4.4 Article

Trust in and through labelling - a systematic review and critique

期刊

BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL
卷 117, 期 1, 页码 318-338

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/BFJ-07-2014-0244

关键词

Social theory; Confidence; Trust; Food labelling; Food supply; Food systems

资金

  1. Australian Postgraduate Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - Distrust of conventional food supply systems impacts consumer food choice. This in turn has implications for consumer nutrition outcomes and acceptance of expert advice regarding food and health. The research exploring consumer trust is found across a broad range of research streams, and is not cohesive in topic or approach. The purpose of this paper is to synthesise the disparate literature exploring the interaction between food labelling and consumer trust to determine what is known, and gaps in knowledge regarding food labelling and consumer trust. Design/methodology/approach - A systematic search of trust and food labelling literature was conducted, with study results synthesised and integrated. Studies were then critically analysed for the conceptualisation of the consumer, the label, and their interaction with a framework developed using social theories of trust. Findings - In total, 27 studies were identified. It was found that not only is the current literature predominantly atheoretical, but the conceptualisation of labelling has been limited. Research limitations/implications - Further empirical research is needed to enable a more comprehensive understanding of the role food labelling plays in influencing consumer trust in food systems. Originality/value - This research develops a conceptualisation of the dual roles food labelling may play in influencing consumer trust in food systems. It distinguishes between trust in food labelling itself, and the trust consumers develop in the food supply system through food labelling. The novel theoretical model and synthesis provide a foundation upon which future research may be conducted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据