacturing technologies. Biomaterials 280:121274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2021.121274
Chernev A, Blair S (2015) Doing well by doing good: the benevolent halo of corporate social responsibility. J Consum Res 41:1412–1425. https://doi.org/10.1086/680089
Cho HC, Abe S (2013) Is two-tailed testing for directional research hypotheses tests legitimate? J Bus Res 66:1261–1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.023
Choudhury D, Tseng TW, Swartz E (2020) The business of cultured meat. Trends Biotechnol 38:573–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.02.012
Circus VE, Robison R (2019) Exploring perceptions of sustainable proteins and meat attachment. Br Food J 121:533–545. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2018-0025
Clark JE (1998) Taste and flavour: their importance in food choice and acceptance. Proc Nutr Soc 57:639–643. https://doi.org/10.1079/PNS19980093
Cross FB (1998) Facts and values in risk assessment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 59:27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00116-6
Dagger TS, O’Brien TK (2010) Does experience matter? Differences in relationship benefits, satisfaction, trust, commitment and loyalty for novice and experienced service users. Eur J Mark 44:1528–1552. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011062952
Datar I, Kim E, d’Origny G (2016) New harvest. In: Donaldson B, Carter C (eds) The future of meat without animals, 1st edn. Rowman & Littlefield, London, pp 121–131
Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Deliza R, Rosenthal A, Silva ALS (2003) Consumer attitude towards information on non conventional technology. Trends Food Sci Technol 14:43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(02)00240-6
Deng X, Xu Y (2017) Consumers’ responses to corporate social responsibility initiatives: the mediating role of consumer–company identification. J Bus Ethics 142:515–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2742-x
Dent M (2021) Which country will be the next to approve cultured meat? IDTechEx. https://www.idtechex.com/en/research-article/which-country-will-be-the-next-to-approve-cultured-meat/23835. Accessed 30 Oct 2021
De Oliveira GA, Domingues CHDF, Borges JAR (2021) Analyzing the importance of attributes for Brazilian consumers to replace conventional beef with cultured meat. PLoS ONE 16:e0251432. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251432
De Pelsmacker P, Janssens W (2007) A model for fair trade buying behaviour: the role of perceived quantity and quality of information and of product-specific attitudes. J Bus Ethics 75:361–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9259-2
Dirks KT, Ferrin DL (2001) The role of trust in organizational settings. Organ Sci 12:450–467. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640
Djisalov M, Knežić T, Podunavac I, Živojević K, Radonic V, Knežević NŽ, Bobrinetskiy I, Gadjanski I (2021) Cultivating multidisciplinarity: manufacturing and sensing challenges in cultured meat production. Biology 10:204. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10030204
Drichoutis AC, Lazaridis P, Nayga RM, Kapsokefalou M, Chryssochoidis G (2008) A theoretical and empirical investigation of nutritional label use. Europ J Health Econ 9:293–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-007-0077-y
Du S, Bhattacharya CB, Sen S (2007) Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: the role of competitive positioning. Int J Res Mark 24:224–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.01.001
Dupont J, Fiebelkorn F (2020) Attitudes and acceptance of young people toward the consumption of insects and cultured meat in Germany. Food Qual Prefer 85:103983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103983
Dupont J, Harms T, Fiebelkorn F (2022) Acceptance of cultured meat in Germany—application of an extended theory of planned behaviour. Foods 11:424. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11030424
Ehrgott M, Reimann F, Kaufmann L, Carter CR (2011) Social sustainability in selecting emerging economy suppliers. J Bus Ethics 98:99–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0537-7
ElHaffar G, Durif F, Dubé L (2020) Towards closing the attitude-intention-behavior gap in green consumption: a narrative review of the literature and an overview of future research directions. J Clean Prod 275:122556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122556
Ellen PS, Webb DJ, Mohr LA (2006) Building corporate associations: consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. J Acad Mark Sci 34:147–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284976
Falke A, Schröder N, Hofmann C (2022) The influence of values in sustainable consumption among millennials. J Bus Econ 92:899–928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-021-01072-7
Farooq R (2016) Role of structural equation modeling in scale development. J Adv Manag Res. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-05-2015-0037
Featherman MS, Pavlou PA (2003) Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. Int J Hum Comput Stud 59:451–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00111-3
Fenko A, Kersten L, Bialkova S (2016) Overcoming consumer scepticism toward food labels: the role of multisensory experience. Food Qual Prefer 48:81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.08.013
Franceković P, García-Torralba L, Sakoulogeorga E, Vučković T, Perez-Cueto FJ (2021) How do consumers perceive cultured meat in Croatia, Greece, and Spain? Nutrients 13:1284. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13041284
Francot LMA (2014) Dealing with complexity, facing uncertainty: Morality and ethics in a complex society. ARSP: Arch Rechts Sozialphilos 100:201–218
Gale BT (1994) Managing customer value: creating quality and service that customers can see. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY
Gareth J, Daniela W, Trevor H, Robert T (2013) An introduction to statistical learning: with applications in R. Springer, New York, NY
Gefen D, Straub DW (2004) Consumer trust in B2C e-Commerce and the importance of social presence: Experiments in e-Products and e-Services. Omega 32:407–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.01.006
Geiger I, Kluckert M, Kleinaltenkamp M (2017) Customer acceptance of tradable service contracts. J Bus Econ 87:155–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-016-0817-5
Gilbert DT, Malone PS (1995) The correspondence bias. Psychol Bull 117:21–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21
Gimenez C, Tachizawa EM (2012) Extending sustainability to suppliers: a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manag 17:531–543. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211258591
Goodman JK, Cryder CE, Cheema A (2012) Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. J Behav Decis Mak 26:213–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753
Gómez-Luciano CA, de Aguiar LK, Vriesekoop F, Urbano B (2019) Consumers’ willingness to purchase three alternatives to meat proteins in the United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil and the Dominican Republic. Food Qual Prefer 78:103732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103732
Grabner-Kräuter S (2002) The role of consumers’ trust in online-shopping. J Bus Ethics 39:43–50. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016323815802
Grabner-Kräuter S, Krisch U, Breitenecker R (2018) Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility communication in Hong Kong. In: Cauberghe V, Hudders L, Eisend M (eds) Advances in advertising research IX. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 219–230
Graf C, Wirl F (2014) Corporate social responsibility: a strategic and profitable response to entry? J Bus Econ 84:917–927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-014-0739-z
Grewal R, Cote JA, Baumgartner H (2004) Multicollinearity and measurement error in structural equation models: implications for theory testing. Mark Sci 23:519–529. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1040.0070
Griskevicius V, Tybur JM, Van den Bergh B (2010) Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J Pers Soc Psychol 98:392–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017346
Gürhan-Canli Z, Batra R (2004) When corporate image affects product evaluations: the moderating role of perceived risk. J Mark Res 41:197–205. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.41.2.197.28667
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2019) Multivariate data analysis, 8th edn. Cenage Learning, Hampshire
Hankammer S, Kleer R, Piller FT (2021) Sustainability nudges in the context of customer co-design for consumer electronics. J Bus Econ 91:897–933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-020-01020-x
Hart P, Saunders C (1997) Power and trust: critical factors in the adoption and use of electronic data interchange. Organ Sci 8:23–42. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.1.23
Hartmann P, Apaolaza Ibáñez V (2006) Green value added. Mark Intell Plan 24:673–680. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500610711842
Hartmann P, Apaolaza-Ibáñez V (2012) Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: the roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. J Bus Res 65:1254–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.11.001
Hartmann P, Eisend M, Apaolaza V, D’Souza C (2017) Warm glow vs. altruistic values: how important is intrinsic emotional reward in proenvironmental behavior? J Environ Psychol 52:43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.05.006
Havlena WJ, Holbrook MB (1986) The varieties of consumption experience: comparing two typologies of emotion in consumer behavior. J Consum Res 13:394–404. https://doi.org/10.1086/209078
Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. Guilford Press, New York, NY
Heidenreich S, Kraemer T (2015) Passive innovation resistance: the curse of innovation? Investigating consequences for innovative consumer behavior. J Econ Psychol 51:134–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.09.003
Heiskanen E, Hyvönen K, Niva M, Pantzar M, Timonen P, Varjonen J (2007) User involvement in radical innovation: are consumers conservative? Eur J Innov Manag 10:489–509. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060710828790
Herrmann KK (2004) Corporate social responsibility and sustainable development: The European Union initiative as a case study. Ind J Global Legal Stud 11:205. https://doi.org/10.1353/gls.2004.0013
Hoeffler S (2003) Measuring preferences for really new products. J Mark Res 40:406–420. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.40.4.406.19394
Hoejmose S, Brammer S, Millington A (2012) “Green” supply chain management: the role of trust and top management in B2B and B2C markets. Ind Mark Manag 41:609–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.04.008
Hofenk D, van Birgelen M, Bloemer J, Semeijn J (2019) How and when retailers’ sustainability efforts translate into positive consumer responses: the interplay between personal and social factors. J Bus Ethics 156:473–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3616-1
Hong M, Drakeford B, Zhang K (2020) The impact of mandatory CSR disclosure on green innovation: evidence from China. Green Finance 2:302–322. https://doi.org/10.3934/GF.2020017
Hopkins PD, Dacey A (2008) Vegetarian meat: could technology save animals and satisfy meat eaters? J Agri Environ Ethics 21:579–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-008-9110-0
Hornsey MJ, Chapman CM, Mangan H, La Macchia S, Gillespie N (2021) The moral disillusionment model of organizational transgressions: ethical transgressions trigger more negative reactions from consumers when committed by nonprofits. J Bus Ethics 172:653–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04492-7
Humbird D (2021) Scale-up economics for cultured meat. Biotechnol Bioeng 118:3239–3250. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.27848
Huq FA, Stevenson M, Zorzini M (2014) Social sustainability in developing country suppliers: an exploratory study in the ready made garments industry of Bangladesh. Int J Oper Prod Manag 34:610–638. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-10-2012-0467
Ives M (2020) Singapore Approves a Lab-Grown Meat Product, a Global First. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/business/singapore-lab-meat.html. Accessed 30 Oct 2021
Iweala S, Spiller A, Meyerding S (2019) Buy good, feel good? The influence of the warm glow of giving on the evaluation of food items with ethical claims in the UK and Germany. J Clean Prod 215:315–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.266
Jahn J, Eichhorn M, Brühl R (2020) How do individuals judge organizational legitimacy? Effects of attributed motives and credibility on organizational legitimacy. Bus Soc 59:545–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317717959
Jairath G, Mal G, Gopinath D, Singh B (2021) A holistic approach to access the viability of cultured meat: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol 110:700–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.02.024
Jeltema M, Beckley J, Vahalik J (2015) Model for understanding consumer textural food choice. Food Sci Nutr 3:202–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.205
Jones LV (1952) Tests of hypotheses: one-sided vs. two-sided alternatives. Psychol Bull 49:43–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056832
Kahneman D, Knetsch JL (1992) Valuing public goods: ihe purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manage 22:57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(92)90019-S
Keller KL (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. J Mark 57:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700101
Khan A, Chen CC, Suanpong K, Ruangkanjanases A, Kittikowit S, Chen SC (2021) The impact of CSR on sustainable innovation ambidexterity: the mediating role of sustainable supply chain management and second-order social capital. Sustainability 13:12160. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112160
Kiesel K, McCluskey JJ, Villas-Boas SB (2011) Nutritional labeling and consumer choices. Annu Rev Resou Econ 3:141–158. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.resource.012809.103957
Kim JK, Overton H, Bhalla N, Li JY (2020) Nike, Colin Kaepernick, and the politicization of sports: examining perceived organizational motives and public responses. Public Relat Rev 46:101856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101856
Kleijnen M, Lee N, Wetzels M (2009) An exploration of consumer resistance to innovation and its antecedents. J Econ Psychol 30:344–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.02.004
Kohl C, Knigge M, Baader G, Böhm M, Krcmar H (2018) Anticipating acceptance of emerging technologies using twitter: the case of self-driving cars. J Bus Econ 88:617–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0897-5
Konuk FA (2019) Consumers’ willingness to buy and willingness to pay for fair trade food: the influence of consciousness for fair consumption, environmental concern, trust and innovativeness. Food Res Inter 120:141–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.02.018
Koufteros XA (1999) Testing a model of pull production: a paradigm for manufacturing research using structural equation modeling. J Oper Manag 17:467–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(99)00002-9
Kramer RM (1999) Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annu Rev Psychol 50:569–598. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.569
Kulviwat S, Bruner GC II, Kumar A, Nasco SA, Clark T (2007) Toward a unified theory of consumer acceptance technology. Psychol Mark 24:1059–1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20196
Lee EM, Yoon SJ (2018) The effect of customer citizenship in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on purchase intention: the important role of the CSR image. Soc Responsib J 14:753–763. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-04-2017-0074
Leiter MP, Durup J (1994) The discriminant validity of burnout and depression: a confirmatory factor analytic study. Anxiety Stress Coping 7:357–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615809408249357
Liem DG, Russell CG (2019) The influence of taste liking on the consumption of nutrient rich and nutrient poor foods. Front Nutr 6:174. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2019.00174
Lin CP, Chen SC, Chiu CK, Lee WY (2011) Understanding purchase intention during product-harm crises: Moderating effects of perceived corporate ability and corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 102:455–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0824-y
Lin-Hi N, Hörisch J, Blumberg I (2015) Does CSR matter for nonprofit organizations? Testing the link between CSR performance and trustworthiness in the nonprofit versus for-profit domain. Voluntas 26:1944–1974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9506-6
Lin-Hi N, Kempen R, Petrushevska M, Hattrup K (2020) The new competitive environment of social enterprises: an experimental study on perceptions and consumer intentions for social vs. traditional enterprises. Int J Entrep Ventur 12:58–84. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEV.2020.105134
Lin-Hi N, Schäfer K, Blumberg I, Hollands L (2022) The Omnivore’s paradox and consumer acceptance of cultured meat: an experimental investigation into the role of perceived organizational competence and excitement. J Clean Prod 338:130593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130593
Luchs MG, Brower J, Chitturi R (2012) Product choice and the importance of aesthetic design given the emotion-laden trade-off between sustainability and functional performance. J Prod Innov Manage 29:903–916. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00970.x
Luchs MG, Naylor RW, Irwin JR, Raghunathan R (2010) The sustainability liability: potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. J Mark 74:18–31. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.5.018
Maignan I, Ferrell OC (2001) Corporate citizenship as a marketing instrument - concepts, evidence and research directions. Eur J Mark 35:457–484. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560110382110
Mancini MC, Antonioli F (2019) Exploring consumers’ attitude towards cultured meat in Italy. Meat Sci 150:101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.12.014
Mancini MC, Antonioli F (2020) To what extent are consumers’ perception and acceptance of alternative meat production systems affected by information? The case of cultured meat. Animals 10:656. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040656
Marcoulides GA (1998) Modern methods for business research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
Mariconda S, Lurati F (2015) Does familiarity breed stability? The role of familiarity in moderating the effects of new information on reputation judgments. J Bus Res 68:957–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.023
Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev 20:709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
McAllister DJ (1995) Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad Manage J 38:24–59. https://doi.org/10.5465/256727
McCrory C, Layte R (2012) Testing competing models of the Strenghts and Difficulties Questionnaire’s (SDQ’s) factor structure for the parent-informant instrument. Pers Individ Differ 52:882–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.02.011
McWilliams A, Siegel D (2001) Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Acad Manage Rev 26:117–127. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4011987
Meqdadi O, Johnsen TE, Johnsen RE (2017) The role of power and trust in spreading sustainability initiatives across supply networks: a case study in the bio-chemical industry. Ind Mark Manag 62:61–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.06.006
Mohr LA, Webb DJ (2005) The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer responses. J Consum Aff 39:121–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00006.x
Moon J (2007) The contribution of corporate social responsibility to sustainable development. Sustain Dev 15:296–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.346
Moosmayer DC, Fuljahn A (2013) Corporate motive and fit in cause related marketing. J Prod Brand Manag 22:200–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-04-2012-0125
Morgan RM, Hunt SD (1994) The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. J Mark 58:20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302
Moritz J, Tuomisto HL, Ryynänen T (2022) The transformative innovation potential of cellular agriculture: political and policy stakeholders’ perceptions of cultured meat in Germany. J Rural Stud 89:54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.11.018
Myers B, Kwon WS, Forsythe S (2013) Creating successful cause–brand alliances: the role of cause involvement, perceived brand motivations and cause–brand alliance attitude. J Brand Manag 20:205–217. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2012.34
Neitzert F, Petras M (2022) Corporate social responsibility and bank risk. J Bus Econ 92:397–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-021-01069-2
Nosi C, Zollo L, Rialti R, Ciappei C (2020) Sustainable consumption in organic food buying behavior: the case of quinoa. Br Food J 122:976–994. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2019-0745
Öberseder M, Schlegelmilch BB, Murphy PE, Gruber V (2014) Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility: scale development and validation. J Bus Ethics 124:101–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1787-y
O’Brien RM (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual Quant 41:673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
O’Connor GC, Rice MP (2013) A comprehensive model of uncertainty associated with radical innovation. J Prod Innov Manag 30:2–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12060
Orazalin N (2020) Do board sustainability committees contribute to corporate environmental and social performance? The mediating role of corporate social responsibility strategy. Bus Strat Environ 29:140–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2354
Paas F, Tuovinen JE, Tabbers H, Van Gerven PWM (2003) Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educ Psychol 38:63–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8
Paas F, Van Merriënboer JJG (1994) Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educ Psychol Rev 6:351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02213420
Pakseresht A, Kaliji SA, Canavari M (2022) Review of factors affecting consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Appetite 170:105829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105829
Palmieri N, Perito MA, Lupi C (2020) Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: some hints from Italy. Br Food J 123:109–123. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2020-0092
Pino G, Amatulli C, De Angelis M, Peluso AM (2016) The influence of corporate social responsibility on consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward genetically modified foods: evidence from Italy. J Clean Prod 112:2861–2869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.008
Pirson M, Malhotra D (2011) Foundations of organizational trust: what matters to different stakeholders? Organ Sci 22:1087–1104. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0581
Pivato S, Misani N, Tencati A (2008) The impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer trust: the case of organic food. Bus Ethics 17:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2008.00515.x
Pliner P, Pelchat M, Grabski M (1993) Reduction of neophobia in humans by exposure to novel foods. Appetite 20:111–123. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1993.1013
Pliner P, Salvy SJ (2006) Food neophobia in humans. In: Shepherd R, Raats M (eds) The psychology of food choice, 3rd edn. CABI, Oxfordshire, pp 75–92
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88:879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Poore J, Nemecek T (2018) Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360:987–992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Post MJ (2012) Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat Sci 92:297–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.008
Post MJ (2014) Cultured beef: medical technology to produce food. J Sci Food Agric 94:1039–1041. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6474
Post MJ, Levenberg S, Kaplan DL, Genovese N, Fu J, Bryant CJ, Negowetti N, Verzijden K, Moutsatsou P (2020) Scientific, sustainability and regulatory challenges of cultured meat. Nat Food 1:403–415. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0112-z
Poussing N (2019) Does corporate social responsibility encourage sustainable innovation adoption? Empirical evidence from Luxembourg. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 26:681–689. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1712
Preacher KJ, Zyphur MJ, Zhang Z (2010) A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychol Methods 15:209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141
Rabl VA, Basso F (2021) When bad becomes worse: Unethical corporate behavior may hamper consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Sustainability 13:6770. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126770
Ram S, Sheth JN (1989) Consumer resistance to innovations: The marketing problem and its solutions. J Consum Mark 6:5–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000002542
Rempel JK, Holmes JG, Zanna MP (1985) Trust in close relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 49:95–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95
Rischer H, Szilvay GR, Oksman-Caldentey KM (2020) Cellular agriculture—industrial biotechnology for food and materials. Curr Opin Biotechnol 61:128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2019.12.003
Rogers EM (2003) The diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. The Free Press, New York, NY
Rolland NC, Markus CR, Post MJ (2020) The effect of information content on acceptance of cultured meat in a tasting context. PLoS ONE 15:e0231176. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231176
Romani S, Grappi S, Bagozzi RP (2013) Explaining consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility: the role of gratitude and altruistic values. J Bus Ethics 114:193–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1337-z
Romani S, Grappi S, Bagozzi RP (2016) Corporate socially responsible initiatives and their effects on consumption of green products. J Bus Ethics 135:253–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2485-0
Rosseel Y (2012) lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw 48:1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Rotolo D, Hicks D, Martin BR (2015) What is an emerging technology? Res Policy 44:1827–1843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.006
Rozin P (1976) The selection of foods by rats, humans, and other animals. In: Rosenblatt JS, Hinde RA, Shaw E, Beer C (eds) Advances in the study of behavior, 6th edn. Academic Press, New York, pp 21–76
Saeed F, Grunert KG (2014) Expected and experienced quality as predictors of intention to purchase four new processed beef products. Br Food J 116:451–471. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-2011-0262
Satorra A, Bentler PM (2001) A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika 66:507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192
Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H (2003) Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Meth Psychol Res 8:23–74
Schlichte F, Junge S, Mammen J (2019) Being at the right place at the right time: does the timing within technology waves determine new venture success? J Bus Econ 89:995–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-019-00947-0
Shahzad M, Qu Y, Javed SA, Zafar AU, Rehman SU (2020) Relation of environment sustainability to CSR and green innovation: a case of Pakistani manufacturing industry. J Clean Prod 253:119938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119938
Sheeran P, Webb TL (2016) The intention–behavior gap. Soc Pers Psychol Compass 10:503–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265
Shepherd R (1990) Nutritional and sensory beliefs in food choice. Br Food J 92:3–8. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070709010139625
Shrout PE, Bolger N (2002) Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychol Methods 7:422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
Siegel DS, Vitaliano DF (2007) An empirical analysis of the strategic use of corporate social responsibility. J Econ Manag Strategy 16:773–792. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2007.00157.x
Siegrist M, Cousin ME, Kastenholz H, Wiek A (2007) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49:459–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002
Siegrist M, Hartmann C (2020) Perceived naturalness, disgust, trust and food neophobia as predictors of cultured meat acceptance in ten countries. Appetite 155:104814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104814
Siegrist M, Sütterlin B (2017) Importance of perceived naturalness for acceptance of food additives and cultured meat. Appetite 113:320–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.019
Siegrist M, Sütterlin B, Hartmann C (2018) Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat. Meat Sci 139:213–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.02.007
Sinke P, Odegard I (2021) LCA of cultivated meat – Future projections for different scenarios. CE Delft. https://cedelft.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/04/CE_Delft_190107_LCA_of_cultivated_meat_Def.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2021
Sirdeshmukh D, Singh J, Sabol B (2002) Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. J Mark 66:15–37. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.1.15.18449
Slade P (2018) If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite 125:428–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.030
Slinker BK, Glantz SA (1985) Multiple regression for physiological data analysis: the problem of multicollinearity. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 249:R1–R12. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.1985.249.1.R1
Stanaland AJS, Lwin MO, Murphy PE (2011) Consumer perceptions of the antecedents and consequences of corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 102:47–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0904-z
Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis) (2019) Statistisches Jahrbuch: Deutschland und Internationales 2019. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Querschnitt/Jahrbuch/statistisches-jahrbuch-2019-dl.pdf;jsessionid=3933BD19A4C332159C2612CD27119BB3.live711?__blob=publicationFile. Accessed 13 Apr 2022
Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis) (2021) Bevölkerungsfortschreibung auf Grundlage des Zensus 2011 - Fachserie 1 Reihe 1.3 – 2020. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsstand/Publikationen/Downloads-Bevoelkerungsstand/bevoelkerungsfortschreibung-2010130207005.html. Accessed 19 Apr 2022
Stephens N, Di Silvio L, Dunsford I, Ellis M, Glencross A, Sexton A (2018) Bringing cultured meat to market: technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends Food Sci Technol 78:155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.010
Stummer C, Lüpke L, Günther M (2021) Beaming market simulation to the future by combining agent-based modeling with scenario analysis. J Bus Econ 91:1469–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-021-01046-9
Sun PC, Wang HM, Huang HL, Ho CW (2020) Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward rooftop photovoltaic installation: the roles of personal trait, psychological benefit, and government incentives. Energy Environ 31:21–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X17754278
Swaen V, Chumpitaz RC (2008) Impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer trust. Rech Appl Mark 23:7–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/205157070802300402
Sweller J (2011) Cognitive load theory. Psychol Learn Motiv 55:37–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
Szczesniak AS, Kahn EL (1971) Consumer awareness of and attitudes to food texture: I: adults. J Texture Stud 2:280–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4603.1971.tb01005.x
Terwel BW, Harinck F, Ellemers N, Daamen DD (2009) How organizational motives and communications affect public trust in organizations: the case of carbon dioxide capture and storage. J Environ Psychol 29:290–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.004
Treich N (2021) Cultured meat: promises and challenges. Environ Resour Econ 79:33–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-021-00551-3
Tucker CA (2014) The significance of sensory appeal for reduced meat consumption. Appetite 81:168–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.06.022
Upadhye BD, Das G, Varshneya G (2019) Corporate social responsibility: a boon or bane for innovative firms? J Strateg Mark 27:50–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2017.1384042
Van der Weele C, Driessen C (2019) How normal meat becomes stranger as cultured meat becomes more normal; ambivalence and ambiguity below the surface of behavior. Front Sustain Food Syst 3:69. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00069
Van der Weele C, Tramper J (2014) Cultured meat: Every village its own factory? Trends Biotechnol 32:294–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.04.009
Veganz Group AG (2021) Ernährungsreport 2021. Vorauszug Deutschland, Frankreich, Italien. https://veganz.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/20211101-veganz-ernaehrungsreport-2021.pdf. Accessed 19 Apr 2022
Verbeke W, Sans P, Van Loo EJ (2015) Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat. J Integr Agric 14:285–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60884-4
Vittinghoff E, Glidden DV, Shiboski SC, McCulloch CE (2006) Regression methods in biostatistics: Linear, logistic, survival, and repeated measures models. Springer, New York, NY
Vlachos PA, Theotokis A, Panagopoulos NG (2010) Sales force reactions to corporate social responsibility: attributions, outcomes, and the mediating role of organizational trust. Ind Mark Manag 39:1207–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.02.004
Vlachos PA, Tsamakos A, Vrechopoulos AP, Avramidis PK (2009) Corporate social responsibility: attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. J Acad Mark Sci 37:170–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0117-x
Wadhera D, Capaldi-Phillips ED (2014) A review of visual cues associated with food on food acceptance and consumption. Eat Behav 15:132–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2013.11.003
Wang J, Shahzad F, Ahmad Z, Abdullah M, Hassan NM (2022) Trust and consumers’ purchase intention in a social commerce platform: A meta-analytic approach. SAGE Open 12:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221091262
Weinrich R, Strack M, Neugebauer F (2020) Consumer acceptance of cultured meat in Germany. Meat Sci 162:107924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107924
Wilks M, Hornsey M, Bloom P (2021) What does it mean to say that cultured meat is unnatural? Appetite 156:104960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104960
Woisetschläger DM, Backhaus C, Cornwell TB (2017) Inferring corporate motives: how deal characteristics shape sponsorship perceptions. J Mark 81:121–141. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.16.0082
Woodall T (2003) Conceptualising ‘value for the customer’: an attributional, structural and dispositional analysis. Acad Mark Sci Rev 12:1–42
Woodruff RB (1997) Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. J Acad Mark Sci 25:139–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02894350
Xu X, Sharma P, Shu S, Lin TS, Ciais P, Tubiello FN, Smith P, Campbell N, Jain AK (2021) Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nat Food 2:724–732. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x
Yeung RM, Morris J (2001) Food safety risk: consumer perception and purchase behaviour. Br Food J 103:170–187. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700110386728
Yoon E, Tello S (2009) Drivers of sustainable innovation: Exploratory views and corporate strategies. Seoul J Bus 15:85–115. https://doi.org/10.35152/snusjb.2009.15.2.004
Zaza S, Erskine MA (2022) Economic conditions as an environmental moderator of e-purchase intention: a meta-analysis. J Electron Commer Organ 20:1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/JECO.298644
Zhang G, Zhao X, Li X, Du G, Zhou J, Chen J (2020) Challenges and possibilities for bio-manufacturing cultured meat. Trends Food Sci Technol 97:443–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.01.026
Zhuang W, Luo X, Riaz MU (2021) On the factors influencing green purchase intention: a meta-analysis approach. Front Psychol 12:644020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.644020
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The cost of the sample was covered by the company Hydrosol GmbH & Co. KG.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
NL-H: conceptualization, methodology, resources, writing—original draft, writing – review & editing, supervision. MR: methodology, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, writing—original draft, writing—review & editing. KS: methodology, funding acquisition, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft, writing—review & editing. JB: methodology, formal analysis, writing—original draft, writing -review & editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Informed consent
Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lin-Hi, N., Reimer, M., Schäfer, K. et al. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: an empirical analysis of the role of organizational factors. J Bus Econ 93, 707–746 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-022-01127-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-022-01127-3