A model for (re)building consumer trust in the food system

Abstract

The article presents a best practice model that can be utilized by food system actors to assist with (re)building trust in the food system, before, during and after a food incident defined as 'any situation within the food supply chain where there is a risk or potential risk of illness or confirmed illness or injury associated with the consumption of a food or foods' (Commonwealth of Australia. National Food Incident Response Protocol. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2012). Interviews were undertaken with 105 actors working within the media, food industry and food regulatory settings across Australia, New Zealand (NZ) and the United Kingdom (UK). Interview data produced strategy statements, which indicated participant views on how to (re)build consumer trust in the food system. These included: (i) be transparent, (ii) have protocols and procedures in place, (iii) be credible, (iv) be proactive, (v) put consumers first, (vi) collaborate with stakeholders, (vii) be consistent, (viii) educate stakeholders and consumers, (ix) build your reputation and (x) keep your promises. A survey was designed to enable participants to indicate their agreement/disagreement with the ideas, rate their importance and provide further comment. The five strategies considered key to (re)building consumer trust were used to develop a model demonstrating best practice strategies for (re)building consumer trust in the food system before, during and after a food incident. In a world where the food system is increasingly complex, strategies for (re)building and fostering consumer trust are important. This study offers a model to do so which is derived from the views and experiences of actors working across the food industry, food regulation and the media.

Consumer response to brand involved in food safety scandal: An exploratory study based on a recent scandal in India

“…Specifically, we argue that when a brand indulges in a food safety scandal, the restoration of brand trust (BT) among consumers is the prime concern to be addressed (Falkheimer & Heide, 2015;Yannopoulou, Koronis, & Elliott, 2011). In suggesting this, we further argue that perceived brand authenticity and emotional brand attachment are important antecedents for restoring the BT (Ha & Perks, 2005;Japutra et al, 2014;Morhart et al, 2015;Moulard et al, 2016;Schmalz & Orth, 2012;Wilson et al, 2016). This discussion also leads to the following hypotheses:…”

“…Also, apart from ensuring the tracing and the rectification of the food safety flaws, the faulty brand usually undertakes brand recovery and image repair campaigns to persuade consumers (Falkheimer & Heide, ). In order to restore the BT, this is an important step for easing the consumer perception about the brand's culpability (Bánáti, ; Falkheimer & Heide, ; Wilson et al, ).…”

“…This, in turn, suggests that the bottom line of a food safety scandal lies in the deterioration of the healthiness perception of ingredients among consumers. Further, given the vital role of trust in restoring the consumer confidence towards food safety, we argue that BT is an important aspect essential to restore the ingredient's healthiness perception among consumers (Falkheimer & Heide, ; Li et al, ; Meijboom et al, ; Wilson et al, ). The above discussion leads to the following hypothesis:H4 BT will be positively related to IHP.…”

“…In order to restore the BT, this is an important step for easing the consumer perception about the brand's culpability (Bánáti, 2011;Falkheimer & Heide, 2015;Wilson et al, 2016).…”

“…As an aftermath, the involved brands are posed with significant challenges towards the restoration of the consumer trust. This particularly involves proactive efforts towards the intervention (Wilson et al, ). However, there exists a dearth of studies that investigate the consumer evaluation and response towards the brand involved in a food safety scandal (Barnett et al, ; Falkheimer & Heide, ).…”