Drivers and barriers of purchasing meat replacement products

Noora Mäkelä

Department of Marketing

Hanken School of Economics

Helsinki

2021

i    HANKEN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Department of: Marketing

Type of work: Master’s thesis

Author: Noora Mäkelä

Date: 31.1.2021

Title of thesis: Drivers and barriers of purchasing meat replacement products Abstract: The global demand for meat and the increasing awareness of sustainable food consumption have highlighted the interest towards plant-based meat replacement products. There are several types of meat alternatives in the markets which are gaining interest of most consumers, but in order to achieve broader consumer acceptance, lots of studies and development are still needed. This thesis explores the drivers and barriers of purchasing meat replacement products from the perspective of Finnish consumers in order to undestand the key factors influencing the decision-making process. The study was conducted with qualitative methods in the form of three focus group interviews with altogether 12 participants including vegans, vegetarians, heavy meat eaters, and individuals with traditional mixed diet. The collected data was analyzed with the help of existing academic literature regarding meat replacement products and the factors influencing consumer behavior. Previous research shows that the decision-making process of a consumer is influenced by several complex factors such as attitudes, beliefs, experiences, and the current purchase situation. The main drivers of purchasing meat substitutes are suggested to be the positive impact on health and the environmentally friendliness of the products. The main barriers are believed to be connected with price, taste, texture, and the centuries-long traditions of eating meat. According to the empirical findings of this study, key drivers influencing the purchasing behavior of meat replacement products are eco-friendliness, healthiness, variation, positive attitude, positive experience, and animal rights. Especially the healthiness and the environmentally friendly aspect of meat substitutes were emphasized. Furthermore, the key barriers are negative association, negative impact on health, expensiveness, negative experience, and habitual factors. Finnish consumers seem to have lots of negative beliefs about meat replacements, mostly connected to the manufacturing process and the idea of replacing meat with a plant-based product which taste like meat. Surprisingly, the origin of a food product was discovered to be a major influencer in the decision-making process of a Finnish consumer. Unlike previous studies have suggested, consumers are not looking for a product with maximum similarity with meat but instead a near produced natural plant-based option with unique qualitites and health benefits. The findings of this study are important for marketing departments regarding activity towards meat replacement products. As the popularity of plant-based diet is continuously growing and the knowledge of negative effects of meat consumption is spreading, food industry has various possibilities to influence on consumers’ purchasing behavior regarding meat substitutes. Keywords: meat replacement products, purchasing behavior, key drivers of purchase, key barriers of purchase

  ii  

CONTENTS

1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research problem .................................................................................... 2 1.2 Aim of the study ....................................................................................... 4 1.3 Delimitations ........................................................................................... 5 1.4 Definitions ............................................................................................... 5

1.4.1 The definition of meat alternatives .................................................. 5 2 Theoretical framework .................................................................................... 7

2.1 Consumer purchase behavior .................................................................. 7 2.1.1 Factors influencing consumer behavior .......................................... 7 2.1.2 Consumer decision-making process ............................................... 11 2.1.3 Consumption decisions in the food sector ..................................... 14 2.1.4 Environmentally friendly purchasing behavior ............................. 15

2.2 Challenges of meat replacement products ............................................ 17 2.3 Summary of the theoretical framework ................................................ 19

3 Empirical design ........................................................................................... 21 3.1 Research approach ................................................................................ 21 3.2 Research method ................................................................................... 22 3.3 Sample ................................................................................................... 23 3.4 Data collection process .......................................................................... 25

3.4.1 Interview guide ............................................................................... 26 3.4.2 Ethical issues in data collection .................................................... 28

3.5 Data analysis process ............................................................................ 28 3.5.1 Categorization ................................................................................ 29 3.5.2 Abstraction and comparison ......................................................... 30 3.5.3 Dimensionalization and integration .............................................. 32

3.6 Quality of the data ................................................................................. 32 4 Empirical findings ......................................................................................... 35

4.1 Factors influencing the purchasing behavior ........................................ 35 4.2 Key drivers of buying meat replacement products ............................... 39 4.3 Key barriers of buying meat replacement products .............................. 42

5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 47 5.1 Key findings ........................................................................................... 47 5.2 Managerial implications ........................................................................ 52

  iii  

5.3 Limitations and recommendations for future research ........................ 53 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 55

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Interview guide ............................................................................... 64 Appendix 2 Consent form .................................................................................. 65

TABLES

Table 1 Sampling strategies ............................................................................... 24 Table 2 Sample overview .................................................................................... 25 Table 3 Data structure (adapted from Gioia, Corley and Hamilton, 2012) ...... 31 Table 4 An illustration of the dimensionalization process ................................ 32 Table 5 The quality of the data (adapted from Wallendorf and Belk, 1989) ..... 34

FIGURES

Figure 1 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs .............................................................. 10 Figure 2 Consumer decision-making process ................................................... 11 Figure 3 Factors influencing purchasing decisions of meat replacement products 19 Figure 4 Key drivers and barriers of purchasing meat replacement products 51

  1  

1   INTRODUCTION

The increasing awareness of sustainable food consumption has highlighted the interest

towards various alternatives for traditional meat, especially towards plant-based meat

replacement products (Lee et al., 2020). Traditional livestock farming contains an

intensive land use and high levels of greenhouse gas emissions as the maximum capacity

of environmentally friendly meat production has already been reached (Westhoek et al.,

2014). Meat consumption has also been connected to various negative health impacts

such as cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease mortality (Lock et al., 2010). Eating

less meat reduces consumers’ carbon footprint effectively (Winston, 2011) and plant-

based meat substitutes meet the expectations regarding nutritional value of a protein

source (Lee et al., 2020). As the world’s population is constantly growing, the importance

of alternative protein sources is believed to increase significantly (Kyriakopoulou et al.,

2019).

Even if consumers would be aware of the negative health and environmental effects of

meat consumption, meat replacement products haven’t yet achieved broader consumer

acceptance (Castellari et al., 2018). Based on previous studies, the key barriers of

purchasing meat replacement products are unfamiliarity with the products and the

unattractiveness of the food texture compared to meat (Hoek et al., 2011). Therefore,

there are still a lot to develop in texture, flavor, and appearance of the products (Lee et

al., 2020). The lack of commercialization and mass production could also affect the cost

of the final product which can be a significant barrier for a consumer (Choudhury et al.,

2020). The key drivers of purchasing meat substitutes are suggested to be the eco-

friendliness and healthiness of the plant-based products (Hoek et al., 2011).

However, there are still quite small number of studies about the purchasing behavior of

vegetarian food or meat replacement products among different consumer groups or

cultures. Attitudes and beliefs towards dietary behavior are changing fast and

vegetarianism is gaining popularity every year (Mayer, 2020; Vegan Society, 2020;

Simcikas, 2018). Advanced studies about health and nutrition are being published

frequently which affects consumers and shape their beliefs continuously (Simcikas,

2018). It is essential to identify the key drivers and barriers of purchasing meat

replacement products in order to reduce the consumption of meat and focus on more

environmentally friendly eating habits in the future. To be able to increase the

consumption of meat replacement products, more studies are needed to identify the

drivers and barriers of purchasing meat substitutes (Hoek et al., 2011).

  2  

1.1   Research problem

Over history, meat has had a significant impact on human evolution and development as

a food resource (Pereira and Vicente, 2013). The human body needs nutrients, especially

proteins, to many physiological functions, and meat has been an important source of

those nutrients (Elmadfa and Meyer, 2017). Meat provides about 15% of the needed

proteins in our diet and it has all the important fatty acids, amino acids, and

micronutrients such as iron and vitamin B (Williams, 2007).

Meat has also a cultural and social meaning in human society (Font-i-Furnols and

Guerrero, 2014; Leroy and Praet, 2015), and it has been an integral part of our lives (Lee

et al., 2020). The increasing demand for real meat products has been fulfilled before as

the livestock farming industrialized and larger quantities were provided to consumers

(Bonny et al., 2015). However, today it is no longer possible to increase the production

of meat in environmentally friendly way since the water and land resources are limited

for livestock farming, animal welfare issues have been rapidly increasing, and negative

impacts on climate change and the environment have been noticed (Lee et al., 2020).

Therefore, there is a clear need for alternative protein sources to replace meat as the

current meat supply cannot meet the demand (Lee et al., 2020).

Livestock farming contains high levels of greenhouse gas emissions and an intensive land

use (Westhoek et al., 2014). As the world’s population is constantly growing, reaching

9,8 billion by 2050 (Clayton et al., 2019), the need for alternative protein sources is

increasing significantly (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019). Meat consumption has been related

to negative health effects as well. An excessive meat consumption can cause various types

of cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease mortality (Lock et al., 2010), because of

the low intakes of vitamins, micronutrients, and dietary fiber, and high intakes of salt,

fats, and saturated fatty acids (Castellari et al., 2018). The overconsumption of meat and

animal-based proteins is connected to developed countries and plant-based proteins and

their health and environmental benefits are often underestimated (Castellari et al.,

2018).

According to previous research, meat is not a necessary ingredient in a diet and there are

lots of vegans and vegetarians that have a nutritionally balanced diet (FAO, 1992).

Replacing traditional processed meat with cereals, yogurt, cheese, or nuts is associated

with a lower risk to get diabetes (Ibsen et al., 2020). The solution for broad consumer

acceptance of meat substitutes and plant-based products could be market-based policies

  3  

(taxation) or information campaigns about consumption habits (Castellari et al., 2018).

This way consumers should pay a higher price for traditional meat and they would be

more familiar with the health and environmental benefits of a plant-based diet

(Castellari et al., 2018).

The existing literature of meat replacement products has focused on consumers’

sustainable consumption habits and the willingness to to change their dietary behavior

towards plant-based diet (e.g. O’Riordan and Stoll-Kleemann, 2015; Fischer, Böhme and

Geiger, 2017). Meat replacements have a significantly lower environmental impact

(Mejia et al., 2016), and the previous research has shown that consumers also believe

that reducing meat consumption and buying organic food have a lower influence on the

environment (Tobler, Visschers and Siegrist, 2011). Meat replacement products, which

are manufactured from mycoproteins and plant proteins, are the biggest competitor for

real meat and their market share is continuously growing (Bonny et al., 2015).

Meat consumption has been connected to a large carbon footprint (Westhoek et al.,

2014), and negative health effects (Lock et al., 2010). Since there is a lot of information

about the negative influences of meat consumption, it would be likely that meat eaters

experience more pressure to justify their behavior to the society. However, young men

typically justify their meat eating by denying animal suffering, believing that animals are

lower in a hierarchy than humans, endorsing pro-meat attitudes (e.g. history and

culture), and providing health justifications for eating meat such as getting enough

protein and iron. Young women use more indirect strategies by avoiding thinking about

the bad animal treatment, and dissociating animals from meat eating. Based on the

studies, females are more often associated with vegetarian consumption habits whereas

men with greater meat consumption. (Rothgerber, 2013.)

Meat consumption is a learned habit and changing this social and personal behavior is a

major challenge (O’Riordan and Stoll-Kleemann, 2015). The nutritional knowledge of

consumers has been studied in the past, but the studies have shown that the amount of

knowledge does not influence on the consumption behavior (e.g. Montero, Ubeda and

García, 2006). Gender has said to have an important role in the sustainable decision-

making process, because there seems to be a different societal pressure to eat meat

depending on the gender (e.g. Yahia et al., 2016; Qauhiz, 2010). Men often have a lot of

dietary pressure since eating meat is perceived to indicate masculinity in western

societies (McWilliams, 2018). Therefore based on previous research, men are typically

less willing to reduce meat consumption than women (Nakagawa and Hart, 2019).

  4  

Some of the previous studies have found that key drivers for purchasing meat substitutes

are the eco-friendliness and healthiness of plant-based products (Hoek et al., 2011). On

the other hand, key barriers for infrequent meat substitute users have said to be

unfamiliarity with the products and the unattractiveness of the food texture compared to

traditional meat (Hoek et al., 2011). However, the results of prior studies have been

contradictive with each other and bound to specific regions and targeted to certain

customer groups which emphazes the lack of research in this particular area. Some of the

studies have been conducted several years ago which is a long time since the attitudes

towards dietary behavior are changing rapidly alongside with the advanced studies about

health (e.g. Mayer, 2020; Vegan Society, 2020; Simcikas, 2018). In addition, previous

studies haven’t covered the perceptions of extreme cases such as heavy meat eaters or

consumers with plant-based diet. Heavy meat eaters aren’t typically buying meat

alternatives and perhaps they are having the most negative image of meat replacement

products which make it interesting to examine the reasons behind those attitudes. As the

number of vegetarians is continuously growing (Mayer, 2020), it is essential to find out

the attitudes and beliefs of this particular consumer group as well. It is important to

identify the key drivers and barriers of purchasing meat substitutes to establish more

environmentally friendly consumption habits in the future. In order to increase the

consumption of meat replacement products and contribute to product development,

more insight is needed on drivers and barriers among different consumer groups (Hoek

et al., 2011).

This study contributes to the research of purchasing behavior of Finnish consumers

regarding meat replacement products and the knowledge of the attitudes of extreme

cases such as heavy meat eaters and consumers with plant-based diet. The results of this

study could be utilized in Finnish food indistry businesses and in their marketing

departments regarding plant-based substitutes, and among the consumers to reflect

their attitudes towards the products in question.

1.2   Aim of the study

This research examines the drivers and barriers of purchasing meat replacement

products from the perspective of Finnish consumers. The aim is to find out which factors

are influencing consumers' purchasing decisions and which are the key drivers and

barriers of the decision-making process regarding meat substitutes. This study

contributes to academic research by extending the knowledge of the attitudes and

behavioral patterns of Finnish consumers by identifying the crucial factors which

  5  

influence the purchasing decisions of meat replacement products. The findings of this

thesis are expected to offer information both for organizations in order to develop

marketing for meat replacement products, and for consumers to consider their attitudes

towards plant-based substitutes.

The study aims to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: Which are the key drivers of buying meat replacement products?

RQ2: Which are the key barriers of buying meat replacement products?

1.3   Delimitations

There are three delimitations in this study. First, the study will be delimited to meat

replacement products since there is no studies regarding the purchasing behavior of

meat substitutes between different consumer groups (Hoek et al., 2011). To be able to

increase the consumption of these products, more research is needed (Hoek et al., 2011).

As the study will focus on meat substitutes, other vegetarian options are left out.

Second, the study is delimited to consumers that are able to use online interview

platforms. Due to COVID-19 pandemic, the focus group interviews are conducted via

Microsoft Teams. Consumers participating in this study need to be able to use the

platform in order to participate. Consumers that don’t have the necessary technology or

skills for the interview are left out of the study.

Third, the study is delimited to Finnish consumers. The qualitative focus group

interviews are conducted in Finnish, so all the participants need to be able to

communicate in Finnish. Since the interviews are held online, the interviewees can

participate anywhere they prefer. Furthermore, the participants are living in different

areas in Finland and also a few participants outside the country. The sample of the study

is carried out with a purposeful sampling technique which is explained more thoroughly

in the method chapter of this thesis.

1.4   Definitions

1.4.1   The definition of meat alternatives

Meat replacements, also called meat alternatives, meat substitutes, or meat analogues,

are primarily plant-based food products that are made from cereal protein, soy, almond,

fungi, quorn, or even from insect-based protein (Henchion et al., 2017). As a matter of

  6  

fact, plant protein is one of the oldest food sources in the history of human society (Lee

et al., 2020). Several products such as wheat gluten, tempeh, and yuba, have been

consumed in different cultures and areas for decades, and tofu was first used

approximately in 960 CE (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 2014). In addition, from the year 1888,

plant-based products have been suggested as a meat substitute, but they still haven’t

reached the popularity of meat because of different texture and flavor compared to

traditional meat (Lee et al., 2020). The consumption of meat replacements has been

related to economic benefits (e.g. employment and impact on GDP (NAMI, 2020)) and

social demands such as religion, ethical, and health reasons (Asgar et al., 2010). Lately,

the market share of meat replacement products has been expanding due to social

demands, and manufacturers are focusing on the product’s texture and taste (Bohrer,

2019). However, it is really important to also focus on meeting the nutrient specifications

of real meat since plant protein’s nutritional value is limited (Joshi and Kumar, 2015).

  7  

2   THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter presents a theoretical framework on consumer purchase behavior including

factors influencing consumer behavior, consumer decision-making process,

consumption decisions in the food sector, and environmentally friendly purchasing

behavior. In addition, the challenges related to the meat substitutes are discussed.

Finally, the chapter provides a summary of the theoretical framework.

2.1   Consumer purchase behavior

Consumer behavior has been defined as an area of various processes that involve groups’

or individuals’ behavior of using, purchasing, selecting, and disposing of products, ideas,

or services and experiences to satisfy their inner desires, needs, and wants (Solomon,

2010). Previously, marketing departments have been focusing on satisfying consumers’

needs of purchase, but today marketers also need to understand consumers’ social

environment which has an influence on their final decision (Yang et al., 2007). The social

environment consists of the impact of reference groups such as family, friends,

colleagues, and other social contacts (Yang et al., 2007). Consumer behavior includes

also a social decision-making process which explains that consumption of goods has also

a symbolic value to consumers, because consumer adapts to social norms of the reference

group (Coleman, 1983; Gergen and Gergen, 1986). Reference groups affect and support

consumer’s behavior, lifestyle, values and attitudes, and self-esteem (Bearden and Etzel,

1982). It is clear that reference groups influence the purchasing decisions of products,

but the amount of influence varies across cultures and among different consumer groups

(Fernandes and Panda, 2019).

2.1.1   Factors influencing consumer behavior

There are multiple factors which can influence consumers’s purchasing decisions. Some

of the factors are connected to the situation: what the consumer is precisely buying and

for what purpose. The rest of the factors are connected to an individual: motivations,

preferences, personality, economic status, and background. The final purchasing

decision is an outcome from a complex mix of all the aforementioned factors and that is

why the decision is difficult to predict. It is important for marketers to understand the

most crucial factors of the particular target segment in order to use the influencing

factors for their advantage. Even if the consumers’ decision-making process is quite

standardized, every individual makes decisions slightly differently. In addition,

consumers have many behavioral tendencies and beliefs. Some of them are controllable

  8  

and some of them are not. These factors are connected with each other and therefore

each individual makes unique choices and actions. Even though it isn’t profitable to

modify the marketing actions for every individual, marketers are able to identify specific

factors that are usually influencing the majority in a predictable way. Factors influencing

consumer decisions can be divided into four groups: situational factors, personal factors,

psychological factors, and social factors. (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010, pp. 161-175;

Stávková et al., 2008.)

Situational factors include the buying task and market offerings. The process starts

with the need of solving a specific problem which develops to the buying task. This task

is also related to the level of consumer involvement. The level of involvement is high if

the decision includes risk and involves ego. On the contrary, the level of involvement is

low if the decision includes low risk or ego. The buying task also includes product or

brand familiarity. If the consumer has bought a same kind of product multiple times

before, the decision-making process is more likely straightforward in spite of the

involvement level. The previous customer satisfaction produces brand loyalty and the

disappointments lead to careful consideration of another product. Furthermore, the

available market offerings influence the complexity of the purchase decision. If there are

a large variety of different products and brands available, the more complicated the

decision-making process is likely to be. If the market offerings are more limited, the

decision is probably going to be more simple. A broader selection of products and brands

is typically better for the consumers since it is easier to find a product that suits their

specific needs. On the other hand, a large variety of choices can cause confusion and

frustration, because there is a possibility that the consumer chooses a product which is

not optimal for the purpose. (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010, pp. 161-175; Mihic and

Kursan, 2010.)

Personal factors include demographics, lifestyle, personality, and life stage.

Demographics consist of gender, age, income level, marital status, and educational

background. Demographics can have a powerful impact on purchasing behavior since

there are great generational differences which affect the attitudes and habits of consumer

behavior. Income level and economic status has also a strong influence in decision-

making, because individuals in different income groups tend to look for different

qualities, buy in a different way, and buy different types of products and brands.

Marketers typically categorize their product to either high-end or low-end consumers.

Life stage is usually connected to demographics. Significant life events are tied to the

  9  

consumer behavior and they shape attitudes, behaviors, and decisions. Lifestyle’s

importance in decision-making has been increasing over the past years. Lifestyle means

consumer’s pattern or being of living in the world connected with attitudes, opinions,

and interests. Lifestyle includes activities, interests, and opinions about the world and

oneself. Lifestyle reveals how individuals spend their time, what they care about, and on

which things they are likely to spend money. These characteristics have a strong

influence on consumer decisions and brand preference. Personality type also affects the

purchasing decision-making. Different personalities tend to respond differently to

market offerings: extrovert is more likely to enjoy the experience of shopping and trust

in personal observation whereas introvert may find the social situation uncomfortable.

In-store promotion, for instance, is typically more effective on extroverts. (Harrell and

McConocha, 1992; Kotler and Armstrong, 2010, pp. 161-175.)

Psychological factors include motivation, learning and socialisation, attitudes, and

beliefs (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010, pp. 161-175). Motivation means an inner pressure

or drive to take action in order to satisfy a need (MSG, 2020). The need has to be strong

enough to serve as a motive for purchasing decisions. Some of the needs are more urgent

than others which generates higher motivation to act (MSG, 2020).

One of the most famous theories of individual motivation is Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy

of needs. This theory is divided into five stages which represents people’s most important

needs. These five stages of needs are: physiological, safety, love and belonging, self-

esteem, and self-actualisation (Figure 1). This theory is often shown as a pyramid where

physiological needs are the bottom and self-actualisation the top. Physiological needs

include the vital aspects of being alive such as food, water, and air to breath. The need of

safety means protecting oneself from different kinds of dangers. Love and belonging

stands for friendship, love, and being part of a community. Self-esteem includes self-

respect and receiving respect from others. The need of self-actualisation means using

personal talent or interest to do something such as working in a meaningful job or

parenting. According to Maslow, people need to satisfy the basic needs before proceeding

to a higher level. The goal for marketing departments is to create a need for the

consumers. The more convincing the need is, the more likely consumers are purchasing

the product and fulfil the need. (Juuti et al., 2012, pp. 150.)

  10  

Figure 1   Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

Learning changes consumer behavior based on previous experiences. Socialisation is

strongly connected to learning, because people gain more skills and knowledge which

makes them more or less capable members of their society. Socialized behaviors are

changing continuously during the individual’s lifetime. Psychological factors also include

attitudes and beliefs. A belief is an understanding an individual holds about something

that is not necessarily true but the individual thinks is true. An attitude is related to

feelings and behaviors and it is more of an opinion about something. Attitudes and

beliefs can be neutral, negative, or positive, and they can be based on facts or

opinions. (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010, pp. 161-175; Vainikka, 2015.)

Social factors consist of culture, subculture, family, reference groups, and social class.

Culture has a strong impact on an individual's needs and wants since through culture

people learn what to value, how to live, and how to see ourselves in society. Subcultures

are part of communities that share the same experiences, values, and beliefs. Subcultures

can be based on geographical area, ethnicity, religion, nationality or occupation. Social

class is determined by education, family background, income, wealth, occupation,

prestige, and power. Social class shapes consumers’ perception of their wants and needs

and that way influences consumer behavior. Reference groups are the social contacts of

an individual through face-to-face interaction, indirect contact, and friendship. A

reference group can be an informal or formal group and the individual is often influenced

  11  

by the group. The reference group influences an individual's behavior through role

expectations, conformity, group communication with opinion leaders, and word-of-

mouth influence. Family is a very important reference group for a consumer. Consumer’s

family has a massive influence on behavior and attitude, and families are also crucial

consumer units in society. Several purchasing decisions are made by a family member

for the whole family which makes the process even more complex. (Kotler and

Armstrong, 2010, pp. 161-175; Hervé and Mullet, 2009.)

2.1.2   Consumer decision-making process

Marketing theorists agree that consumers go through a chain of actions that lead to a

solution about consumer’s wants and needs (Paul et al., 2010). The model consists of five

sequential steps: need recognition and problem awareness, information search,

evaluation of alternatives, purchase, and post-purchase evaluation (Figure 2) (Gañac,

2018). In the first stage individual sees a gap between the current and the ideal situation

and identifies a need. The second stage includes information search from internal and

external sources, assessing past experiences, and actively searching for information

about available opportunities. Then the consumer evaluates the alternatives in order to

make the best possible decision. This stage is influenced by attitudes, beliefs, intentions,

circumstances, and criteria for evaluating the alternatives (Shiftman and Kanuk, 2007).

Purchase or choice is the next stage and it could be affected by price, income, or other

personal features (Shiftman and Kanuk, 2007). The fourth stage can also be a decision

to not to buy the product. After the purchase the consumer evaluates the choice. If the

consumer is happy with the product, the decision will have a positive influence on future

decisions. If the consumer is disappointed with the product, the brand may be avoided

in the future (Shiftman and Kanuk, 2007). The basic decision-making model provides a

foundation for elaborating the consumers’ activities and for simulating the cognitive

processes during the decision-making process (Shiftman and Kanuk, 2007).

Figure 2   Consumer decision-making process

  12  

Marketing and sales departments take advantage of the buying process in order to

influence the purchasing actions of consumers. This way the provider is able to fulfill the

needs of consumers. During the first stage, the need can be triggered by external or

internal stimuli (Mizerski et al., 1979; Lumen, 2020). Internal triggers are typically

physiological such as hunger or thirst. External triggers can be intended or unintended

such as advertising or word of mouth (Hampel et al., 2012). The most important purpose

of an advertisement is to attract the individual’s attention and influence them to

purchase the product (Prabakaran, 2012). Several studies have shown that

advertisements, especially TV advertisements, play an important role in affecting

consumer’s purchasing behavior towards the brand and the product (e.g. Hampel et al.,

2012; Chudzian, 2014; Chithra and Kothai, 2015; Prabakaran, 2012). Advertisements are

able to create positive word of mouth, and higher consumer willingness to pay a price

premium (Hampel et al., 2012). However, more insight is needed since the studies are

not recently published and the habits of watching TV has changed rapidly during the past

ten years (Insider, 2019).

Situations that lead to a need recognition are insufficient stock, dissatisfaction with the

stock, changes in the financial status, changes in the environmental characteristics,

promotion, individual development, previous decisions, availability of products, and

activities by consumer groups and the government. The most common trigger for

problem recognition is the lack of necessities that consumers use. Furthermore, if

consumers become dissatisfied with the necessities they have, a problem is again

recognised. If an individual’s lifestyle or life stage changes, there might be need for

different types of products and services. If the financial status of an individual improves

or worsens, a problem can also be recognised. (Mizerski et al., 1979; Lumen, 2020.)

Marketers are continuously trying to trigger a consumer’s need with promotional

activities, and the aim is to create a gap between the current and the desired states of

consumers. Previous decisions might also trigger a need since consumers might need

something related to the previous purchase, for example, a glass screen protector for a

new phone. An individual can experience mental development which can lead to a

change in appearance and to a need of certain goods. Activities of different consumer

groups and governmental agencies may trigger a need as well. For instance, if consumer

groups support environmentally friendly goods, a consumer may feel the need for

purchasing such goods. The government can also set regulations towards certain

possessions (e.g. private cars) which leads to a need of using other products (bicycles,

  13  

public transportation). Sometimes only the availability and awareness of a specific

product triggers the need of a consumer. (Mizerski et al., 1979; Lumen, 2020.)

During the second stage, information searching, consumers can either actively search for

information or just have heightened attention to the matter. Factors that influence the

information search are public sources, commercial sources, experimental sources, and

personal sources. Personal sources include family, friends, colleagues and so forth.

Professional advertising, sales, displays, and packaging are commercial sources which

are trying to have an impact on the consumer decision-making. Public sources include

sources such as media and reviews. Experimental sources are connected to the usage and

handling of the products since it might be possible to try the alternatives before making

the decision. Typically, the most of the received information is from commercial sources

which are controlled by the provider. Nevertheless, the most effective source is often

personal. Personal sources are even more important when consumers are buying

services. Commercial sources give the necessary information to the consumer but

personal sources evaluate the alternatives for the consumer. (Mizerski et al., 1979;

Lumen, 2020.)

When all the wanted information is searched, the consumer proceeds to the evaluation

of alternatives. During this stage, the gathered information is used to evaluate different

options and brands. Generally, the consumers base their evaluation on the product’s

attributes (e.g. price, quality, packaging), brand image, and satisfaction. Consumers pay

more attention to the attributes which are relevant for their needs (Hagerty and Aaker,

1984). Depending on the situation, the consumer can apply logical thinking to the

decision or can make a complete impulse action and use intuition (Hervé and Mullet,

2009). Sometimes consumers make the decision by themselves and sometimes with the

help of a salesperson or a friend. The next stage is the purchase decision in which the

consumer purchases the product. Most commonly, the consumer will buy the most

popular brand. However, there are two factors that can influence the purchasing decision

on this stage. The first one is the attitudes and opinions of other people related to the

consumer. The second one is unexpected situational factors such as price or benefits. The

consumer might change the brand unexpectedly if the price or product benefits differ

from the previous information (Belk, 1975). (Mizerski et al., 1979; Lumen, 2020.)

During the last stage, post-purchase evaluation, the consumer evaluates whether the

decision was good or bad. Then, the consumer takes action based on their satisfaction or

dissatisfaction. The consumer’s perception of the outcome is connected to the perceived

  14  

performance and expectations of the product. The best case scenario is to exceed the

expectations. It is better for marketers to rather underestimate the performance than

overestimate it, because dissatisfaction often leads to the decision to not to buy the brand

again in the future. (Mizerski et al., 1979; Lumen, 2020.)

2.1.3   Consumption decisions in the food sector

Consumer’s purchasing behavior in the food sector is a combination of several factors.

The attributes which were presented in the previous sub-chapters are also affecting in

the food sector, but consumers are focusing on slightly different attributes which are not

all necessarily contributing purchases in other sectors. The consumer decision-making

process in the food sector is usually shorter and more efficient since shopping groceries

is perceived more as a routine than a carefully considered decision. Nevertheless, the

most important criteria influencing the purchase decision-making of food is typically

price, convenience, quality, humane treatment of animals and the organic component of

food (Nilssen et al., 2019). Sustainability-related factors are considered as well, but other

factors are more significant during the decision-making process (Nilssen et al., 2019).

Consumers are not only focusing on practicality, but also on psychological needs such as

visually pleasant packaging (Siahdashti and Jaber, 2019). Price is typically a crucial

factor in decision-making, but sometimes packaging can have more significant impact

than price (Boccia and Sarnacchiaro, 2020). Since pretty colours and graphics might be

influencing consumers' purchasing decisions, the packaging is designed to attract the

attention of individuals and guide them into purchasing the product (Siahdashti and

Jaber, 2019). On the contrary, weak package design has a negative influence on

consumers’ attitudes and therefore it leads to low sales (Siahdashti and Jaber, 2019).

Consumers’ purchasing behavior is different when buying familiar products and brands

whereas unfamiliar products are considered more closely. The purchase of a familiar

brand is more of a routine and automatic rather than a careful consideration between

alternatives. Consumers tend to read the nutrition information more carefully when

purchasing products for the first time. The important factors influencing decision-

making along with the brand are specific health endorsement logos, nutrient content

claims, and the list of ingredients. Consumers read the nutrition information in order to

ensure the health properties or nutritional value, determine quality, and to avoid specific

ingredients. However, consumers are struggling with understanding the food packaging

labels, especially nutrition information, which often leads to ignoring the information.

The reasons for ignoring the nutritional information are trust in labelling information,

  15  

price concerns, and a lack of interest or time. Based on previous studies, there is a clear

need for more simple food packaging with more visual graphics, and with less difficult

terminology and information overload. (Koen et al., 2018.)

Previous studies have proved that discounts and sales promotions accelerate the

purchases, stocking, and experimentation of new products (Vigna and Mainardes, 2019).

According to Vigna and Mainardes (2019), free samples, prize draws, and discounts

influence the purchasing behavior of consumers encouraging them to choose foods that

are on sale and motivating them to prefer products that use sales promotion. On the

other hand, de Sousa et al. (2020) claims that the main factors influencing consumers’s

decisions of purchasing meat are the quality of the product exposed in supermarkets and

the availability of the specific meat product in different supermarkets. Some of the

studies argue that price and discounts does not matter when purchasing meat (de Sousa

et al., 2020), but more research is needed in this area.

2.1.4   Environmentally friendly purchasing behavior

Nowadays, environmentally friendly aspect of purchasing behavior cannot be ignored

since it’s a contributing factor in the food sector, but in other sectors as well. As plant-

based products are typically perceived as more eco-friendly choice (Turner, 2019), the

background of environmentally friendly purchasing behavior need to be examined in

order to understand the factors influencing activity regarding meat replacement

products. During the past years, the media has been actively publishing news and articles

with environmental issues such as climate change, global warming, air pollution, and

carbon emissions. As a result of this activity, the society has recognized the importance

of protecting the natural environment and to act towards the common goal (Leonidou

and Leonidou, 2011). Environmental behavior is based on the idea of minimizing the

negative influence of one’s behavior on the environment (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002).

A person who takes the social and environmental results of purchasing behavior into

account is defined as a socially responsible consumer (Ulusoy, 2016).

The purpose of sustainable marketing is to satisfy the consumer’s desires and needs and

at the same time contribute to public welfare and protect the environment (Mataraci and

Kurtulus, 2020). Nowadays consumers are more aware of environmental challenges and

they have the need to satisfy not only their personal needs, but also social and

environmental needs. However, consumers are struggling with turning this attitude into

a positive behavior (Polonsky et al., 2012). The majority of individuals are not motivated

  16  

enough to buy more eco-friendly products even if they declare themselves to be aware of

social and environmental challenges (Carrigan and Attalla, 2001). Consumers are using

simple strategies to make satisfying and quick buying decisions and are motivated by

both environmental motives and self-interest (Eberhart and Naderer, 2017). The

previous research has emphasized environmental motives in consumption behavior

(Egea and de Frutos, 2013), but newer studies have revealed that self-interest is the key

driver for all consumer groups (Eberhart and Naderer, 2017). One possible solution for

consumers could be to integrate environmental values into their self-image so that

sustainable consumption would be an important part of their self-understanding

(Eberhart and Naderer, 2017).

The aim of a sustainable marketing strategy is that the consumer would be ready to pay

more for sustainable products (Mataraci and Kurtulus, 2020). Therefore, organizations

need to put effort into defining a specific target group based on consumers’ lifestyles,

values, motives, buying behaviors, attitudes, concerns, intention to buy environmentally

friendly products, demographic characteristics, and personality traits (Barbarossa and

Pastore, 2015). The studies have shown that there is a difference between the purchasing

behavior and the concern about the environment (Mataraci and Kurtulus, 2020). Some

of the organizations have also tried to understand the environmental purchasing

behavior which refers to the idea of purchasing products that are thought to have the

smallest impact on the environment (Peattie, 2001). Environmental purchasing behavior

also includes the decision of not to buy as well as preferring eco-friendly products. Other

behaviors contributing to the environment are, for instance, saving water and energy,

recycling, using public transport, avoiding and reducing consumption, and preferring

eco-friendly organizations (Mataraci and Kurtulus, 2020). Consumers want to choose

brands that are eco-friendly and does not consume a lot of natural resources (Mataraci

and Kurtulus, 2020).

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) of organizations is connected to consumer

behavior and it is an investment to a functional marketing strategy (Boccia and

Sarnacchiaro, 2020). Today, consumers are requiring more and more responsible

initiatives from the companies and it is crucial to follow consumers’ preferences in order

to succeed (Boccia and Sarnacchiaro, 2020). On the other hand, some of the studies have

shown that even if there is a positive correlation between socially responsible initiatives

of organizations and consumers’ attitudes towards them and their products, not all of

them are adopting CSR as their criterion for purchase (Boccia et al., 2020). More

  17  

traditional criteria, such as price and quality, are still popular among every consumer

group (Boccia et al., 2020).

According to previous studies, consumer’s purchasing behavior is greatly affected by

one’s lifestyle, environmental consciousness, and involvement factors. In addition,

environmental knowledge and purchasing intentions could be even the biggest influence

on buying behavior. Environmental purchasing behavior is also influenced by the urge

to save money and achieve an economic advantage when contributing to the

environmental challenges since eco-friendly products are perceived more expensive than

the traditional products. Consumers’ healthy and balanced lifestyle correlates strongly

with the intention to buy environmentally friendly products. Therefore, in order to

change the environmental behavior, the consumer habits needs to change first towards

more healthy and balanced lifestyle. (Mataraci and Kurtulus, 2020.)

2.2   Challenges of meat replacement products

There are several factors which might have a negative impact in establishing a broad

acceptance of meat replacement products. Meat is traditional and has been highly

appreciated among the consumers (Wansink et al., 2000). Replacing a tradition is

complex (Hoek et al., 2011) since the change needs to happen in consumers’ attitudes

and thoughts. The problem is that consumers are not willing to replace meat completely

in a meal, even if they would accept meat replacement products as an occasional

alternative (Hoek et al., 2011). Meat replacement products are meant not only for vegans

and vegetarians, but also for current meat consumers in order to decrease their meat

consumption. These replacements are also relatively new compared to traditional meat,

even if some soy products have been used for decades (Sadler, 2004). In addition, there

is a huge gap in the perceived quality of meat and meat replacement products (Hoek et

al., 2011). Qualities which are influencing consumers' purchasing behavior of meat are

convenience, freshness, taste, texture, and healthiness (Grunert et al., 2004). Previous

studies have examined the consumers’ perception of meat and meat replacement

products and based on the studies meat replacements stayed behind particularly in

texture and taste, but also in price and luxury (Aiking et al., 2006). However, there have

been promising experiments of chicken substitutes with high levels of consumer

acceptance in terms of texture, odor, and color (e.g. Kamani et al., 2019; Carvalho et al.,

2019).

  18  

The current alternatives for meat are also more expensive than meat products in general

(Apaiah, 2006). Even if plant-based substitutes are perceived as environmentally

friendlier and a healthier choice, opinions are divided since the production of these

substitutes includes lots of processing to obtain the main ingredients which cause an

increased price of the final product (Choudhury et al., 2020). It is a challenge to achieve

the nutritional profile of meat, because the difference between traditional meat and meat

substitutes is over 1000 water-soluble and fat-derived components (Gorelova, 2018). In

order to achieve the nutritional value and taste of meat, large amounts of additives are

added to meat replacement products which can be a critical obstacle for consumer

acceptability (Debret, 2019; Lee et al., 2020). However, it is all about an individual's

personal needs, goals and ethics (Turner, 2019). Plant-based meat substitutes have many

challenges and they may not be the perfect match for an individual's health, but they are

undoubtedly a better choice for the environment and maybe that is enough (Turner,

2019).

Previously, consumers’ decisions to buy food were thought to be driven by taste, price,

and convenience, even if these factors would lead to health issues. Today, consumers' top

concern is typically health and consumers are looking for food labels emphasizing

natural and organic features. Environmental concerns are beginning to have an impact

on food purchasing decisions as well. Common consumer perception is that plant-based

products meet the expectations of healthiness and eco-friendliness. Consumer

acceptance of plant-based products is mainly determined by the beliefs and attitudes

towards meat replacements and food neophobia. The main barriers for infrequent meat

substitute users are the unfamiliarity with the products and the unattractiveness of the

food texture compared to meat. Consumers who are not familiar with meat replacement

products want the plant-based products to be similar to meat. Heavy plant-based

product users have a high tendency to choose environmentally friendly foods which

explains their frequent choice for meat replacements. However, other consumers don’t

find the environment as important as routines and familiarity with the products. (Hoek

et al., 2011.)

The most common barriers to reduce meat consumption in every age group are a lack of

information and societal pressure to eat meat (Kemper, 2020). In addition, the society

also encourages individuals to consume less meat with the help of social media and

personal connections. To attract different consumer groups to consume less meat and

  19  

more meat substitutes, social marketing campaigns and public education need to be

carried out in order to provide information and recipes (Kemper, 2020).

2.3   Summary of the theoretical framework

The theoretical framework chapter reviewed previous research on consumer purchase

behavior, consumer decision-making process, environmentally friendly purchasing

behavior, and the challenges of meat replacement products. Factors influencing

purchasing decisions of of meat replacement products are summarized in Figure 3. The

most important factors affecting the decisions regarding meat alternatives are

underlined in the figure below.

Figure 3   Factors influencing purchasing decisions of meat replacement products

Consumer is influenced by factors before and during the buying process. Before the

purchasing process, there are four factors influencing the decision-making: situational

factors, personal factors, psychological factors, and social factors (Kotler and Armstrong,

2010, pp. 161-175). During the process, there are several factors influencing the decision-

making in each stage (see Figure 3).

  20  

The need for alternative protein sources is increasing significantly (Kyriakopoulou et al.,

2019) since the world’s population is constantly growing (Clayton et al., 2019) and

livestock farming is causing a major carbon footprint (Westhoek et al., 2014). Based on

previous research, meat consumption can cause negative health effects such as various

types of cancer and diabetes (Lock et al., 2010). However, there are multiple challenges

identified with the acceptance of meat substitutes. Individuals appreciate meat and it is

connected to many cultural traditions (e.g. Thanksgiving turkey and Christmas ham)

(Wansink et al., 2000). A broader acceptance would require change in consumer’s

attitudes and thoughts which is complex (Hoek et al., 2011). Individuals also perceive the

quality of meat replacement products differently than traditional meat (Hoek et al.,

2011). Meat substitutes have stayed behind in texture, taste, price and the feeling of

luxury (Aiking et al., 2006). Consumers are doubting the healthiness of meat alternatives

since the production includes lots of processing to maintain the ingredients (Choudhury

et al., 2020). Overall, it is hard to achieve the nutritional profile of meat with the

minimum amount of processing and with reasonable price (Debret, 2019; Lee et al.,

2019).

Today, consumer’s concern among healthiness when purchasing food is also

environmentally friendliness of a product (Hoek et al., 2011). Common perception is that

plant-based meat alternatives are not only healthy but also eco-friendly (Hoek et al.,

2011). Key barriers for purchasing meat replacement products are unfamiliarity with the

products and the unattractiveness of the food texture compared to meat (Hoek et al.,

2011). The key barrier for reducing the meat consumption is the lack of information and

societal pressure to eat meat (Kemper, 2020). To be able to reduce the meat consumption

and attract different consumer groups to consume more meat substitutes, public

education and social marketing campaigns are needed (Kemper, 2020).

  21  

3   EMPIRICAL DESIGN

The next chapter introduces the manner of approach for the empirical design and

motivates the choices for methodology. First, the sampling techniques and data

collection method are introduced. Second, ethical issues about the empirical design of

the study are discussed. Lastly, the quality of the data and the data analysis process are

evaluated.

3.1   Research approach

The aim of this study was to examine the drivers and barriers of purchasing meat

replacement products from the perspective of Finnish consumers. In this research,

existing literature was reviewed in order to create a theoretical and empirical framework

for the study. Determining research questions based on the existing litarature and testing

them is the feature of deductive approach while inductive approach formulates an

understanding of a specific topic (Saunders et al., 2007). In this research, an abductive

approach was utilized which is a combination of deductive and inductive approach. The

strength of an abductive approach is to be able to identify new issues of the topic since

the data is analyzed with the help of the previous literature (Gioia, Corley and Hamilton,

2012).

The target group of this study was Finnish consumers who are interested in food. Finnish

consumers are an interesting target group in many ways. Finland has a unique and local

markets with very concentrated food retail industry (Aalto-Setälä, 2002). A few main

retail chains are holding the majority of the market and the aim of all the chains is to

offer reasonable quality and reasonable prices to all consumers (Aalto-Setälä, 2002).

Based on market research by Kesko Group in 2019, 37% of Finnish consumers replace

meat with vegetables every now and then and 8% are vegetarians or vegans (Kesko,

2019). In 2020, Finnish consumers focused on environment, healthiness, and vegetarian

options when making purchasing decisions regarding food (Kesko, 2020).

Previous studies about the topic have been focusing on meat consumption and the

attitudes between males and females (Rothgerber, 2013). In western societies, eating

meat is perceived to indicate masculinity which is why men are less willing to reduce

meat consumption than women (McWilliams, 2018; Nakagawa and Hart, 2019).

However, the purchasing habits of meat substitutes have not been studied and the

difference between consumer groups has not been discovered (Hoek et al., 2011).

Therefore, it is crucial to study different consumers to be able to get an overview of the

  22  

key drivers and barriers of purchasing meat replacement products. In order to increase

the consumption of meat replacement products and contribute to product development,

more research is needed on drivers and barriers among different consumer groups (Hoek

et al., 2011).

3.2   Research method

This study is carried out as an exploratory research. Exploratory studies discover new

insights about the topic and provide additional information for the theory (Saunders and

Lewis, 2012). The aim of this study is to improve the understanding of Finnish

consumers’ perception of meat replacement products and identify the key drivers and

barriers which influence purchasing decisions.

The following research questions are answered:

RQ1: Which are the key drivers of buying meat replacement products?

RQ2: Which are the key barriers of buying meat replacement products?

Qualitative research methods were most suitable for this study to be able to answer the

formulated research questions. The main feature of qualitative research is to

comprehend the phenomenon and motives within the topic (Patton, 2015). Qualitative

research method was chosen because it gives unique perceptions of the consumers’

purchasing behavior and attitudes towards meat replacement products. Qualitative

approach also enables more in-depth study with the possibility to study this topic further

on with quantitative research in the future. Since there is no academic research regarding

purchasing behavior specifically towards meat substitutes, collecting primary qualitative

data is required.

Most of the previous studies have been quantitative in which the respondents have filled

out a survey and the data has been analyzed based on these surveys (e.g. O’Riordan and

Stoll-Kleemann, 2015; Fischer, Böhme and Geiger, 2017). Some of the studies have also

utilized mixed methods. In mixed methods the researcher has conducted a short

qualitative study, and then larger quantitative study based on the qualitative data. The

problem with quantitative studies is that the questionnaire is often made according to

the researcher’s own assumptions and then it forces the respondents to answer in a way

that supports these assumptions. Since the individuals do not have the freedom to

answer without any restrictions, the data might become twisted. Sustainability and

dietary habits are very personal features that are related to thoughts, attitudes, and

  23  

previous experiences. That is why it is crucial to use in-depth qualitative methods to

collect the right data from the individuals.

3.3   Sample

In order to gather a wealth of detailed data in qualitative research, a small number of

information-rich cases are chosen to the study (Patton, 2015). Purposeful sampling

techniques were used in this study, because these techniques can provide the most in-

depth data. The aim is to collect as much information-rich data as possible, and in

purposeful sampling the in-depth cases are chosen intentionally by the researcher. The

main perspective of purposeful sampling is to concentrate on strategic choice of cases in

addition to the purpose of the study, research questions, and collected data (Patton,

2015). The idea is to select information-rich cases that can provide meaningful issues of

the purpose of the study and the topic (Patton, 2015). The participants in this research

were chosen purposefully to identify the key drivers and barriers of purchasing behavior

regarding meat substitutes.

There were two purposeful sampling strategies that were used in this research: intensity

sampling and heterogeneous sampling. Heterogeneous sampling (also known as

maximum variation sampling) captures a large variation of perspectives related to the

topic as the selected cases are more extreme in nature (Patton, 2002, pp. 240). The aim

is to have maximum variation in, for example, behaviors, experiences, and qualities

between the participants. The idea of heterogeneous sampling strategy is to get greater

understanding of the phenomenon by looking at it from different perspectives which can

help the researcher to find common themes across the sample (Patton, 2015). In

intensity sampling the researcher selects information-rich cases of the phenomenon

which reflect the researched phenomenon deeply (Patton, 2015). Utilized purposeful

sampling strategies are demonstrated and explained in Table 1.

  24  

Table 1  Sampling strategies

This research’s interest was to find Finnish individuals with the maximum variation of

lifestyles and characteristics. Heterogeneous sampling was applied in order to achieve

the maximum variation of individuals and discover the key drivers and barriers of

purchasing meat replacement products. Intensity sampling strategy was applied when

the individuals were chosen within the variation range. Since the researcher utilized her

own network, it was easy to identify the individuals who were able to provide the most

information-rich data for the study. The sample included vegans, vegetarians,

individuals with allergies, athletes, average consumers, and passionated meat eaters. The

sample consisted of males and females from different consumer groups.

The first focus group interview was conducted to a mix group of average consumers. In

this study, mixed dietary behavior stands for a wide usage of different incredients

including meat, meat replacements, and vegetarian and vegan options. The idea of

starting with a mix group was to form a general view of the attitudes, thoughts, and

behavioral patterns of individuals. The second focus group interview involved only

vegans and vegetarians since it is possible to gather more in-depth data about key drivers

when individuals with similar interests have a discussion about meat substitutes. The

third focus group interview was conducted to a devoted group of meat eaters. These

individuals declared themselves as heavy meat eaters and initially they were not

interested in purchasing meat substitutes. The purpose was to discover the key barriers

of purchasing meat substitutes and gather rich data about meat eaters attitudes.

  25  

The criteria for choosing participants for the focus group interviews were that the

individuals were interested in food, they were able to participate in the interview via

Microsoft Teams, and they had the ability to have a discussion in Finnish. First, the

potential participants were asked if they were interested in food. If the potential

participant answered yes, the individual’s permission was asked to be interviewed for the

research. Twelve individuals were contacted and all of them agreed to be part of the

study. The individuals were selected from the researcher’s own network and the fact that

in this study the vegetarians were females and meat eaters were males was a coincidence

since the selected participants were able to provide the richest data among the network.

Sample overview including the demographics of the sample and the focus groups is

presented in Table 2.

Table 2  Sample overview

3.4   Data collection process

The most common ways to carrie out exploratory studies are performing interviews and

searching existing academic literature of the topic (Saunders and Lewis, 2012). Based on

previous studies, the data collection methods which gather the most rich insights of the

researched issue are focus group interviews and individual interviews (Saunders and

Lewis, 2012). Focus group interviews can be seen as a social experience where the

researcher is able to gather essential information from the participants (Saunders et al.,

  26  

2007; Patton, 2015). Focus group interviews are a data collection method in which the

responses and interactions of the individuals are encouraged in the discussion (Saunders

et al., 2007). The focus group interview focuses on a specific issue or a topic, and the

purpose of this research is to discover the purchasing behavior of meat replacement

products. The participants in the three focus group interviews were chosen based on

maximum variation and shared features such as dietary behavior.

The data collection process included three online focus group interviews with twelve

participants in total. The age of the participants varied from 24 to 32 and both genders

were represented. The focus group interviews were conducted between 3 December 2020

and 6 December 2020. The interviews were conducted via online platform Microsoft

Teams due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The nature of the focus group interviews were

informal which allowed the participants to discuss their thoughts and beliefs freely

regarding meat replacement products. The researcher guided the discussion in a neutral

way without adding any personal attitudes towards the topic or interrupting the

discussion in any way. The researcher’s role was to make sure that all themes were

discussed and that the collected data would be as in-depth as possible. The depth of the

interviews was insured by asking follow-up questions during interesting discussions.

The length of the interviews varied between 51-68 minutes and they were recorded with

the help of Microsoft Teams. Permission for the recording was asked beforehand from

the participants. Every participant was required to keep their audio and video on for the

whole interview to observe their non-verbal communication. In addition, field notes were

made during the online interview and after the interview with the help of the recorded

data. After the interviews, the recorded data was transcribed in order to analyze

participants’ verbal and non-verbal communication. Transcriptions were 30 pages in

total.

3.4.1   Interview guide

The data was collected through in-depth, open-ended questions with the help of an

interview guide which was divided into themes. An interview guide approach was used

since it was important to ensure that the same themes were covered in all of the

interviews and it allowed the participants to speak freely about their experiences. The

interview guide provided that the basic lines of inquiry were reached with every

interviewed group. However, the researcher was free to be flexible and tailor the

questions during the interview to match the course of the discussion and ensure the

  27  

depth of answers (Patton, 2015; Saunders and Lewis, 2012). With the help of an interview

guide the data collection was conversational and systematic (Patton, 2015). The

interview guide also prevented bias in the middle of the interviews.

The interview guide in this research was formulated in a semi-structured way. The

strength of a semi-structured interview method is that it gives a relevant structure for

the interview and also allows the researcher to learn deeper information of the identified

challenges (Patton, 2015). The aim of qualitative studies is typically to enable the

participants to tell about their attitudes, beliefs, and experiences freely without official

question patterns (Silverman, 2010). The semi-structured interview approach provides

a set of guiding questions that are used to cover the main topics (Patton, 2015; Silverman,

2010). Three themes were formulated during the research process to be able to cover the

topics for the data collection.

After creating the preliminary interview guide, a pilot interview was conducted to test

the functionality of the interview guide. Saunders and Lewis (2012) suggests that every

interview guide should be tested with a pilot interview before the real interviews to

ensure that the participants understand the questions. The pilot interview revealed that

the questions of the interview guide were not in a logical order. Furthermore, some of

the questions were difficult to understand and answer. After the pilot interview, the order

of the themes and questions were rearranged and some of the questions were rephrased.

The interview guide (Appendix 1) was structured into six parts to ensure answers to all

of the research questions of this study. The first part covered the background information

of the participants regading interest towards health and nutrition, current dietary habits,

and frequency of buying meat replacement products. The second part included

situational factors about participants' thoughts and behavioral patterns during grocery

shopping. The third part focused on personal factors connected to dietary habits. The

fourth part consisted of social factors and the impact of family and friends on purchasing

behavior. The aim of the fifth part was to find out psychological factors regarding meat

replacement products and the stereotypes connected to the products. The last part

discovered the key drivers and barriers of purchasing meat substitutes. The interview

guide was used during the interview to guide the process and follow-up questions were

asked when needed.

  28  

3.4.2   Ethical issues in data collection

Since qualitative research methods are both personal and interpersonal, a few ethical

issues need to be taken into account during the research (Patton, 2015). The aim of the

interview needs to be explained for the participants as an in-depth interview open-up

personal thoughts and attitudes (Patton, 2015). In the beginning of every focus group

interview, the purpose of the interview and how the collected data will be used was

explained. Also, the researcher explained the way how the data will be stored and

handled. The permission of recording the interview was asked as well. The collected data

was reported anonymously, and the participants’ real names were not used when

handling the data. The responses were identified with pseudonyms to be able to analyze

the discussion.

Furthermore, the participants signed a consent form (Appendix 2) before the focus group

interviews which provided the information of this study’s privacy policy according to

Hanken guidelines. It also indicated that the participants had the right to withdraw from

the interview at any time. All the focus group interviews were held in Finnish, because it

was the native language of the participants and it was important to create an effortless

environment for the discussion to gather rich data. In addition, the participants

understood the meanings of the questions better when they were asked in their native

language. The interviews did not include any offensive questions and as the interviews

were held online, every participant was able to attend from the most convenient location

for them.

3.5   Data analysis process

In order to transform the raw data into findings, the data need to be analyzed (Patton,

2015). The data analysis process started with transcribing the focus group interviews

after each discussion. All of the interviews were executed in Finnish and the data analysis

process was done by using transcriptions in Finnish. Citations used in the research were

translated into English by the author. In order to identify important issues and

understand the collected data, frameworks for data analysis were used by Spiggle (1994)

and Gioia et al. (2012). This qualitative research’s data analysis process included the

following data manipulation operations: categorization, abstraction, comparison,

dimensionalization, integration, and iteration (Spiggle, 1994). The operations were

included in the analysis as it was important to work on the qualitative raw data and draw

conclusions. Spiggle (1994) recommends that the operations are not used sequentially

but rather in various stages and going back and forth the operations during the analysis.

  29  

This approach refers to continuous iteration which ensures the quality of the empirical

findings. Iteration was used in the research since the interview questions were edited

after the pilot interview. In addition, the gathered insights of the first interviews

influenced the following interviews during the data gathering and the research process

was continuously assessed to be able to contribute the study’s aim.

The data analysis was influenced by the assumptions from previous studies, as it is

typical in an abductive research approach (Gioia et al., 2012). The relevant literature of

the topic was checked during the analysis process to see whether the emerged issues and

concepts would fit to the existing research. This helped the researcher to discover new

themes within the studied topic. First, all the raw data that was connected to drivers and

barriers of purchasing behavior of food and meat substitutes was colored and highlighted

based on interview guide’s sections in the transcriptions. After the process of color-

coding, the data was transferred into Excel to be able to analyze it better. To make it

easier to analyse the data, it was divided into different sheets based on the study’s

research questions. Connections between identified consepts are presented in the

research’s findings and analysis.

3.5.1   Categorization

The raw qualitative data was sorted with the help of categorization and coding process.

The transcriptions were examined carefully in order to identify pieces of data (i.e. words,

sentences, and expressions) which represented the same theme (Spiggle, 1994). The

coding process of the data was done in Microsoft Word, where meaningful units of data

were highlighted with selected colors of the same theme. After careful assessment of the

data, irrelevant pieces of data remained uncoded.

When the coding was done in all transcriptions, the relevant coded data pieces were

copied to Microsoft Excel. Next, the color-coded data was separated into various boxes

according to similar phenomenon. Different excel sheets were created for the data

related to different research questions. To ensure the quality of the coding process, it was

repeated several times (iteration). The repetition resulted in various improvements of

the categories. Every box in Excel were labelled based on their content. As a result, 29

separate 1st-order categories were found in the reviewed group.

  30  

3.5.2   Abstraction and comparison

The purpose of abstraction is to recognize categories into more general concepts which

share the same kind of characteristics (Spiggle, 1994). In order to decrease the number

of empirically grounded operational 1st –order categories, and to create more overall

constructs, operational categories were combined into 2nd –order themes with the help

of abstraction and comparison (Spiggle, 1994). The abstraction was done by identifying

differences and similarities across the data and categories (Gioia, Corley and Hamilton,

2012). The abstraction and comparison decreased the number of categories to 18.

In order to decrese the number of 2nd –order categories and create higher-order

dimensions, the 2nd –order categories were combined into aggregate dimensions (Gioia,

Corley and Hamilton, 2012). As Gioia, Corley and Hamilton (2012) suggested, data

structures were built to demonstrate how the researcher has proceed from raw

transcription data to operational categories, themes, and aggregate dimensions. The data

structure is illustrated in Table 3.

  31  

Table 3  Data structure (adapted from Gioia, Corley and Hamilton, 2012)

The existing theory of the topic was examined when the 2nd – order themes and

aggregate dimensions were formulated. As a result, there were three aggregate

dimensions found in the reviewed group: factors influencing the purchasing behavior,

drivers of purchasing meat replacements, and barriers of purchasing meat

replacements.

  32  

3.5.3   Dimensionalization and integration

The purpose of dimensionalization is to recognize attrubutes from the data structure and

variation between them (Spiggle, 1994). This particular data manipulation operation

allows the researcher to identify connections between different themes in the data

(Spiggle, 1994). Dimensionalization in this study was done to examine the emerged

categories and constructs to identify empirical variation. Characters and attributes of the

categories, constructs, and dimensions were explored to discover their properties

(Spiggle, 1994).

In order to identify connections between constructs, integration of the categories was

performed. Integration of the data was possible since dimensionalization and

comparison had prepared the data for the identification of these relationships. The aim

was to map and identify perceptions and contexts which clustered together. Various

iteration rounds between the operations were done to improve the findings (Spiggle,

1994). An illustration of the dimensionalization process is shown in Table 4.

Table 4  An illustration of the dimensionalization process

3.6   Quality of the data

The quality of the collected data is discussed and evaluated with criteria and techniques

suggested by Wallendorf and Belk (1989). The recommended criteria include five areas

  33  

for assessing the data: credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and

integrity. A summary of the assessesment criteria is presented in Table 4.

Credibility illustrates the internal validity of the empirical findings, for example, how

believably the phenomenon is represented in the research (Wallendorf and Belk,

1989). In order to enhance credibility in this study, prolonged engagement and

triangulation across sources were utilized (Wallendorf and Belk, 1989). All the

participants were selected from the researcher’s own network, so the researcher had

prolonged engagement with the participants. In addition, there were enough time

reserved for a general discussion before and after the focus group interviews.

Triangulation across sources was used since the collected data was complemented with

recordings, fieldnotes, and detailed transcriptions. All focus group interviews were

recorded, which supports the credibility as it is possible to remember specificly what has

been said (Silverman, 2010).

Confirmability represents the extent to which the empirical findings are unbiased and

defined by the participants (Wallendorf and Belk, 1989). To ensure confirmability in this

study, the interviewing style was neutral, the interviews were recorded, and the

interviews were transcribed in detail (Wallendorf and Belk, 1989). The detailed

transcriptions were complemented by fieldnotes which gave another perspective to the

transcribed words. As all the focus group interviews were recorded, the researcher was

able to analyse her own reactions and behavior during the interviews with the help of the

recorded data. Furthermore, the adopted interviewing style was neutral and the

researcher did not express any personal perceptions or bias when guiding the interview.

Dependability assesses the reliability of the research, for example, how easy it is to

replicate the study in the same context and topics by other researchers (Wallendorf and

Belk, 1989). Dependability was ensured in this research by formulating an interview

guide which helps other researchers to conduct interviews with the same themes in the

future. However, there could be some differences in the results if another research would

be conducted since the participants were choosed from the researcher’s own network.

The findings of the study are not connected to place and time, as different places or days

would not influence the nature of interviewed topics.

Integrity refers to empirical findings which are not biased by false information caused

by dislike, fear, or other reasons to give a better impression of themselves (Wallendorf

and Belk, 1989). Integrity was ensured by establishment of rapport and trust,

  34  

safeguarding participants’ identities, prolonged engagement, triangulation across

sources, and good interviewing skills (Wallendorf and Belk, 1989). Rapport and trust

were established by creating a relax and informal atmosphere during the interviews and

having general discussion before and after the recorded interview. In order to create an

atmosphere where the participants were able to speak freely, the anonymity of the

participants’ identities was assured outside the participated focus group interview.

Triangulation across sources was also utilized and therefore the researcher was able to

compare the oral responses, facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice to

identify contradictions between the behavior and spoken words. To ensure good

interviewing skills, the pilot interview was conducted before the real focus group

interviews. The pilot interview improved question formulating skills and probing.

Transferability means external validity and suitability to apply the empirical findings

to other contexts and topics (Wallendorf and Belk, 1989). This study was conducted with

purposeful sampling, and it included Finnish consumers that are interested in food.

Some of the participants shared similar characteristics to discover group patterns. If the

research would be executed with different individuals, it is likely that different results

would be discovered. The researcher selected information-rich individuals to get in-

depth data and this is why generalizations to the whole population cannot be done based

on the results of this reserch. This is typical in qualitative studies with information-rich

interviews since the findings are based on few participants (Saunders et al., 2007). The

study’s limitations and future implications are discussed furher in the following chapters.

Table 5  The quality of the data (adapted from Wallendorf and Belk, 1989)

  35  

4   EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

This chapter shows the empirical findings of the research analyzed together with

previous research and existing theories which were presented in the research’s chapter

of theoretical framework. Empirical findings are discussed based on the study’s research

questions that were presented earlier in the thesis. Firstly, factors influencing the

purchasing of food products are covered. The findings are presented as an overview of

the most important factors influencing consumer behavior since the following research

questions covers the key drivers and barriers of purchasing meat substitutes. Secondly,

the key drivers of buying meat replacement products are introduced. Lastly, the key

barriers of buying meat replacement products are presented. In order to support the

findings with evidence and narrate participants’ thoughts, direct citations are provided

in all sub-chapters.

4.1   Factors influencing the purchasing behavior

Kotler and Armstrong (20110, pp. 161-175) introduced that factors which influence

consumer purchasing decisions are situational factors, personal factors, psychological

factors, and social factors. The empirical findings in this study are nearly in line with the

previous knowledge, but the themes are divided differently based on the analysis process.

The factors which influenced the purchasing behavior of food products among the

participants were the following: appearance, available funds, convenience,

quality, origin, marketing, and family and friends.

Siahdashti and Jaber (2019) suggested that consumers are not only focusing on

practicality, but also on psychological needs such as visually pleasant packaging. Boccia

and Sarnacchiaro (2020) agreed that sometimes packaging can have more significant

impact than price. The findings of this study are in line with previous studies since the

majority of the participants appreciated visually pleasant packages and nice layouts in

supermarkets. The simplicity of the labels and recipes included in the package were seen

as a plus. The quotes of the comments are seen below.

“The visual aspect, price, and also the package size are influencing my decisions.” (R1)

“For food products, the visuality of the package is affecting my decisions.” (R2)

“If there’s a recipe on the package and I know how to cook the product it might influence my decisions.” (R4)

“If I see some goodlooking ingredients which are affordable I might change my plan and take the better option.” (R6)

  36  

“I buy everything that sounds good and looks good.” (R7)

“If the layout of the product is fancy in the store I might buy it.” (R5)

“The visuality of the product is affecting my decisions. If the package is simple and the information is easy to read I might buy the product.” (R9)

Previous studies have shown (Koen et al., 2018) that consumers tend to read the label

information more carefully when purchasing products for the first time. Koen et al.

(2018) suggested that consumers don’t always trust the labelling information and want

to ensure the quality of the health properties and nutrinitonal value. This view came forth

in this study as well since some of the participants felt that they cannot always trust the

labelling information on the front side of the package:

“I like a goodlooking package but I always check the list of ingredients to make sure it’s not a scam.” (R11)

In addition to the previous studies, the environmentally friendly aspect of packaging was

a significant part of appearance, especially among the focus group including vegans and

vegetarians. The participants highlighted that the aesthetic appearance itself doesn’t

necessarily have any impact on decisions, but the eco-friendliness of the packaging does

have an impact. The amount of plastic in a package was mentioned multiple times and

the participants wanted to choose products which have the smallest amount of plastic in

their packages:

“I try to avoid packages with a lot of plastic if it’s possible.” (R7)

“I don’t care about the aesthetics of the product, but I usually choose the one with least plastic.” (R6)

Purchase has said to be affected by price, income, or other personal feature (Shiftman

and Kanuk, 2007). Available funds were seen as an important factor in this study as well.

Price and discounts affected individual’s decision-making process, especially discounted

products were seen as an extra to the routine shopping list. The regular prices of different

products affected the creaton of the list in the first place. The participants said that they

wouldn’t necessarily replace the main ingredient, because of a discount, but they would

buy the discounted product as an addition to their groceries:

“I look the offers beforehand and plan the dishes based on that, but I rarely take a look at the discounts in the store.” (R10)

“I sometimes replace the product from my shopping list with a discounted product.” (R9)

“I often buy products with discounted price even if it isn’t on my shopping list.” (R3)

  37  

“I also buy products with discounted price as an extra to my shopping list. If I see a good offer in a grocery store I might buy the product.” (R2)

“I never change a product to another one if it has a discount, but I might buy that product as an extra to my regular groceries.” (R4)

“I think food is too expensive so I often buy food from sale.” (R1)

“If I visit a hypermarket or another bigger grocery store I buy all kinds of things from sale I wouldn’t usually buy.” (R5)

Other perspectives stood out as well since some of the participants didn’t care about the

price. The price was also seen to influence on the decision, but not to determine it:

“I think the price is guiding my decisions but it doesn’t determine it. I buy what I want regardless of the price.” (R1)

“I don’t keep looking at the price when grocery shopping but if the same kind of product is available with cheper price I take that one.” (R4)

The previous literature suggested that the purchase decision process is more complex if

the consumer buys something for the first time and isn’t familiar with the brand (Kotler

and Armstrong, 2010, pp. 161-175). A large variety of different products and brands

would make the decision even harder and more time-consuming (Kotler and Armstrong,

2010, pp. 161-175). This research revealed that individuals appreciate convenience and

time saving abilities of a product. If they are not familiar with the product, they

sometimes rather buy another product than familiarize themselves with a new one.

Therefore, the consumption decisions should be as straightforward as possible when

shopping groceries. The individuals wanted to save time not only in the decision-making

process, but also when utilizing the product:

“I want the product to be as easy as possible. Either familiar or convenient in other way.” (R4)

“Grocery shopping should be as easy as possible.” (R1)

“I usually choose a product which is easy and fast to cook.” (R7)

The quality of the purchased product was emphasized in the collected data. Major part

of the participants felt that they don’t want to buy food products with lower quality even

if they would get it cheaper or the product would have an attractive packaging:

“The quality has to be good even if the price would be higher.” (R10)

A major factor influencing the decision-making process in this research was the origin of

the product. This came forth in every focus group regardless of their dietary behavior. All

the participants wanted to prefer Finnish products if that was possible. People were

persistent that almost every time domestic product is a better option than a foreign one.

  38  

Some of them argumented that they are influencing the employment and economic

growth in Finland when they support local producers, and some of them believed that

the quality is higher in Finnish products. This aspect has not been covered by the

previous studies. The translated comments are seen below.

“I always try to choose a product which is manufactured in Finland or even close to my hometown.” (R3)

“I typically choose a Finnish product if the price isn’t much higher.” (R2)

“The protein source of a dish has to be Finnish.” (R10)

“I always prefer Finnish products since my decisions have an influence on the employment in Finland.” (R9)

In this study, marketing as an influencing factor included promotional actions, brand

image, and influencer cooperation. Based on available literature, marketing activities are

used as an external trigger to purchase a product (Hampel et al., 2012). Several studies

have shown that advertisements, especially TV advertisements, play an important role in

affecting consumer’s purchasing behavior towards the brand and the product (e.g.

Hampel et al., 2012; Chudzian, 2014; Chithra and Kothai, 2015; Prabakaran, 2012).

However, none of the participants mentioned TV as an influencing channel, but rather

other channels such as social media. In addition, previous studies suggest that

consumers buy familiar brands automatically without deeper consideration of products

and therefore the decision-making process is more straightforward (Koen et al., 2018;

Kotler and Armstrong, 2010, pp. 161-175). Good experiences produces brand loyalty and

only disappointments lead to a concideration of replacing the product (Kotler and

Armstrong, 2010, pp. 161-175). Brand loyalty was seen in the gathered data as a factor

influencing purchasing decisions. Some of the participants highlighted that they would

pay a higher price for a specific brand and they probably wouldn’t replace the brand even

if they saw extensive marketing actions from another brand. Paid influencer partnerships

were also mentioned several times as an effective way to impact the decision-making

process with the help of social media platforms:

“If there’s been advertisements or I’ve heard of it before I might buy it, because I want to try it.” (R2)

“I have specific brands I prefer even if some others would be cheaper.” (R6)

“Sometimes it’s very important which brand it is and then it doesn’t matter what the price is. I also follow many influencers and if they have paid partnerships I might buy the product, especially if it is on sale. Some advertisements have the same effect.” (R7)

“I often want to try new products if there have been partnerships with influencers in social media.” (R8)

  39  

The influence of family and friends were seen as an important factor in purchasing

decisions, especially when living with a spouse or parents. Kotler and Armstrong (2010,

pp. 161-175) have suggested that an individual’s family has a massive impact on behavior

and attitude, and families act as an important consumer units in society. The participants

in this study were all young adults who had already lived independently for a while, so

the influence of parents were seen as a strong childhood memory. On the other hand,

spouse, roommate and friends were seen to have an influence on purchasing decisions

today:

“My spouse has an influence on my decisions and she often add ingredients on my shopping list.” (R11)

“I live with a roommate so if she has something really delicious I migh buy the same.” (R1)

“My spouse likes some dishes I wouldn’t normally buy so I might buy those for him.” (R4)

“Many of my friends are vegetarians so it has had an influence on my decisions.” (R2)

“My sister is a vegan so it has had an influence on my decisions.” (R4)

“When I lived with my parents I just ate what they had bought. I didn’t make any purchasing decision myself.” (R3)

“I’m a vegetarian and when I stopped eating meat my family said that I shouldn’t do that since it’s harder to cook for me and it’s embarrassing if we need to visit friends or relatives and they have to cook something else for me.” (R8)

“I often feel inspired when I see what my friends have cooked so I might buy the same ingredients.” (R5)

4.2   Key drivers of buying meat replacement products

According to previous studies, consumers are more aware of environmental issues than

before and they have the need to satisfy not only their personal needs, but also social and

environmental needs (Polonsky et al., 2012). This view has also been criticized and

consumers’ have said to have more selfish interests when making consumption decisions

(e.g. Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Eberhart and Naderer, 2017). Nevertheless, the majority

of the participants in this study felt that eco-friendliness is a key driver of purchasing

meat replacement products. Livestock farming has been said to contain an intensice land

use and high levels of greenhouse gas emissions (Westhoek et al., 2014), and the

participants agreed with this knowledge. Even if the carbon footprint of shipping the

products was mentioned, the environmentally friendly image of meat substitutes was

strong:

  40  

“I think meat substitutes are eco-friendlier than meat. At least I know that meat production is not eco-friendly so I eat more vegetables.” (R1)

“You have to be able to take a look at the bigger picture. If you grow a cow in Finland it eats something every day and then you have to thing about where the food is brought to Finland and so on.” (R6)

“Shipping is only 5-10% of the carbon footprint of a food product so it’s a really small percentage.” (R5)

However, the issue was that not all of the participants thought that meat substitutes are

an eco-friendly act since they weren’t comparing the product to meat. Participants with

plant-based diet emphasized the eco-friendliness of real vegetables:

“I’m sure meat substitutes are a lot eco-friendlier than meat but when I normally have a plant-based diet I think vegetables are eco-friendlier than meat substitutes. However, the worst thing for environment is meat consumption.” (R5)

“Eco-friendliness of meat substitutes depends on which products you compare. If you think about traditional meat and meat substitutes, substitutes are way better. If you think about a substitute and a vegetable, vegetable is way better.” (R7)

Another key driver was healthiness of meat substitutes. Previous research has related

meat consumption to negative health effects such as cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular

disease mortality (Lock et al., 2010), because of the low intakes of vitamins,

micronutrients, dietary fiber, and high intakes of salt, fats, and saturated fatty acids

(Castellari et al., 2018). The health and environmental benefits of plant-based proteins

has said to often been underestimated (Castellari et al., 2018). The participants had

noticed the health benefits of plant-based proteins either with the help of a family

member or a friend, or with their own experiences and feelings. Some of them had also

familiarized themselves with research and literature about the negative health impacts

of meat and the positive effects of plant-based diet. The translated quotes are seen below.

“There are quite a lot of vegetarians among my friends so it must have an influence and I also get new ideas from them.” (R2)

“My big sister is a vegan ans she’s never sick so I’ve been starting to read more about veganism and its impact on health. I would like to feel better and plant-based diet could be a solution.” (R4)

“I trust that they are good for me because I feel better.” (R2)

“I buy meat replacements so I don’t need to eat meat everyday. Meat is creasier and saltier and not that healthy nutrition wise.” (R1)

Also heavy meat eaters agreed that meat replacement products are good for the health

and they didn’t have any doubts about the quality of the products:

“I think the quality of meat substitutes is good.” (R10)

“I think that replacement products are high-quality with pure ingredients.” (R9)

  41  

“I think they have a good quality.” (R11)

Variation in a diet was mentioned multiple times during the focus group interviews,

and it was a clear reason to buy meat substitutes. Variation came foth in all of the three

focus group interviews regardless of the dietary behavior of the participant.

“It’s good to have variation in a diet.” (R3)

“I would buy them if I would like to have a change in my diet.” (R9)

Related to variation, positive attitude and therefore a willingness to try someting new

was highlighted in every focus group interview as a driver of purchasing meat

replacement products. Some of the participants had never bought meat replacements

before, so they aswered in a hypothetical form and believed that variation and willingness

to try something new would be the reason to buy meat substitutes in the future.

“I buy meat replacements if I want to try something new and I buy tofu because it contains a lot of protein and it tastes good.” (R5)

“I buy substitutes if want to try something new or cook a special dinner.” (R6)

“I would buy substitutes if I would like to try something new.” (R9)

There has been a few studies about consumers’ experiences regarding meat replacement

products (Aiking et al., 2006; Hoek et al., 2011), but almost all of them has emphasized

the bad texture or taste of these products. Couple of years ago, Kamani et al. (2019) and

Carvalho et al. (2019) suggested that there has been promising experiments of chicken

substitutes with high levels of consumer acceptance in terms of color, odor, and texture.

It seems that the experiments have started to pay off since in this study, positive

experience was one themes of the key drivers of purchasing meat substitutes. The

majority of the participants felt that substitutes were more pleasant to cook and some of

them felt disgusted of traditional meat:

“I often feel disgusted when I open a package of meat and I have to cook it. Especially if it’s a few days after the expiration date. Last time when I cooked chicken I almost vomited when I had to cut it into slices. There’s often something chewy or hard in meat and it’s disgusting. Plant-based products are more smooth so it’s more pleasant to cook and eat.” (R4)

“It’s nicer to eat a dish when you know there’s no surprises in it.” (R1)

“I hate it when there’s something hard or chewy in meat! Meat substitutes are smoother and much more pleasant.” (R2)

Meat substitutes were seen as an easy and convenient option for cooking, and also an

easy first step to decrease meat consumption. The participants (especially the second

focus group with vegans and vegetarians) thought that substitutes are particularly easy

  42  

for situations where a family member or a friend is a vegetarian and a hosting person is

not familiar with vegetarian food. Then the individual is able to cook the same way as

before, and just replace meat with a meat replacement product. They also felt that

nowadays it’s even more important that different alternatives exist when the popularity

of vegetarism is growing. In addition, heavy meat eaters were said to benefit for the

easiness of cooking meat substitutes, because they have used to cook dishes with meat

ingredients. However, meat eaters themselves felt that meat substitutes were meant for

vegans and vegetarians and were surprised when they heard that vegetarians of this

study felt the opposite. Convenience was also included in postive experiences since

substitutes were seen as a convenient way to cook plant-based dishes without putting too

much effort to it:

“Meat replacements stay usable for longer time than meat and you can keep it in room temperature.” (R4)

“I like that there are easy options for everyone. Meat substitutes are an easy first step to decrease meat consumption.” (R6)

“I buy substitutes since I have a few good recepies which contains substitutes and also they are really convenient if I don’t have much time to cook.” (R7)

“It’s an easy and effortless way to cook so I like it.” (R8)

Lee et al. (2020) have suggested that today it is no longer possible to increase the

production of meat in environmentally friendly way since water and land resources are

limited for livestock farming, animal welfare issues have been rapidly increasing, and

negative impacts on climate change and the environment have been noticed. This view

was strongly supported in the second focus group interview with consumers with plant-

based diet. Animal rights was one of the key reasons why these vegans and vegetarians

didn’t consume meat and why they liked to purchase meat replacement products over

traditional meat.

“I’m a vegetarian because it’s better for the environment, animals and for my health.” (R5)

“The reasons why I’m a vegetarian are the environment, health, and animal rights. (R8)

“I stopped eating meat because I wanted to support animal rights. (R7)

4.3   Key barriers of buying meat replacement products

Previous studies has focused on challenges in establishing a broader consumer

acceptance of meat replacement products (e.g. Hoek et al., 2011; Choudhury et al., 2020;

Kemper, 2020). Habitual factors were one of the key barriers that was identified from

  43  

the data. Factors included the habit of eating meat and the feeling that there are not

enough recepies available for cooking meat substitutes. The findings were in line with

previous research by Wansink et al. (2000) and Hoek et al. (2011), whom suggested that

meat is highly appreciated among consumers and replacing a tradition is challenging

since the change need to happen in consumers’ attitudes. The participants, especially the

heavy meat users, were used to eat meat and cook dishes from traditional meat and they

found it too time consuming to familiarize themselves with meat replacement products.

They also liked to eat meat and didn’t feel a need of changing the habit:

”I don’t see the point of replacing meat with something else since I have always been eating meat. It is hard to start changing my own ideology.” (R10)

“I don’t feel that meat needs to be replaced and I want to eat meat. Feels funny that it should be replaced. I have used to eat meat and it is good. I don’t see a reason why I should stop eating it.” (R9)

Hoek et al. (2011) suggested that key barrier for infrequent meat substitute users is the

unfamiliarity with the products. In this study, the unfamiliarity of meat replacement

products result to the feeling that meat is more versatile for cooking:

”If it would be possible to cook good dishes from meat replacements I would use them, but the ones (dishes) that I’ve tried have been quite plain. Meat is more versatile and I can cook anything with it. If I could get more recepies I could try the substitutes again.” (R11)

“I don’t always have an idea how to cook the replacement product and then I might choose meat, because I can cook whatever I want with it. Especially with new meat replacement products this is an issue.” (R2)

“I haven’t bothered to figure out how to cook substitutes.” (R4)

The prior research has highlighted the unattractiveness of the substitutes’ texture and

taste compared to meat (Aiking et al., 2006; Hoek et al., 2011). In this study, negative

experiences of texture and taste came forth as well since some of the participants felt

the same way:

”I don’t like the texture of meat replacements, I think they are dry.” (R11)

“The texture of cooked meat replacement is typically different from meat and I don’t always like it” (R3)

“I tried to cook tofu once and it tasted terrible so I went back to safe and easy meat.” (R4)

However, there were also opposite views of the matter since some of the participants felt

disgusted of the texture of traditional meat. Citations of these views were presented in

the previous sub-chapter of key drivers.

  44  

It has been claimed, that the current alternatives for meat are more expensive than meat

products in general (Apaiah, 2006). Choudhury et al. (2020) stated that the higher price

is a result from high processing to obtain the main incredients which increases the cost

of the final product. The nutritional profile and taste of meat is a challenge to achieve

and therefore lots of additives are added to meat substitutes (Gorelova, 2018; Debret,

2019; Lee et al., 2020). In addition, price is typically a crucial factor in the decision-

making process (Boccia and Sarnacchiaro, 2020). The findings of this study showed that

consumers are worried of the price and the nutritional value of meat replacement

products. Most of the participants felt that meat substitutes are expensive and might

have negative impact on health when used frequently:

”Some of them are pretty expensive.” (R3)

“If I would buy replacements every week, it would cost too much.” (R8)

“I think they are quite expensive.” (R10)

“Too expensive.” (R9)

The price was believed to be high because the products are shipped from another

countries, sometimes even from the opposite side of the world. As participants were fond

of preferring domestic products, the origin of the substitutes seemed to be a major

barrier of purchasing meat replacements. Some of the participants also argued that

domestic meat is a better choice for the environment than a plant-based substitute from

another country. The quotes of the respondents are illustrated below.

“The shipping of a product is a big part of the environmental impact so even if meat production is bad in other ways, it is produced locally so it is better.” (R3)

“I don’t trust the quality of foreign products.” (R10)

“I want to buy Finnish products even if it would cost more.” (R9)

However, deviating from previous research, there were opinions that meat is expensive

as well and substitutes sometimes have higher concentration of protein:

”Some of the substitutes are expensive but there are also really cheap products so it depends on the product.” (R11)

“If I would buy a peace of quality meat it would be expensive as well so I don’t think that substitutes are expensive.” (R6)

“Some of them might be a bit expensive but compared to meat it’s not expensive at all.” (R2)

“I used to think that they are expensive but then I saw a light package of Mifu which stated that its nutritional value is the same as 400g of meat and the price was the same so I don’t think that anymore.” (R4)

  45  

The respondents were also worried of the manufacturing process of meat replacement

and the poor nutritional value of the products. For instance, the lack of iron in plant-

based products seemed to be a barrier to sometimes choose meat or a vegetable over a

substitute:

”I want to eat red meat sometimes so I get enough iron.” (R2)

“If I don’t eat meat I don’t get enough iron and then I would have another issues.” (R4)

“Meat replacement products are okay, but they are quite processed so they are not that healthy.” (R5)

“I think them as prepared food which are not that healthy.” (R6)

“I don’t buy substitutes because I don’t get all nutritions from them. I prefer more natural options like vegetables.” (R8)

“If I cook vegetarian food, I don’t think about any substitutes but instead I buy real vegetables.” (R1)

The previous research has been so focused on comparing meat substitutes to traditional

meat that they completely skipped the perspective of vegans and vegetarians and the

comparison of meat substitutes and real vegetables. Around half of the participants,

especially people with plant-based diet, felt that vegetables are a healthier option than

meat substitutes:

“I don’t feel that they are healthy and I don’t need them in my diet” (R5)

“I don’t buy substitutes because they are not healthy and I don’t feel that I need them.” (R6)

“I don’t buy them since I don’t think they are a good thing in your diet.” (R8)

Kemper (2020) suggested that the most common barriers to reduce meat consumption

in every age group are the lack of information and societal pressure to eat meat. The

findings of this study were consistent with lack of information, but no one mentioned or

admitted that society would affect on their choices to eat more meat. However, the

participants said that their personal connections (e.g. spouse or family) might sometimes

affect their decisions to not to buy meat replacement products:

“Sometimes it affects because if the other one doesn’t want to eat any vegetable dishes it’s not very efficient or rational so that’s why I don’t use meat substitutes that often. On the other hand, sometimes I try something with substitutes anyway and get positive feedback from my spouse.” (R3)

The last theme of key barriers in this study was negative association. According to

Hoek et al. (2011), consumer acceptance is mainly determined by the beliefs and

attitudes towards meat substitutes. Despite that, beliefs and attitudes towards meat

replacement products has not been studied profoundly in the past. Negative associations

  46  

in this study included doubts and suspicions about meat substitutes. The whole concept

of replacing an ingredient in a meal with some other product was seen false. The

respondents felt that it’s odd when the product is called “replacement” and therefore it

has to be worse option than the original which is actually been replaced. Also the fact

that meat substitutes try to mimic traditional meat with the texture and taste was

perceived unnatural:

“The word “replacement” itself is weird. It has to be something fake. Why cannot it have a name of its own?” (R1)

“Why the word “meat” has to be included when it’s not meat at all?” (R3)

“I have a suspicion that I don’t want to eat substitutes that often if later people get to know that there’s something harmful in the process that we don’t know yet.” (R1)

“There has to be something wrong with it when its made from vegetables but taste like meat.” (R7)

“Meat is meat and vegetable is vegetable I don’t see the point of replacing meat. Why don’t people just eat vegetarian food instead of replacements?” (R11)

“It feels weird to replace meat with something else than meat.” (R9)

“The concept of “meat replacement” is not familiar so it feels weird.” (R10)

Previous studies have stated that meat consumption is connected to masculinity in

western countries (McWilliams, 2018) and gender has an important part in the decision-

making process since men have different societal pressure to eat meat (e.g. Yahia et al.,

2016; Qauhiz, 2010). In order to contribute to this statement, the focus group which

included male meat eaters were asked a follow-up question: Do you think eating meat is

more masculine than being a vegetarian? Why/why not? As this particular focus group

included only male participants by coincidence, it was a good opportunity to gather data

about their attitudes. The answers differed significantly based on the respondent. Some

of them agreed with the literature and stereotypes, but some of them didn’t think that

diet has an influence on the image of an individual at all:

“Well stereotypically eating meat is a men’s thing, I think it comes from the times of cavemen. And I think it is kind of masculine to eat a good steak with guys. Men need food to do manly stuff and we have learned that meat is good for you and people have used it for ages. I have some kind of image that eating meat is manly.” (R11)

“I don’t think it’s any manlier than being a vegetarian. I don’t care whether people eat meat or vegetables.” (R10)

“I don’t think it’s more masculine. I don’t care what people eat, it doesn’t make anyone more man or woman.” (R9)

  47  

5   DISCUSSION

The aim of this research was to find out which factors are influencing consumers'

purchasing decisions and which are the key drivers and barriers of decision-making

process regarding meat substitutes. This chapter includes the key findings and

conclusions of the research. Firstly, the research’s key findings are presented and

discussed in relation to the previous research. Secondly, managerial implications are

introduced. Lastly, the research’s limitations are considered and recommendations for

future research are presented.

5.1   Key findings

The aim of this study was to examine the key drivers and barriers of purchasing meat

replacement products from the perspective of Finnish consumers. Additionally, key

factors influencing the purchasing behavior of food were discovered. The research was

conducted with the help of three focus group interviews including individuals interested

in food. In terms of influencing factors during the decision-making process, seven

themes were identified from the collected data: appearance, available funds,

convenience, quality, origin, marketing, and family and friends. The findings are

consistent with prior research (e.g. Kotler and Armstrong, 2010, pp. 161-175), but also

new crucial factors were discovered.

The origin of the product seems to be an important attribute which may ultimately

determine the decision to buy or not to buy a specific food product. It can be argued that

Finnish consumers primarily prefer Finnish food products over a foreign one regardeless

of their dietary behavior or previous experiences with meat substitutes. This behavior

may lead to favouring Finnish meat products instead of other meat replacement options

with foreign origins. As the importance of marketing activities has been emphasized in

previous studies (e.g. Hampel et al., 2012; Chudzian, 2014; Chithra and Kothai, 2015),

social media influencers were highlighted as an effective way to appeal young adults. The

active following of social media influencers may increase the purchases of paid

partnership food products and decrease the importance of other marketing channels.

Unlike previous studies (e.g. Hampel et al., 2012; Chudzian, 2014; Chithra and Kothai,

2015; Prabakaran, 2012) have suggested, TV no longer seems to be the primary

influencing channel among young adults.

Regarding key drivers of purchasing meat replacement products (RQ1), six themes were

discovered: eco-friendliness, healthiness, variation, positive attitude, positive

  48  

experience, and animal rights. According to the collected data, eco-friendliness is a major

contributor to buy meat substitutes, at least when comparing substitutes with traditional

meat. Even if a consumer’s decisions have believed to be driven by self-interest (e.g.

Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Eberhart and Naderer, 2017), other non-selfish factors are

influencing as well. Young adults appear to be aware of the negative effects of meat

production and feel the need to decrease their meat consumption habits with the help of

meat replacement products. Especially individuals who are not familiar with vegetarian

food seem to prefer meat substitutes over vegetable ingredients in a meal. Vegans and

vegetarians preferred vegetables over substitutes, but substitutes over meat. This can be

a result from their deep interest towards nutrition and dietary experience in

vegetarianism.

Healthiness is also a key driver of purchasing meat substitutes, as meat consumption has

been related to several negative health effects (Lock et al., 2010). According to the focus

group interviews, young adults are very interested in having a healthy diet and

healthiness may be a priority in buying a protein source. Furthermore, consumers

believe that meat causes unwanted health issues which influences heavily on purchasing

decisions. The growing interest towards health and vegetarian options might have

resulted from various studies about the health benefits of replacing processed meat with

more natural ingredients (Castellari et al., 2018; Ibsen et al., 2020).

Another key factors to buy meat replacements are variation and positive attitude. It was

surprising how many of the respondents wanted to buy meat replacement products just

because they wanted to try something new and have variation to their normal diet. It can

be argued that young adults feel that they have to have variation in their diet to be able

to be as healthy as possible. This applies also to meat products since individuals want to

occasionally eat meat to gain enough iron and other nutrients. Based on this research,

heavy meat eaters have positive attitude towards trying meat substitutes despite of their

meat consumption habits. This particular consumer group believes in the quality of meat

replacement products and feels that in order to have variation in their diet, replacements

could be worth trying.

The next key driver among Finnish consumers is positive experience. Even though

previous studies have stated that texture and taste are the reasons why meat replacement

products haven’t been able to achieve broader consumer acceptance (Aiking et al., 2006;

Hoek et al., 2011), the results of this study suggests that texture and taste are the reasons

why consumers prefer meat substitutes over traditional meat. Young adults are not

  49  

necessarily looking for a plant-based copy of meat, but rather a better and more pleasant

option for cooking and enjoying a meal. The growing popularity of plant-based diet

(Mayer, 2020) might have resulted in preferring different texture and taste, unlike prior

studies have suggested. Meat substitutes are also seen as a convenient and fast product

for cooking which could be a crucial factor in decision-making process during a hectic

life stage.

Animal rights is the last key driver of purchasing meat replacements. This factor is

particularly important among individuals with plant-based diet. Supporting animal

rights is one of the main reasons why vegans and vegetarians have changed their dietary

behavior in the first place and therefore is one of the key drivers why they buy meat

substitutes over traditional meat. On the other hand, the results also shows that they

prefer vegetables over meat substitutes.

In terms of key barriers of purchasing meat replacement products (RQ2), five key areas

were found: negative association, negative impact on health, expensiveness, negative

experience, and habitual factors. As Hoek et al. (2011) have previously stated, consumer

acceptance is mainly determined by the beliefs and attitudes towards meat substitutes.

According to the results, Finnish consumers tend to have lots of suspicions about meat

substitutes. Overall, the concept of replacing is causing negative associations since

people think that the original must be a better option than a fake replacement.

Surprisingly, consumers would prefer real vegetarian options rather than products which

are advertised as meat replacements. It’s considered odd if a vegetable-based product

look and taste like meat. Perhaps consumers are after all ready to give up meat in their

diets without needing the qualitites of meat at all.

The results shows that Finnish consumers are also concerned about the negative health

impacts of meat substitutes which causes a major barrier in purchasing behavior. Meat

replacement products are seen as prepared food because of the manufacturing process

where large amounts of additives are added to the products (Debret, 2019; Lee et al.,

2020; Choudhury et al., 2020). When consumers pursue a healthy diet, prepared and

processed products cannot be a significant part of their weekly groceries. Since most of

the available products are not manufactured in Finland, consumers aren’t trusting the

quality of the products as much as domestic meat-based options. As the majority of

available high quality meat products in Finland are near produced, Finnish consumers

might have got used to the idea that domesticity always means higher quality and wider

positive influence on the society.

  50  

The expensiveness and negative experiences of meat replacements are seen as key

barriers in purchasing these products. The alternatives for meat has said to be more

expensive than meat products in general (Apaiah, 2006), and it can be said that the

majority of Finnish consumers feel the same way. Even though people think that quality

meat is expensive as well, substitutes are perceived too expensive for frequent use. In

addition, consumers feel that some of the available products don’t taste good or the

texture is unpleasant. This can be a result from the habit of eating meat and getting used

to the texture and taste of traditional meat (Hoek et al., 2011).

Habitual factors is the last key barrier which is influencing on the purchasing behavior

regarding meat substitutes. Most of the Finnish consumers have been eating meat at

home and at school since they were a child. They have learned that meat is a part of a

healthy diet and that human needs meat in order to be strong. These ideas have formed

into habits which are a real challenge to change (Wansink et al., 2000; Hoek et al., 2011).

Consumers aren’t familiar with meat replacement products and that’s why they feel that

it’s harder to cook dishes from them. Furthermore, some of the consumers are fond of

meat and don’t feel the need of changing the habit. A summary of key drivers and barriers

of purchasing meat replacement products is presented in Fugure 4.

  51  

Figure 4   Key drivers and barriers of purchasing meat replacement products

The theoretical framework of this study indicates that consumers’ purchasing behavior

is a complex process with several influencing factors. However, it was found that there

are a few key factors which are crucial in the decision-making process regarding meat

replacement products. Some of the factors are consistent with the previous knowledge,

but new contradicting perspectives were also discovered. Especially the group of vegans

and vegetarians provided new in-depth data for choosing vegetables over meat

substitutes. In addition, many undiscovered negative aspects were identified among all

focus groups. The key drivers as well as the key barriers are strongly connected to

individuals’ attitudes and beliefs of vegetarian food and the process of manufacturing

meat substitutes. To change these attitudes and beliefs regarding meat replacement

  52  

products, social marketing campaigns and public education need to be carried out in

order to provide information and recipes (Kemper, 2020).

5.2   Managerial implications

The findings of this study are important and necessary for departments marketing meat

replacement products. As the popularity of plant-based diet is continuously growing (e.g.

Mayer, 2020; Vegan Society, 2020; Simcikas, 2018). and the knowledge of negative

effects of meat consumption is spreading, food industry has various possibilitites to

influence on consumers’ purchasing behavior regarding meat substitutes. Based on the

findings of this research, there’s a need for multiple domestic meat replacement brands

which are manufactured in Finland. The origin of the product is a crucial factor in the

decision-making process and consumers feel that domestic products are more

environmentally friendly than the ones that are shipped from another country. Based on

the empirical findings of this research, Finnish food industry businesses should start

developing domestic plant-based products and the marketing departments should focus

on highlighting the fact that the poruducts are made in Finland. Businesses have

previously focused on advertising the domesticity of traditional meat and the places in

which the meat has been produced, but now the same marketing strategy should be

duplicated to plant-based products.

In addition, consumers are not trying to find a copy of a traditional meat product, but

rather a natural plant-based option which has not similar texture or taste with meat.

Mimicing meat products only leads to high processing and suspicious consumers.

Finnish consumers demand more natural options with pure ingredients and clear

marketing strategy to highlight the healthiness and plant-based origin of the product.

Marketers should focus on the aforementioned factors and the uniqueness of the product

and avoid the comparison with meat. Today the products are often called ”meat

replacements” and they are basically a plant-based copy of traditional meat product

which inevitably lead the consumers to compare the products and to choose the original

unprocessed option rather than the plant-based alternative. By focusing on the strenghts

of plant-based protein sources, the consumers would choose plant-based options

without the image of meat.

Finally, the most recommended marketing channel with Finnish young adults is no

longer TV, but rather social media with the help of well-known influencers. So called paid

partnerships seem to effectively influence on this particular consumer group resulting in

  53  

purchase actions. Since young adults use actively different social media channels,

marketers should target their marketing activity to these channels depending on the

target group of the marketed product. Food industry businesses haven’t been that active

with partnerships with influencers before even though the popularity of paid

partnerships has increased significantly (Merchant, 2020). By finding suitable

influencers with target group followers, sales of the plant-based product would most

likely increase.

5.3   Limitations and recommendations for future research

This study has four limitations which are discussed in this chapter together with

recommendations for future research. First, this research included only small number of

Finnish young adults with similar life stages who shared the interest in food. The findings

of this study are not necessarily transferable to different age groups, nationalities, or

consumers who are not interested in food. Consumers in different life situations

probably have different attitudes towards meat replacement products based on their

previous experiences. Therefore, future studies could research the attitudes of other age

groups and the differences between age groups regarding meat substitutes.

Second, this research included only four male and six female individuals which makes it

unreliable to draw conclusions about gender’s influence on attitudes towards meat

replacement products. Furthermore, the attitudes among the third focus group

interview, including only males, were also divided. Previously gender has said to to be a

significant influencer on the decision-making in the food sector and that’s why it would

be interesting to study further focusing on meat substitutes. Especially comparative

studies are needed in order to draw conclusions about gender’s influence. In addition,

consumers with plant-based diet happened to be females and heavy meat eaters

happened to be males in this study. This might have affected the empirical findings

regarding the aforementioned target groups.

Third, this study focused only on attitudes towards meat replacement products and

therefore other plant-based food was left out. Some of the participants were clearly

interested in vegetarian diet and more natural options such as vegetables insted of meat

substitutes. As the popularity of vegetarianism is constantly growing (e.g. Mayer, 2020;

Vegan Society, 2020; Simcikas, 2018), more studies about the attitudes towards plant-

based diet is needed.

  54  

Finally, this study included only four individuals with plant-based diet, but this small

focus group provided plenty of new insights towards the topic in different themes. These

individuals had a totally different perspective on purchasing behavior, and their attitudes

divided from the other participants. Therefore, future studies of the attitudes of vegans

and vegetarians are recommended.

  55  

REFERENCES

Aalto-Setälä, V., 2002. The effect of concentration and market power on food prices: evidence from Finland. Journal of Retailing, 78(3), 207-216.

Aiking, H., de Boer, J., & Vereijken, J. (Eds.)., 2006. Sustainable protein production and consumption: Pigs or peas? (Vol. 45). Springer Science & Business Media.

Apaiah, R. K., 2006. Designing food supply chains-a structured methodology: A case on novel protein foods.

Asgar, M. A., Fazilah, A., Huda, N., Bhat, R., & Karim, A. A., 2010. Nonmeat protein alternatives as meat extenders and meat analogs. Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety, 9(5), 513-529.

Barbarossa, C., & Pastore, A., 2015. Why environmentally conscious consumers do not purchase green products. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal.

Bearden, W. O. Dan Michael J. Etzel., 1982. Reference Group Influence On Product And Brand Purchase Decisions. Journal of consumer research.

Belk, R. W., 1975. Situational variables and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer research, 2(3), 157-164.

Boccia, F., & Sarnacchiaro, P., 2020. Chi-­‐squared automatic interaction detector analysis on a choice experiment: An evaluation of responsible initiatives on consumers' purchasing behavior. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 1143-1151.

Bohrer, B. M. 2019. An investigation of the formulation and nutritional composition of modern meat analogue products. Food Science and Human Wellness, 8(4), 320-329.

Bonny, S. P., Gardner, G. E., Pethick, D. W., & Hocquette, J. F., 2015. What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the future of the meat industry?. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 255-263.

Bonny, S. P., Gardner, G. E., Pethick, D. W., and Hocquette, J. F., 2015. What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the future of the meat industry? Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 255-263.

Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer–do ethics matter in purchase behaviour?. Journal of consumer marketing.

Carvalho, F. A. L., Pateiro, M., Domínguez, R., Barba-­‐Orellana, S., Mattar, J., Rimac Brnčić, S., ... & Lorenzo, J. M., 2019. Replacement of meat by spinach on

  56  

physicochemical and nutritional properties of chicken burgers. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 43(5), e13935.

Carvalho, L. T., Pires, M. A., Baldin, J. C., Munekata, P. E. S., de Carvalho, F. A. L., Rodrigues, I., ... & Trindade, M. A., 2019. Partial replacement of meat and fat with hydrated wheat fiber in beef burgers decreases caloric value without reducing the feeling of satiety after consumption. Meat science, 147, 53-59.

Castellari, E., Marette, S., Moro, D., & Sckokai, P., 2018. The Impact of Information on Willingness to Pay and Quantity Choices for Meat and Meat Substitute. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 17(1).

Chithra, T.V. and Kothai, S., 2015. Television viewing behaviour of consumers and television advertisements’ impact on consumers’s purchase decision. International Journal of Research in Commerce & Management, 6(10).

Choudhury, D., Singh, S., Seah, J. S. H., Yeo, D. C. L., & Tan, L. P., 2020. Commercialization of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives. Trends in Plant Science.

Chudzian, J., 2014. Impact of advertising on behaviour of consumers of low and high level of consumption of dairy products. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Oeconomia, 13(4).

Clayton, E. M. R., Specht, E. A., Welch, D. R., & Berke, A. P., 2019. Addressing Global Protein Demand Through Diversification and Innovation: An Introduction to Plant-Based and Clean Meat.

Coleman, R. P., 1983. The continuing significance of social class to marketing. Journal of consumer research, 10(3), 265-280.

de Sousa, L. K. S., Roque-Specht, V. F., & Gomes, E. M. C., 2020. Main hypermarket meat purchasing drivers. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 24(4), 335-348A.

Debret, C., 2019. Are plant-based meat alternatives healthy? Should we be eating them? One Green Planet. (Online) Available at: <https://www.onegreenplanet.org/natural-health/are-plant-based-meat-alternatives-healthy/> Accessed 1.10.2020.

Eberhart, A. K., & Naderer, G., 2017. Quantitative and qualitative insights into consumers’ sustainable purchasing behaviour: A segmentation approach based on motives and heuristic cues. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(13-14), 1149-1169.

Egea, J. M. O., & de Frutos, N. G. (2013). Toward consumption reduction: An environmentally motivated perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 30(8), 660-675.

  57  

Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. T., & Blackwell, R. D., 1968. Consumer Behavior Holt. New York: Rinehart and Winston Marketing Series.

Elmadfa, I., & Meyer, A. L., 2017. Animal proteins as important contributors to a healthy human diet. Annual review of animal biosciences, 5, 111-131.

FAO, 1992. The state of food and agriculture. (Online) Available at: <http://www.fao.org/3/a-t0656e.pdf> Accessed 1.10.2020.

Fernandes, S., & Panda, R., 2019. Influence of social reference groups on consumer buying behavior: A review. Journal of management research, 19(2), 131-142.

Fischer, D., Böhme, T. and Geiger, S. M., 2017. Measuring young consumers’ sustainable consumption behavior: Development and validation of the YCSCB scale. Young Consumers.

Font-i-Furnols, M., & Guerrero, L., 2014. Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: An overview. Meat science, 98(3), 361-371.

Gañac, C. G., 2018. Investigating consumer optimum stimulation level and exploratory online buying behavior. DLSU Business & Economics Review, 28(1), 67-85.

Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M., 1986. Social influence. In Social Psychology (pp. 252-279). Springer, New York, NY.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L., 2012. Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology, 16 (1), 15–31.

Gorelova, A., 2018. Mouth-watering flavor is harder to engineer than we hoped. Massive Science. (Online) Available at: <https://massivesci.com/articles/cultured-meat-taste-lab/> Accessed 1.10.2020.

Grunert, K. G., Bredahl, L., & Brunsø, K., 2004. Consumer perception of meat quality and implications for product development in the meat sector—a review. Meat science, 66(2), 259-272.

Hagerty, M.R. and Aaker, D., 1984. A normative model of consumer information processing. Marketing Science, 3, pp. 227-246.

Hair, J.F., Celsi, M.W., Money, A.H., Samouel, P. and Page M.J. (2015). Essentials of Business Research Methods 2nd edition. Taylor and Francis 2015.

  58  

Hampel, S., Heinrich, D., & Campbell, C., 2012. Is An Advertisement Worth The Paper It's Printed on?: The Impact of Premium Print Advertising On Consumer Perceptions. Journal of advertising research, 52(1), 118-127.

Harrell, G. D., & McConocha, D. M., 1992. Personal factors related to consumer product disposal tendencies. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 26(2), 397-417.

Henchion, M., Hayes, M., Mullen, A. M., Fenelon, M., & Tiwari, B., 2017. Future protein supply and demand: strategies and factors influencing a sustainable equilibrium. Foods, 6(7), 53.

Hervé, C., & Mullet, E., 2009. Age and factors influencing consumer behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(3), 302-308.

Hoek, A. C., Luning, P. A., Weijzen, P., Engels, W., Kok, F. J., & De Graaf, C., 2011. Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person-and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite, 56(3), 662-673.

Ibsen, D. B., Steur, M., Imamura, F., Overvad, K., Schulze, M. B., Bendinelli, B., ... & Barricarte, A., 2020. Replacement of Red and Processed Meat With Other Food Sources of Protein and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in European Populations: The EPIC-InterAct Study. Diabetes care.

Insider, 2019. 5 ways watching TV has changed over the past decade. (Online) Available at: < https://www.insider.com/how-watching-tv-changed-over-past-decade-2019-11> Accessed 11.1.2021.

Joshi, V. K., & Kumar, S., 2015. Meat Analogues: Plant based alternatives to meat products-A review. International Journal of Food and Fermentation Technology, 5(2), 107-119.

Juuti, P., Laukkanen, T., Puusa, A., & Reijonen, H., 2012. Akatemiasta markkinapaikalle. Johtaminen ja markkinointi aikansa kuvina. Helsinki: Talentum, pp. 150.

Kamani, M. H., Meera, M. S., Bhaskar, N., & Modi, V. K., 2019. Partial and total replacement of meat by plant-based proteins in chicken sausage: evaluation of mechanical, physico-chemical and sensory characteristics. Journal of food science and technology, 56(5), 2660-2669.

Kemper, J., 2020. Motivations, barriers, and strategies for meat reduction at different family lifecycle stages. Appetite, 104644.

Kesko, 2019. Ruokailmiöt 2019. (Online) Available at: <https://www.kesko.fi/contentassets/52b52d40bdd843d98c8db0319847ba88/ruokailmiot-2019-.pdf> Accessed 2.1.2021.

  59  

Kesko, 2020. Ruokailmiöt 2020. (Online) Available at: <https://kesko.fi/globalassets/pdf-tiedostot/ruokailmiot-k-ryhman-trendikatsaus-2020-sivut.pdf> Accessed 2.1.2021.

Koen, N., Wentzel-­‐Viljoen, E., & Blaauw, R., 2018. Price rather than nutrition information the main influencer of consumer food purchasing behaviour in South Africa: A qualitative study. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 42(4), 409-418.

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environmental education research, 8(3), 239-260.

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G., 2010. Principles of marketing. Pearson education. Pp. 161-175.

Kyriakopoulou, K., Dekkers, B., & van der Goot, A. J., 2019. Plant-based meat analogues. In Sustainable meat production and processing (pp. 103-126). Academic Press.

Lee, H. J., Yong, H. I., Kim, M., Choi, Y. S., & Jo, C., 2020. Status of meat alternatives and their potential role in the future meat market—A review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 33(10), 1533.

Leonidou, C. N., & Leonidou, L. C., 2011. Research into environmental marketing/management: a bibliographic analysis. European Journal of Marketing.

Leroy, F., & Praet, I., 2015. Meat traditions. The co-evolution of humans and meat. Appetite, 90, 200-211.

Lock, K., Smith, R. D., Dangour, A. D., Keogh-Brown, M., Pigatto, G., Hawkes, C., ... & Chalabi, Z., 2010. Health, agricultural, and economic effects of adoption of healthy diet recommendations. The Lancet, 376(9753), 1699-1709.

Lumen, 2020. Principles of marketing. The consumer decision process. (Online) Available at <https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-marketing/chapter/the-consumer-decision-process/> Accessed 1.12.2020.

Mataracı, P., & Kurtuluş, S., 2020. Sustainable marketing: The effects of environmental consciousness, lifestyle and involvement degree on environmentally friendly purchasing behavior. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 30(3), 304-318.

Mayer, M., 2020. This is how many vegans are in the world right now. WTVOX. (Online) Available at: <https://wtvox.com/lifestyle/2019-the-world-of-vegan-but-how-many-vegans-are-in-the-world/> Accessed 5.1.2021.

  60  

McWilliams, J., 2018. Why men think eating meat makes them manly. The Week. (online) Available at: <https://theweek.com/articles/802799/why-men-think- eating-meat- makes-manly> Accessed 1.9.2020.

Mejia, M. A., Harwatt, H., Jaceldo-Siegl, K., Soret, S., and Sabate, J., 2016. The future of meat: exploring the nutritional qualities and environmental impacts of meat replacements. The FASEB Journal, 30, 894-8.

Merchant, D., 2020. Instagram paid partnership: a new era of influencer marketing. Business Insider. (Online) Available at: <https://www.businessinsider.in/advertising/ad-tech/article/instagram-paid-partnership-a-new-era-of-influencer-marketing/articleshow/73238936.cms > Accessed 5.1.2021.

Mihić, M., & Kursan, I., 2010. Assessing the situational factors and impulsive buying behavior: Market segmentation approach. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 15(2), 47-66.

Mizerski, R. W., Golden, L. L., & Kernan, J. B., 1979. The attribution process in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(2), 123-140.

Montero, A. B., Ubeda, N. M. and García, A. G., 2006. Evaluation of dietary habits of a population of university students in relation with their nutritional knowledge. Nutrición hospitalaria, (4), 466-473.

MSG, 2020. Management study guide. What is motivation? (Online) Available at: <https://www.managementstudyguide.com/what_is_motivation.htm> Accessed 1.12.2020.

NAMI, 2020. North American Meat Institute. Meat fuels America. (Online) Available at: <http://www.meatfuelsamerica.com> Accessed 1.11.2020.

Nakagawa, S. and Hart, C., 2019. Where’s the beef? How masculinity exacerbates gender disparities in health behaviors. Socius, 5, 2378023119831801.

Nilssen, R., Bick, G., & Abratt, R., 2019. Comparing the relative importance of sustainability as a consumer purchase criterion of food and clothing in the retail sector. Journal of Brand Management, 26(1), 71-83.

O'Riordan, T. and Stoll-Kleemann, S., 2015. The challenges of changing dietary behavior toward more sustainable consumption. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 57(5), 4-13.

Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Pp. 209-257.

Patton, M.Q., 2015. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

  61  

Paul, P., Olson, J. J. C., & Grunert, K., 2010. Consumer behavior and marketing strategy: European Edition.

Peattie, K., 2001. Towards sustainability: the third age of green marketing. The marketing review, 2(2), 129-146.

Pereira, P. M. D. C. C., & Vicente, A. F. D. R. B., 2013. Meat nutritional composition and nutritive role in the human diet. Meat science, 93(3), 586-592.

Polonsky, M. J., Vocino, A., Grau, S. L., Garma, R., & Ferdous, A. S., 2012. The impact of general and carbon-related environmental knowledge on attitudes and behaviour of US consumers. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3-4), 238-263.

Prabakaran, V., 2012. Impact of Advertisement on Consumer Buying Behavior. Journal of Marketing & Communication, 8(2).

Qauniz., 2010. Obesity among Saudi Female University Students: Dietary Habits and Health Behaviors. The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association, 85(1- 2), 45-59.

Rothgerber, H., 2013. Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 363.

Sadler, M. J., 2004. Meat alternatives—market developments and health benefits. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 15(5), 250-260.

Saunders, M., & Lewis, P., 2012. Doing Research in Business & Management. Pearson Education Limited.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A., 2007. Research Methods for Business Students, 4th ed. Pearson Education Limited.

Shiftman, L. G., and Kanuk, L. L., 2007. Consumer behavior (9th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Shurtleff, W., & Aoyagi, A., 2014. History of meat alternatives (965 CE to 2014): Extensively annotated bibliography and sourcebook. Soyinfo Center.

Siahdashti, H., & Jaber, S., 2019. Investigating the Role of Food Packaging in Terms of Design and Color in Consumer Purchasing Behavior. International Journal of Management, Accounting & Economics, 6(7), 542-550.

Silverman, D., 2010. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

  62  

Simcikas, S., 2018. Animal Charity Evaluators. Is the percentage of vegetarians and vegans in the U.S. increasing? (Online) Available at: <https://animalcharityevaluators.org/blog/is-the-percentage-of-vegetarians-and-vegans-in-the-u-s-increasing/#Graph1> Accessed 5.1.2021.

Solomon, M. R., 2010. Consumer behaviour: A European perspective. Pearson education.

Spiggle, S., 1994. Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Consumer Research. 21(3), 491–503.

Stávková, J., Stejskal, L., & Toufarová, Z., 2008. Factors influencing consumer behaviour. ZEMEDELSKA EKONOMIKA-PRAHA-, 54(6), 276.

Temme, E. H., Van Der Voet, H., Thissen, J. T., Verkaik-Kloosterman, J., van Donkersgoed, G., & Nonhebel, S., 2013. Replacement of meat and dairy by plant-derived foods: estimated effects on land use, iron and SFA intakes in young Dutch adult females. Public health nutrition, 16(10), 1900-1907.

Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. and Siegrist, M., 2011. Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite, 57(3), 674-682.

Turner, L., 2019. Are veggie burgers good for you? Better nutrition. (Online) Available at: <https://www.betternutrition.com/diet-and-nutrition/are-veggie-burgers-good-for-you> Accessed 1.10.2020.

Ulusoy, E., 2016. Experiential responsible consumption. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 284-297.

Vatanparast, H., Islam, N., Shafiee, M., & Ramdath, D. D., 2020. Increasing plant-based meat alternatives and decreasing red and processed meat in the diet differentially affect the diet quality and nutrient intakes of Canadians. Nutrients, 12(7), 2034.

Vainikka, B., 2015. Psychological factors influencing consumer behaviour. (Online) Available at: <https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/96405/Vainikka_Bianca.pdf.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y> Accessed 5.1.2021.

Vegan Society, 2020. Statistics. (Online) Available at: <https://www.vegansociety.com/news/media/statistics#vegandietintheuk> Accessed 5.1.2021.

Vigna, J. P., & Mainardes, E. W., 2019. Sales promotion and the purchasing behavior of food consumers. Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 18(3), 101-126.

  63  

Wallendorf & Belk, 1989. Assessing Trustworthiness in Naturalistic Consumer Research, in Interpretive Consumer Research, ElisabethHirschman, ed., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 69–84.

Wansink, B., & Park, S. B., 2000. Methods and measures that profile heavy users. Journal of dvertising Research, 40(4), 61-72.

Westhoek, H., Lesschen, J. P., Rood, T., Wagner, S., De Marco, A., Murphy-Bokern, D., ... & Oenema, O., 2014. Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe's meat and dairy intake. Global Environmental Change, 26, 196-205.

Williams, P., 2007. Nutritional composition of red meat. Nutrition & Dietetics, 64, S113-S119.

Winston, A., 2011. Local food or less meat? Data tells the real story. Harvard Business Review. (Online) Available at: <https://hbr.org/2011/06/local- food-or-less- meat-data-t.html> Accessed 1.9.2020.

Yahia, N., Wang, D., Rapley, M. and Dey, R., 2016. Assessment of weight status, dietary habits and beliefs, physical activity, and nutritional knowledge among university students. Perspectives in public health, 136(4), 231.

Yang, J., He, X., & Lee, H., 2007. Social reference group influence on mobile phone purchasing behaviour: a cross-nation comparative study. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 5(3), 319-338.

  64  

APPENDIX 1   INTERVIEW GUIDE

Introductions Permission to record and how the data will be handled and stored Purpose of the study Definition of meat replacement product Warm-up: -Can you tell me about yourself regarding your interest towards health and nutrition? -Are you currently following a special diet? Why? Why not? -How often do you buy meat replacement products? Situational factors: -How much do you enjoy grocery shopping? -How important is the decision of purchasing food? -Do you often buy the same incredients when doing grocery shopping? How often do you make changes? Why? -How market offerings affect your decision to purchase food? -How much the packaging of food influences your decisions? -How often do you buy ingredients which are on sale? Personal factors: -Have your dietary habits changed over time? How? Social factors: -What kind of role does your family have regarding grocery shopping? -Have you changed your dietary behavior based on your family/friends/colleagues? Why? Why not? Psychological factors: -What do you think about meat replacement products? -What kind of individuals purchase meat replacement products? Describe. Drivers and barriers: -How much price affects your purchasing decisions regarding food? -What do you think about the prices of meat replacement products? -How much the quality of the protein source affects your decisions? -What do you think about the quality of meat replacement products? -How much do you think about the environment when making purchase decisions? -What do you think about the environmentally friendliness of meat replacement products? -What are the key drivers of purchasing meat replacements? -What are the key barriers of purchasing meat replacements? Additional information: -Is there anything you would like to add to the discussion?

  65  

APPENDIX 2   CONSENT FORM

  66