Global meat consumption poses a threat to environmental sustainability and human health. Therefore, moral and health-related norms connected to eating meat are changing and consumers experience conflicts when choosing between meat and nonmeat options in various situations. To achieve a better understanding of the nature of these conflicts and how consumers cope with them, we study identities related to meat consumption and how they are organized. Identity theories are used as the lens to address the self-relevance of meat to consumers. Thirteen Danish consumers shared how and why they ate, reduced, or avoided meat in a food-based photo-diary and in-depth interviews, supported by a visualization approach, developed from self-brand connection methods. Three higher-order identities (pragmatic idealist, ethical foodie, and healthy hedonist) emerged, governing the consumption, reduction, or avoidance of different meat categories. Identity conflicts between health, moral (e.g., animal welfare), and hedonic concerns were present, but also identity stigma. Coping mechanisms include change of salience and changing patterns of meat consumption. Campaigners promoting a reduction in meat consumption and developers of alternative protein foods can use these insights to target identities and facilitate conflict resolutions. However, more research is needed on how generalizable results are.

No abstract

Supermarkets have been criticized by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for pricing tactics that trigger overpurchase, which may subsequently lead to food waste. Some retailers have responded by abolishing price promotions. However, is it the macro-level of the market structure, or the micro-level of the consumer, that is to blame for food waste? With an outset in consumer responsibilization theory and through 24 in-depth qualitative interviews, we explore how consumers and institutional actors perceive the responsibility for food waste in the interface between retailers and consumers, and how this perception has evolved. We identify two responsibility narratives-one that portrays the consumer as a self-governed actor and the other as interdependent on the institutionally shaped context. We uniquely show that over time, a process of hybrid responsibility expansion has led to an extension of the consumer's responsibility into the retailer's domain of action, and vice versa. Findings highlight that responsibilization is not either on the consumers or retailers' side and can expand for both. This provides a nuance and a new contribution to the theory. For businesses, our results imply that abolishing price promotions does not align with consumer's ascription of responsibility. In turn, actions that involve collaborations of actors, including consumers, speak much more to the perception of responsibility expansion.

No abstract