Consumer evaluations of food risk management in Russia

• Published in: British food journal (1966) Vol. 112; no. 9; pp. 934 - 948
• Main Authors: Popova, Ksenia, Frewer, Lynne J, De Jonge, Janneke, Fischer, Arnout, Van Kleef, Ellen
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bradford Emerald Group Publishing Limited 01.01.2010
• Subjects: attitudes and opinions; Communication; consumer attitudes; Consumer behavior; Consumer behaviour; Consumer protection; consumer surveys; Consumers; cross cultural studies; cultural differences; Decision making; European Union; Focus groups; food industry; Food safety; Perceptions; perceptions (cognitive); psychosocial factors; qualitative analysis; Qualitative research; quantitative analysis; Risk assessment; Risk intelligence; Risk management; Russia; Safety standards; Statistical analysis; Russia; Europe; Risk intelligence; Food safety; Risk management; European Union; Consumer behaviour; Russia
• ISSN: 0007-070X; 1758-4108
• DOI: 10.1108/00070701011074327

Purpose - Consumer perceptions regarding what constitutes best food risk management (FRM) practice may vary as a consequence of cross-cultural differences in consumer perceptions, cultural contexts, and historical differences in governance practices and occurrence of food safety incidents. The purpose of this paper is to compare the views of Russian consumers with those of consumers in European Union member states.Design methodology approach - A survey previously conducted in five EU member states was replicated using a Russian consumer sample (n=460, SEM analysis). Psychological factors underpinning consumer evaluations of food risk management quality (FRMQ) were identified. A qualitative study (consumer focus group, n=9) allowed for in-depth interpretation of the quantitative results.Findings - Russian consumers hold similar views to consumers in EU member states regarding their perceptions of what constitutes effective FRM practices. However, the perceived honesty of food chain actors was an important determinant of perceived FRMQ only for Russian consumers, who also perceived that they were primarily responsible for their own food-related health protection. EU consumers attributed more responsibility to food chain actors and the authorities.Research limitations implications - The analysis compared Russian consumers with consumers in five different EU member states. The results cannot be extended to compare Russian consumers with the entire EU.Practical implications - An international risk communication policy is likely to be impractical, and should be developed at a national or regional level. Given that Russian consumers take personal responsibility for their own health protection, information needs to be provided to enable them to do so.Originality value - To the authors knowledge, this is the first comparative analysis of the determinants of perceptions of effective FRM held by Russian consumers with consumers from within the EU regulatory area.