Sustainable Food Consumption of German Millennials: Exploring the "Attitude Behavior Gap"

Lindner, Max Article Sustainable Food Consumption of German Millennials: Exploring the "Attitude Behavior Gap" Junior Management Science (JUMS) Provided in Cooperation with: Junior Management Science e. V. Suggested Citation: Lindner, Max (2021) : Sustainable Food Consumption of German Millennials: Exploring the "Attitude Behavior Gap", Junior Management Science (JUMS), ISSN 2942-1861, Junior Management Science e. V., Planegg, Vol. 6, Iss. 3, pp. 424-467, https://doi.org/10.5282/jums/v6i3pp424-467 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/294959 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467 Junior Management Science journal homepage: www.jums.academy Sustainable Food Consumption of German Millennials: Exploring the "Attitude Behavior Gap" Max Lindner Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Abstract This thesis picked up on the recent trend of sustainability and sustainable development by investigating the sustainable food consumption of German Millennials regarding an assumed gap between their attitude and their actual consumer behavior. Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior, a multi-step, qualitative research process was developed in order to find explanations for the attitude behavior gap. The process triangulated data from questioning ten German Millennial consumers via qualitative interviews, observing these consumers during a regular grocery shopping trip and analyzing the products they bought. The study revealed the following barriers preventing the participants from consuming according to their attitude: price, lack of knowledge on part of the consumers, insufficient sustainable product ranges, consumers minimizing the time spent for grocery shopping, habitualized purchase decisions and in exceptional cases a desire for unsustainable products. Accordingly, recommendations were derived for sustainable food manufacturers and supermarket chains, public policy and consumers. Additionally, this thesis contributes to consumer research on the attitude behavior gap as well as on behavioral research by applying and extending the Theory of Planned Behavior. Keywords: Sustainable consumption; attitude behavior gap; consumer behavior; food consumption Verbal Protocol Analysis; Theory of Planned Behavior. 1. Introduction 1.1. Relevance and Scope The Need for Sustainable Development and Sustainable Consumption The world faces multiple environmental problems like drastic changes in weather patterns or an increased number of natural disasters, mostly caused by men due to the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG), especially carbon dioxide (C02). Pollution through manufacturing, deforesting and more environmentally harmful activities increased the C02 concentration by more than 33 percent (Trudel,2019). Despite various counteractions, the mass of C02 emitted is far from declining. The worldwide annual emissions went up by 2.13% from 35.81 million tons in 2017 to 36.57 million tons in 2018 (Global Carbon Project,2019). Besides environmental problems, other issues like preserving health or fighting poverty get more and more important (Bernyte,2018). In this context, sustainable development is gaining more and more attention. It was first popularized in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) when they published “Our common future”, also known as the “Brundtland Report” (Atapattu,2019). In that report, the WCED acknowledged that both environmental protection and economic development were important, as they claim poverty is the biggest polluter and economic development is necessary for developing countries to improve the living standards of their people. Therefore, sustainable development was defined as a “development that meets the needs of the current generation while not comprising the needs of future generations” (Brundtland, Khalid, Agnelli, Al- Athel, & Chidzero,1987, n.p.). More recently the initiative of the Sustainable Development Goals was introduced in 2012 by the United Nations (UN). These goals are globally acknowledged and were officially adopted by the different states in 2015 (Hák, Janoušková, & Moldan,2016;Sachs,2012). The SDGs look beyond narrow economic measures of progress and consider all aspects of well-being for current and future generations, especially regarding the environment but also to eradicate DOI: https://doi.org/10.5282/jums/v6i3pp424-467 M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467 425 poverty worldwide and to safeguard the planet (United Nations,2015). Since then, sustainable development is defined in more detail by the 17 SDGs shown in figure 1. Each one of them is addressing another current challenge, however, they are integrated and indivisibly connected (Atapattu,2019; Hák et al.,2016). Integrating the three main and interlinked dimensions of economic, social, and environmental development, sustainable development has become the center of a renewed development framework for countries to meet the changing development priorities and gaps that previous strategies have been unable to close (Verma, Petersen, & Lansford,2019). According to Hanss, Böhm, Doran, and Homburg (2016), there is a common census that besides institutions and profitdriven firms, also single individuals have some responsibility to contribute to sustainable development by consuming sustainably. Łuczka and Smoluk-Sikorska (2017) even state that this sustainable consumption is one of the main elements of sustainable development. The United Nations, n.d.-b even formulated one specific SDG about consumption, which shows its high relevance. The Apparent Gap Between Attitude and Behavior Regarding Sustainable Consumption Consumer awareness regarding sustainability has grown over the past years and sustainability gets more and more important in the academic literature (Carrigan, Szmigin, & Wright,2004;Connolly & Shaw,2006;Dutta,2014;Wei, Chiang, Kou, & Lee,2017;Wiederhold & Martinez,2018). Ellen, Wiener, and Cobb-Walgren (1991) point out that consumers’ environmental concerns and the awareness that their own actions impact directly the environment drive sustainable attitude. Wei et al. (2017) also state that consumers are aware that their buying behavior and consumption patterns have an impact on environmental problems like pollution and climate change. According to Bellmann and Koch (2019), more than 50% of the questioned companies state ecological sustainability as important or even (very) important in their business activity. On the other hand, more than 60% of private consumers in Germany claimed to have changed their consumer behavior due to ecological concerns (Boyon, 2020). This indicates that many people hold a positive attitude towards sustainability and sustainable consumption. Despite the consumers’ awareness and interest in environmental as well as in social challenges and a resulting positive attitude, this does not always lead to sustainable behavior, captured by actual purchase decisions in this context. Prothero et al. (2011) claim that even though 40% of consumers are willing to buy environmentally friendly, only 4% actually do so. Recent literature has already picked up on these diverging observations, indicating the existence of this gap for different products and geographical locations (K. Lee, 2008;Moraes, Carrigan, & Szmigin,2012;Wiederhold & Martinez,2018;Young, Hwang, McDonald, & Oates,2010). General Differences in Consumer Behavior Prior literature suggests that consumers of different nations and therefore different cultural backgrounds show considerable differences in consumer behavior (Gentina, Butori, Rose, & Bakir,2014;Gómez-Luciano, de Aguiar, Vriesekoop, & Urbano,2019;Kacen & Lee,2002;Lapierre & Rozendaal, 2018;Manrai,2018). For example, Gentina et al. (2014) state that susceptibility to peer influence drives teenage consumer shopping in the Netherlands, while in the USA it is additionally motivated by the need for uniqueness. Another example is the work of Gómez-Luciano et al. (2019), which suggests that countries from higher economically developed countries tended to show more readiness to replace traditional meats with alternatives. In the context of the thesis, it is sensible to choose Germany as the focus country, as Germany has the fourth-largest Gross Domestic Product worldwide which shows its enormous economic relevance (World Population Review,2019). Additionally, sustainability has high relevance for the German government (Bundesregierung,2019) as well as for the public and population, which makes it a sensible country to look at in the context of sustainable development (Umweltbundesamt,2017,2019a). Furthermore, the researcher is based in Germany and can easily access German interviewees, probands, or respondents. Similar to the national and cultural background, the generational affiliation seems to influence consumer behavior, as suggested by current literature (Bulut, Kökalan Çımrin, & Do˘ gan,2017;Miller & Washington,2019;Priporas, Stylos, & Fotiadis,2017;Southgate,2017). Therefore, it is reasonable to focus on one generational group. Members of Generation Y, also called Millennials, are said to have a more environmentally friendly attitude than older generations (Bedard & Tolmie,2018) as they are the first consumers to grow up in a globally interdependent world (Bucic, Harris, & Arli, 2012). Furthermore, their presence in the workforce and their spending power rises (The Nielson Company,2015). The Food Industry’s Major Role in Sustainable Consumption The German food industry covers the production and processing of all kinds of food and beverages1and is a major part of the economy (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie,2019). The mostly small and medium-sized 6,119 companies in the industry employ 608,553 people and generated a revenue of 179.6 billion Euro in 2018 (+0% growth from 2017). That means that every seventh industrial company in Germany is producing food, employing 9.5% of all employed persons in Germany. Furthermore, Germany is the third-largest exporter of food worldwide with an export ratio -of 33.5% (Bundesverband der deutschen Ernährungsindustrie,2019). On the other hand, the production and consumption of food are responsible for 20% to 30% of the environmental impacts in Germany (Umweltbundesamt,2013). According to Grünberg, Nieberg, and Schmidt (2010), emissions for the food industry in Germany, including processing, transport and distribution, comprises about 16% to 22% of the total emissions of GHGs. Osterburg et al. (2009) state that other authors attribute between 14% and 22% of the emissions to 1See the appendix section A1.2 for a detailed overview of the German food industry. M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467426 (United Nations,n.d.-b) Figure 1: Overview of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals the food industry. Tukker et al. (2006) claim that food and drink cause 20% to 30% of the various environmental impacts of private consumption (in the EU). In a more recent investigation, the World-Resource-Institute (2016) estimates that the total food chain impact on GHGs emissions is 25% to 30% (worldwide). The environmental impacts include not only GHGs but also other environmental pollutants. They acidify the soil or water or destroy the ozone layer. The production and processing of food also requires many resources. Water is of great importance to the food industry. Due to the processing steps and hygiene requirements, the water demand in the food industry is high. Furthermore, wastewater from food manufacturing is often heavily polluted with organic substances. Also, the drying, cooking, and cooling of food is energy-intensive. This energy consumption burdens resources as well as the climate. Energy efficiency is therefore an important lever when implementing the best available technology (Umweltbundesamt,2013). Also, from a social aspect, the food industry is interesting. In recent years many big food manufacturers and retailers were involved in various scandals ranging from water exploitation in Africa (Handelsblatt,2013) over violations of animal rights, contaminated food (PETA,2019), and child labor (Flatley,2019). Summary Due to various environmental and social challenges, sustainable development gained relevance in the last years. As a major lever for individual consumers, sustainable consumption gets more and more important as well. Even though consumer attitudes towards sustainability increases, it is not reflected in actual consumer behavior, indicating a gap. Closing this gap is of high relevance in the context of sustainable development. The food industry plays a major role, economically as well as ecologically and socially, so looking closer at that industry is sensible. Due to considerable differences in consumer attitude and behavior dependent on the national and cultural background as well as on the affiliation of a generational group it is promising to focus on a specific country and a specific generation. Reasonable choices for the country and the generation are Germany and the Millennials. 1.2. Goal and Contribution The goal of this thesis is to explore the gap between consumers’ attitude and the behavior and to provide specific reasons respectively explanations for it. In doing so, this thesis contributes to the superior goal, which is closing the attitude behavior gap (ABG) and thereby fostering sustainable consumption. By providing insights regarding consumer behavior, implications for sustainable food manufacturers and supermarket chains (e.g. improving marketing and sales activities) and public policy (e.g. development of purposeful and effective regulations) can be derived as well as implications for the consumers themselves (e.g. revelation of unconscious beliefs). Additionally, this thesis is also contributing to the current state of consumer research regarding the attitude behavior gap as well as to general behavioral research. As implied by the previous section, this thesis is limited to the consumption of food and does not include the consumption of any other kind of product. Also, it is restricted to Germany, respectively German consumers and focuses only on the consumption behavior of Millennials. Therefore, citizens from other countries as well as consumers with a different generational affiliation are excluded. So far, the consumer behavior of German Millennials regarding sustainable food consumption has not been investigated despite the market’s enormous economic (Bundesmin- M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467 427 isterium für Wirtschaft und Energie,2019), environmental (Grünberg et al.,2010;Osterburg et al.,2009;Umweltbundesamt,2013) and social relevance (Flatley,2019;Handelsblatt,2013;PETA,2019). Therefore, this thesis tries to examine the following research question: How can the assumed attitude behavior gap regarding the sustainable food consumption of German Millennials be explained, respectively what are specific reasons for the gap? 1.3. Structure To guide the reader through this thesis, it has been divided into six main parts. These parts contain several sections, which again contain chapters. In some cases, chapters are additionally divided into sub-chapters. The first part introduces the overall topic and shows its great relevance in public discussion and research. The second part defines the basic concepts of this thesis like sustainable consumption as well as the German Millennials and sustainable food. After that, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is introduced as the guiding theory of this thesis explaining consumer behavior, before the second part is concluded with a summary and the resulting research question. The third part develops a detailed qualitative study design, triangulating qualitative interviews, observations, and the analysis of actual purchases, in order to examine the research question. This is followed by the part that presents and interprets the results of the study and afterwards the thesis is critically discussed, and limitations are examined in the fifth part. At last, the thesis is concluded with part six, which describes the theoretical contributions and possible further research and practical implications that can be derived. The structure of the thesis is displayed below in figure 2. 2. Conceptual Framework 2.1. Basic Concepts, Definitions, and Distinctions This first section of this part defines the main concepts of this thesis as a foundation for the further process. 2.1.1. Definition of Consumption Consumption is a term that is commonly used in daily life and in academic literature, but it is used in a different context with different meanings (Stern,1997). In the context of economics, it means spending funds for utility (Black, Hashimzade, & Myles,2012;D’Orlando & Sanfilippo, 2010), while in biology it means eating and digesting other members of a food chain (Biology Dictionary,n.d.). The Cambridge Dictionary (2014) provides a rather practical and daily life definition for consumption: “the amount used or eaten”, respectively “the act of using, eating, or drinking something”. Another online dictionary confirms these definitions and adds one more particular definition: “the act of buying and using things” (Collins Cobuild,n.d.). From a general consumers’ perspective, consumption is defined as a three-stage process that involves purchasing, using, and disposing goods and/or services (Halkier,2001;Kim et al., 2012;Stern,2000). This thesis deals with a specific form of consumption from a consumer’s perspective, the consumption of food. Therefore, it is obvious that using definitions from economics, biology or other unrelated fields is not sensible and a consumer perspective’s definition should be used. As this thesis aims to elicit insights about purchasing behavior, it is sensible to use a definition that also includes the act of purchasing. Therefore, in accordance with Collins Cobuild (n.d.); Halkier (2001); Kim et al. (2012); Stern (2000), the following definition is used for this thesis: Consumption is the act of purchasing, using, and disposing goods. 2.1.2. Definition of Sustainable Consumption In literature, there is no census regarding the definition of sustainable consumption. Even though definitions are similar, authors include different aspects according to Łuczka and Smoluk-Sikorska (2017). Some declare sustainable consumption as pro-environmental consumption (Brough, Wilkie, Ma, Isaac, & Gal,2016;Chen, Ghosh, Liu, & Zhao, 2019), meaning the consumption of products that are produced in a way that reduces the environmental impact as much as possible. Others, like Łuczka & Smoluk-Sikorska, 2017 or Scott & Weaver,2018, do also include social aspects, e.g. exclusion of particular social groups, fair trade, animal rights and so an. Often the term is used without clearly defining it (Luchs, Phipps, & Hill,2015;Prothero et al.,2011). The UN’s Definition of Sustainable Consumption While there is no census about the definition of sustainable consumption in academic literature, a definition can also be derived from the UN. In 1994, the Oslo Symposium, an initiative of the United Nations Conference on Environment that focused on sustainable consumption and production (Baker, 1996), firstly defined sustainable consumption as the use of products and services which respond to basic needs and improve the quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as waste and pollutants over the whole product or service life cycle. (Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform,n.d.). Later, the UN formulated, as previously mentioned, one specific SDG about sustainable production and consumption. By doing so, the UN points out the strong link between them. In fact, sustainable consumption is nothing else than the consumption of sustainable products respectively products that result from sustainable production. Sustainable production aims at decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation, increasing resource efficiency, and promoting sustainable lifestyles by reducing future economic, environmental, and social costs. Therefore, sustainable consumption and production should contribute substantially to poverty alleviation and the transition towards low-carbon and green M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467428 Own representation Figure 2: Structure of the thesis economies (United Nations,n.d.-a;United Nations Environment Programme,2015). Synthesized Definition for Sustainable Consumption The SDGs represent common goals for the members of the UN and were officially adopted by the different states in 2015 (Hák et al.,2016;Sachs,2012). Therefore, they are a suitable basis for a definition. For this thesis, the following definition will be used: Sustainable consumption is the consumption of products resulting from sustainable production. Sustainable production is a form of production that reduces environmental degradation, increases resource efficiency, and promotes sustainable lifestyles compared to conventional forms of production. Furthermore, it contributes to Sustainable Development by benefitting one or more related SDGs. In summary sustainable production reduces future economic, environmental and social costs. Term Distinction A review of the academic literature shows that besides sustainable consumption similar forms of consumption are mentioned. Namely, these terms are “green consumption”, “responsible consumption” and “ethical consumption”. There is no general census about what aspects these different types of consumption cover (social or environmental aspects or both) and the terms are not properly differentiated. Therefore, a literature review2was conducted in order to distin- 2See the appendix section A.1.3 for the research strategy and additional M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467 429 guish the different forms of consumption. As it is not the goal of this thesis to do a fully comprehensive literature review about sustainable consumption, it was done until the point at which the assessment of further papers was not likely to generate more fundamental insights, in accordance with the principle of theoretical saturation from grounded theory (Flick,1991;Strauss,1998). This point was reached when a total of 28 recent articles that deal with one of those forms of consumption were reviewed. The results are displayed in table 1. Authors generally agree that “green consumption” only refers to environmental aspects (Amatulli et al.,2019;Johnstone & Hooper,2016;Nguyen et al.,2019;Perera et al., 2018). Therefore, green consumption is a subpart of sustainable consumption. Another term is “responsible consumption”. It is sometimes specified as “socially responsible consumption” (Robinot et al.,2017;Shobeiri et al.,2016) or “environmentally responsible consumption” (Gupta & Agrawal,2018). However, that does not necessarily mean, that only the respective aspects are covered. Xu et al. (2019) deal with socially responsible consumption but also include environmental aspects. Authors that use the term responsible consumption without further specification mostly only consider social aspects (Antonetti & Maklan,2015;Rasool et al.,2019) but some include environmental aspects as well (Kumar & Chamola, 2019). All in all, it can be concluded that responsible consumption rather focuses on social issues and is therefore a subpart of sustainable consumption. Furthermore, it is noticeable that the term in its unspecific form is used in articles that are not published in top tier journals (Kumar & Chamola, 2019;Rasool et al.,2019;Xu et al.,2019) especially if its unspecific form is used. Numerous authors deal with “ethical consumption”. Most of them attribute social and environmental issues to it (Carrington et al.,2016;Gummerus et al.,2017;Jung et al., 2016;H. Lee & Cheon,2018;Shaw et al.,2016;Wiederhold & Martinez,2018;Williams et al.,2015). This indicates that sustainable consumption (as defined earlier) and ethical consumption are equivalents regarding the covered aspects. Only one of the reviewed articles about ethical consumption deals with social aspects only (Govind et al.,2019). Figure 3graphically displays the relations of the different forms of consumption discussed in this chapter. 2.1.3. German Millennials As mentioned in the first part, consumers of different nations and therefore different cultural backgrounds show considerable differences in consumer attitude and behavior (Gentina et al.,2014;Gómez-Luciano et al.,2019;Kacen & Lee,2002;Lapierre & Rozendaal,2018;Manrai,2018). This thesis focuses on consumers that are born and raised in Germany. information regarding the research on sustainable consumption. 3Journal rank was obtained from Scimago Journal and Country Rank (https://www.scimagojr.com/) on 11.12.2019. Literature agrees regarding the general generational groups but does not really agree on the exact division regarding the year of birth (Wey Smola & Sutton,2002). An exemplary summary of different divisions is displayed in table 24. Table 2shows that the different divisions do not correspond 100% but are all very similar. For this thesis, the division of the Center of Generational Kinetics is used, as it is a specialized research institute that focuses on generational research and should therefore provide valid information. Table 3provides data of the German population divided into generational groups as defined by the Center for Generational Kinetics (2016). As children under ten years are assumed to play a minor role in purchasing decisions, this age group was left out. As well, people over 73 years were not considered as they only represent a small part of the population and will not be of major influence in the future. As mentioned before, Millennials have a more ecofriendly attitude than older generations (Bedard & Tolmie, 2018) as they are the first consumers to grow up in a globally interdependent world (Bucic et al.,2012). Their presence in the workforce and their spending power is big (The Nielson Company,2015), which is supported by the fact that they represent the second biggest generational group in Germany. Only the group of the Baby Boomers include more people, but their relevance fades due to their advancing age. As a result, German Millennials are all people that are born between 1977 and 1995 in Germany and were also raised in Germany. 2.1.4. Sustainable Food There is a huge amount of different food products in the German market and some products are considered more sustainable than others. Table 4provides an overview of the emitted GHG in gram per kg of the respective product. These data allow to compare different products regarding their GHG emissions. However, emissions are not the only impact on the environment. The water consumption during the production process is as well important (BMU, 2016). Referring to the social aspect of sustainability, fairtraded products are said to be more sustainable than products from exploitation. This is especially important for imported products like bananas, cacao, or tea (BMU,2016; Tegut,2015). Regional products are said to be more sustainable than imported ones, as there are additional emissions as a result of transportation. This may not always be the case, for example, oversea ships can be more C02 efficient than truck transportation. Small decentralized processing structures also tend to be less energy efficient than large companies (Penker & Elmar,2015). This illustrates how multi-layered and non-transparent sustainability is and that regionally produced products are not necessarily more sustainable than others. Even if that is not generalizable, it may 4See the appendix section A1.4 for the research strategy and additional information regarding German Millennials. M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467430 Table 1: Literature review of sustainable consumption and related forms of consumption Kind of consumption Covered aspects References Journal Journal rank3 Sustainable Environmental, Social Prothero et al.,2011 Journal of public policy & marketing Q1 Sustainable Environmental Chen et al.,2019 Journal of marketing research Q1 Sustainable Environmental, Social Salciuviene, Buenaventura, & Lee,2019 Engineering economics Q2 Sustainable Environmental, Social Minton, Jeffrey Xie, Gurel- Atay, & Kahle,2018 International journal of consumer studies Q2 Sustainable Environmental, Social Scott & Weaver,2018 Journal of public policy & marketing Q1 Sustainable Environmental Brough et al.,2016 Journal of consumer research Q1 Sustainable Environmental, Social Luchs et al.,2015 Journal of marketing management Q1 Green Environmental Nguyen, Nguyen, & Hoang, 2019 Sustainable development Q1 Green Environmental Amatulli, De Angelis, Peluso, Soscia, & Guido, 2019 Journal of business ethics Q1 Green Environmental Perera, Auger, & Klein, 2018 Journal of business ethics Q1 Green Environmental Johnstone & Hooper,2016 Journal of marketing management Q1 Responsible Environmental, Social Kumar & Chamola,2019 Serbian journal of management Q3 Responsible Social Rasool, Shakur, ani Mohammad, Mughal, & Awang,2019 International journal of business & society Q3 Socially Responsible Social Shobeiri, Rajaobelina, Durif, & Boivin,2016 International journal of market research Q1 Socially Responsible Social Robinot, Ertz, & Durif, 2017 International journal of consumer studies Q2 Socially Responsible Social Song & Kim,2018 Journal of business ethics Q1 Socially Responsible Environmental, Social Xu, You, & Liu,2019 Social behavior and personality Q3 Environmentally Responsible Environmental Gupta & Agrawal,2018 Corporate social responsibility and environmental management Q1 Responsible Social Antonetti & Maklan,2015 International journal of market research Q1 Ethical Environmental, Social Hiller & Woodall,2019 Journal of business ethics Q1 Ethical Social Govind, Singh, Garg, & D’Silva,2019 Journal of business ethics Q1 Ethical Environmental, Social H. Lee & Cheon,2018 Journal of international consumer marketing Q2 Ethical Environmental, Social Gummerus, Liljander, & Sihlman,2017 Journal of business ethics Q1 Ethical Environmental, Social Carrington, Zwick, & Neville,2016 Marketing theory Q1 Ethical Environmental, Social Shaw, McMaster, & Newholm,2016 Journal of business ethics Q1 Ethical Environmental, Social Williams, Germov, Fuller, & Freij,2015 Appetite Q1 Ethical Environmental, Social Jung, Kim, & Oh,2016 Journal of business ethics Q1 Ethical Environmental, Social Wiederhold & Martinez, 2018 International journal of consumer studies Q2 Own representation M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467 431 Own representation Figure 3: Different forms of consumption Table 2: Different divisions of generations depending on age Reference Baby Boomers Generation X Generation Y - Millennials Generation Z McCrindle and Wolfinger (2014) 1946 - 1964 1965 - 1979 1980 - 1994 1995 - 2009 Brühl (n.d.) -1964 1965 - 1975 1976 - 1998 1999 - Meredith and Schewe (1994) 1946 - 1964 1965 - 1979 1980 - 2000 Center for Generational Kinetics (2016) 1946 – 1964 1965 – 1976 1977 – 1995 1997 - TBD Own representation Table 3: Generations overview Baby Boomers Generation X Generation Y - Millennials Generation Z Birth range 1946 - 1964 1965 – 1976 1977– 1995 1996 - TBD Age 73 – 55 years 54 – 43 years 24 – 42 years 23 – 10 years Population in Germany 21.151.208 14.354.981 19.721.652 11.378.281 Own representation based on Statistisches Bundesamt (2019) and Center for Generational Kinetics (2016) be true for a majority of cases (eKitchen,2017;Moderne- Landwirtschaft,2016). Therefore, this thesis will assume that regional products have a lower impact on transportation than others. Another important aspect is the packaging of the food, which is also multi-layered. A clear and general distinction of packaging in sustainable and not sustainable is not possible5, as various factors like packaging material, the durability of the goods, and others have to be taken into account (Emblem,2012;Sonneveld, James, Fitzpatrick, & Lewis,2005). To sum it up, the ecological aspect of a food product’s sustainability depends on several different factors. These can be subordinated to three main categories: the impact during production, the impact from transportation and packaging. Still, it is not sensible to try to generally distinguish the products in sustainable and unsustainable and this is also not the goal of this thesis. Instead of following a black and white logic, this thesis focuses more on relative sustainability. For example, table 4allows to assume that meat has a higher 5See the appendix section A1.4 for a detailed research regarding sustainable packaging. impact from production than vegetables. The table is displayed in an ascending order regarding their emissions (conventional agriculture). If the products are simply split into three approximately even groups, it results in the limit values regarding the C02 emissions as displayed in table 5. Also, as previously described, the impact from transportation is lower if a product was produced regionally, than if it was produced at the other end of the country or even imported from another place in the world. Regarding packaging, it is impossible to determine which kind of packaging is more or less sustainable as extensive research showed6. The only sensible evaluation here is to distinguish between packed and unpacked products. Furthermore, sustainable consumption also includes social aspects as described in chapter 2.1.2. In the further process of this thesis, the focus hereby lies on fair-trade and compliance with animal rights, as derived from the definition of sustainable consumption in chapter 2.1.2. This thesis is especially aiming at exploring the attitude, thought processes, and beliefs regarding sustainable behav- 6See the appendix section A1.4 for a detailed research regarding sustainable packaging. M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467438 Own representation based on Ajzen,1991 Figure 6: Basic model of the Theory of Planned Behavior form a respective behavior and therefore describing internal obstacles (Bandura & Walters,1977). Ajzen (2002) argues that carefully selected items should be used for both selfefficacy and PBC to ensure high-internal consistency. Therefore, self-efficacy will be added as an additional determinant of intention and behavior in the framework of this thesis. The model of a modified TBP that will be the theoretical foundation of this thesis is illustrated in figure 7. To achieve better clarity, the arrows depicting the mutually influencing relations between the four determinants (Ajzen,1991) were removed. Status Quo and Critical View on the Theory of Planned Behavior Despite being well established and applied countless times, the theory is claimed to have some weaknesses as well. Its biggest one is probably the fact that it assumes behavior to be rational and conscious. This neglects spontaneous behavior or strong emotional influence (Jones,1996;Rossmann, 2011). Furthermore, some critics question the completeness of the components as past behavior is not included, which means that habitualization respectively repeated behavior is neglected (Jones,1996;Klöckner & Blöbaum,2010;Rossmann,2011). Ajzen (2005) himself states that the TPB is also valid for habitualized behavior, as it was once triggered by a conscious decision and therefore relies on the same cognition as not-habitualized behavior. Other psychologists like Gollwitzer (1999)orOuellette and Wood (1998) rather assume that habitualized behavior works without any cognitive participation. As findings on the applicability of TPB to habitual behavior are not consistent, the problem cannot be solved empirically at the moment (Rossmann,2011). Additionally, the meta-analytic review of Armitage and Conner (2001) states that the fact that the TPB often relies on self-reported behavior makes it vulnerable to selfpresentational biases (Gaes, Kalle, & Tedeschi,1978). Jonas and Doll (1996) criticize the conceptualization of behavior as a singular act, as the TPB was originally designed to predict singular, observable behavioral acts. More complex behaviors including many single acts, behavioral outcomes, and goals cannot be explained by the TPB in the same manner respectively only with poorer validity. According to Rossmann (2011), it is a further weakness of the theory that it does not clearly distinguish PBC and selfefficacy. However, this was already discussed and solved by the introduction of self-efficacy as the fourth determinant of intentions in the previous chapter. Another weakness as described by Jonas and Doll (1996) and Wirth, Von Pape, and Karnowski (2008) is the fact that the interplay of the components of the TPB only represents a limited time frame, which does not allow to follow the processual character of the relation of attitude and behavior. That is why some authors like Ouellette and Wood (1998) demand the inclusion of past behavior as a further determinant. Other authors like Wirth et al. (2008) suggest the introduction of a feedback loop between behavior and the three determinants in order to display the processual character. The most important critic is the fact that many studies using the TPB are not able to prove the causality of the relations. Often the studies are based on cross-sectional analyses that identify all behavioral determinants and behavior at the same time. Strictly speaking, this means that it is not possible to clearly prove which of the determinants the cause of the behavior is. Even a reverse order, according to which the model components are a consequence of the behavior and not vice-versa, is possible in some cases (Rossmann,2011). The further critic is mostly centered on the operationalization of the components like e.g. the elicitation of the salient beliefs (Rossmann,2011). Despite the weaknesses the TPB may have according to the previously mentioned authors, the TPB is among the most widely researched (Armitage & Conner,2001) and empirically proven theories explaining behavior (Rossmann,2011) and has still been frequently used in the last years as explained at the beginning of section 2.2. Many studies since the 1960s confirm its assumptions and various meta analyses confirm its empirical validity (Armitage & Conner,2001; Han & Stoel,2017;Rossmann,2011). The weaknesses of the TPB are displayed below in table 7. 2.2.3. Diverging Observations Regarding Consumer Behavior As mentioned in the introduction, recent literature already picked up on discrepancies between certain determi- M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467 439 Own representation based on (Ajzen,1991,2002;Bandura & Walters,1977;Parkinson et al.,2017) Figure 7: Modified model of the Theory of Planned Behavior Table 7: Overview of the weaknesses of the extended Theory of Planned Behavior Weakness Explaining irrational behavior Explaining repeated /habitual behavior Neglecting the processual character of the relation between attitude and behavior Divergence between self-reported and actual behavior Missing proof of causality of relations Operationalization of determinants Own representation nants and the actual consumer behavior. Two forms of the discrepancies are mentioned frequently but must be distinguished. One form is describing a divergence between consumer attitude and actual behavior on the other form in describing a divergence between the intention and the actual behavior. In the following chapter, these two forms are defined and distinguished. The Attitude Behavior Gap and Related Concepts Attitude Behavior Gap This thesis will subsume all terms describing the divergence between attitudes, values, concerns, opinions etc., and the actual behavior under the term ABG as derived from the TPB (Ajzen,1991). This phenomenon is graphically shown in figure 8. If attitude and behavior do not correspond, this divergence can be explained by the effect of an influence of the subjective norm, the PBC or the self-efficacy as it is not predefined what the intention is. For example, it could be possible that even though the attitude regarding a certain behavior is positive, the PBC and self-efficacy lead to a negative intention and a therefore a respective behavior, which is not corresponding to the attitude. Other frequently mentioned terms describing the same phenomenon, are the value action gap (Ferguson et al.,2017) or the concern behavior gap (Wei et al.,2017). Academic literature indicates the existence of this gap for different industries and countries around the globe, like e.g. the wine market (Schäufele & Hamm,2018) and the apparel industry (Wiederhold & Martinez,2018) in Germany, the pork consumption in Brazil (de Barcellos, Krystallis, de Melo Saab, Kügler, & Grunert,2011) or organic food consumption in Denmark (Aschemann-Witzel & Niebuhr Aagaard,2014). Numerous other authors deal with the ABG, which is displayed in an overview in table 8. The overall attitude in Germany regarding sustainability is positive according to a study done by the German federal office for environment. More than 60% of the Germans think protecting the environment is important (Umweltbundesamt,2019b). As Millennials are said to have a more ecofriendly attitude than older generations (Bedard & Tolmie, 2018), it can be assumed that German Millennials also have a positive attitude regarding sustainability. On the other hand, the consumption of unsustainable food is not declining. The GHG emission due to food products was stable since the beginning of the millennial (Umweltbundesamt,2020). Supporting that fact, the meat consumption in Germany has been stable during the last twenty years (Bundesanstalt für Land- M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467440 Own representation Figure 8: The attitude behavior gap in the extended model of the Theory of Planned Behavior wirtschaft und Ernährung,2015;Ernährung,2019) and the number of chickens kept in cages rose more than 30% in the last ten years (Statistisches Bundesamt,2019). As these examples illustrate and the fact, that prior literature indicates the ABG for several other markets around the world and in Germany, it can be assumed that there is an ABG regarding the sustainable food consumption of German Millennials as well. Intention Behavior Gap In addition to the ABG, some authors also mention the intention behavior gap (Frank & Brock,2018;Liu, Wang, & Koehler,2019;Mack et al.,2019;Nguyen et al.,2019;Pfeffer, Englert, & Mueller-Alcazar,2019) or the intention action gap (Gabler, Butler, & Adams,2013;Holdershaw, Gendall, & Wright,2011;Kersten, McCambridge, M. Kayes, Theadom, & McPherson,2015;Kuo & Young,2008;Saddawi-Konefka, Schumacher, Baker, Charnin, & Gollwitzer,2016). The latter seems to apply especially in medical science. All gaps that describe a divergence between the intention and the behavior are labeled as intention behavior gap in the framework of this thesis. The attitude behavior gap and the intention behavior gap are displayed in figure 9. The figure 9compares the two gaps, which makes the difference between them obvious. The ABG allows the other determinants besides from the attitude to account for an intention that does not correspond to the attitude and therefore explain the ABG. The intention behavior gap neglects the determinants of intention as it presumes it to be, for example, positive. Thus, the determinants cannot provide an explanation of the gap within the framework of the TPB and requires seeking explanations outside of the theory’s logic. The intention behavior gap can be a special case of the ABG if the attitude corresponds with the intention, but these two do not correspond with the behavior. In order to investigate the problem in a more holistic way, this thesis will investigate the ABG covering all the determinants of behavior. Findings on the Attitude Behavior Gap Some prior literature also aimed at qualitatively elaborating explanations for the ABG. Aschemann-Witzel and Niebuhr Aagaard (2014) examine the gap in the context of organic food products in for young consumers in Denmark and Wiederhold and Martinez (2018) look into the German green apparel industry. Explanation approaches include the price premium people cannot or do not want to pay (Aschemann-Witzel & Niebuhr Aagaard,2014;Wiederhold & Martinez,2018) and the availability of respective products (Aschemann-Witzel & Niebuhr Aagaard,2014;Wiederhold & Martinez,2018). While Wiederhold and Martinez (2018) identified a lack of knowledge regarding sustainability as a barrier, Aschemann-Witzel and Niebuhr Aagaard (2014) explicitly stated that a lack of knowledge regarding organic products is no barrier for the young Danish consumers. Wiederhold and Martinez (2018) also stated the missing transparency, consumers’ inertia, and habits as explanations, factors that could also apply to other products than clothing. 2.3. Summary According to the TPB, consumer behavior is determined by the intention which is in turn defined by attitude, subjective norm, PBC (Ajzen,1991), and self-efficacy (Ajzen,1991, 2002;Bandura & Walters,1977;Parkinson et al.,2017). Prior literature indicates a gap between the attitude and the actual behavior regarding sustainable consumption for different consumer groups and in different markets (K. Lee, 2008;Moraes et al.,2012;Nguyen et al.,2019;Wiederhold & Martinez,2018;Young et al.,2010). So far, the consumer behavior of German Millennials regarding sustainable food consumption has not been investigated despite the market’s enormous economic (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie,2019), environmental (Grünberg et al.,2010;Osterburg et al.,2009;Umweltbundesamt,2013) and social relevance (Flatley,2019;Handelsblatt,2013;PETA,2019). M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467 441 Table 8: Overview of different articles dealing with the attitude behavior gap Gap Focus References Journal Journal rank Attitude behavior gap High-cost situations Farjam, Nikolaychuk, and Bravo (2019) Ecological economics Q1 Attitude behavior gap Usage of sustainable materials in private house building Götze and Naderer (2019) International journal of sustainable development & world ecology Q1 Value action gap Deforestation behaviors in Guatemala Robb, Haggar, Lamboll, and Castellanos (2019) Environmental conservation Q1 Attitude behavior gap Apparel industry in Germany Wiederhold and Martinez (2018) International journal of consumer studies Q2 Attitude behavior gap Wine consumption in Germany Schäufele and Hamm (2018) Food quality and preference Q1 Attitude behavior gap Social impact assessment Grieco (2018) Nonprofit management & leadership Q1 Value action gap Imitation of visible green Behavior Babutsidze and Chai (2018) Ecological economics Q1 Concern behavior gap Environmentally friendly behavior Tam and Chan (2018) Global environmental change Q1 Attitude behavior gap Environmental education Redondo and Puelles (2017) International research in geographical and environmental education Q2 Attitude behavior gap Responsible consumption Antonetti and Maklan (2015) International journal of market research Q1 Attitude behavior gap Food consumption in Denmark Aschemann-Witzel and Niebuhr Aagaard (2014) International journal of consumer studies Q2 Attitude behavior gap Sustainable tourism Juvan and Dolnicar (2014) Annals of tourism research Q1 Attitude behavior gap Consumption in the UK Moraes et al. (2012) Journal of marketing management Q1 Attitude behavior gap Pork consumption in Brazil de Barcellos et al. (2011) International journal of consumer studies Q2 Attitude behavior gap Consumption in the UK Young et al. (2010) Sustainable development Q1 Value action gap Sustainable energy Flynn, Bellaby, and Ricci (2009) Sociological review Q1 Value action gap Waste recycling in Hong Kong Chung and Leung (2007) Environmental management Q1 Own representation As described in the previous chapter 2.2.3 it can be assumed that there is an ABG regarding the sustainable food consumption of German Millennials as well. As consumer behavior regarding various kinds of products is different (Pelau,2011) it is sensible that also the reasons and explanations of the ABG regarding these kinds of products differ to the findings that prior works with similar research objects, like e.g. Wiederhold and Martinez (2018) elaborated. Thus, the following research question, as already stated in the introduction of this thesis, is to be examined: How can the assumed attitude behavior gap regarding the sustainable food consumption of German Millennials be explained, respectively what are specific reasons for the gap? 3. Research Design In order to investigate the research question, the assumed ABG must be deeply explored. Therefore, an exploratory qualitative approach was applied. It was especially important to explore specific detailed reasons that lead to a per- M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467442 Own representation Figure 9: Comparison of the attitude behavior gap and the intention behavior gap son’s respective attitude, subjective norm, or PBC down to the basic beliefs that underly these different determinants according to the TPB (Ajzen,1988;Fishbein & Ajzen,1980). To expose these non-obvious and sometimes even unconscious beliefs an explorative, qualitative research design was necessary (Flick,2018;Giri & Biswas,2019). In order to get valid and comprehensive data, the approach was triangulated by combining different methods (Bohnsack, Meuser, & Geimer, 2018;Flick,2018). In a first step, the participants will be observed during a shopping trip in order to get insights about their behavior when shopping groceries. In a subsequent step, their actual purchases are examined before they are interviewed. The arrangement of these three data collection steps is sensible. If the interview was made before the observation, participants may be encouraged to think about their consumer behavior which would be likely to bias their behavior during the observation. 3.1. Recruitment and Sample The participants were eleven consumers born between 1977 and 1995 and raised in Germany. They are intended to represent the whole group of German Millennials which is why a balanced spread regarding age and education was achieved. All participants were contacted by phone and agreed to take part in the study which cumulated in a participation rate of 100%. This might be due to the fact that all participants were first or second-grade social contacts of the researcher. They were given background information about the overall study goal and a meeting with each participant was arranged at the supermarket where they most frequently shop for their food. Recruitment, observation, and interviews took place in January and February 2020. Observation and interviews were made on the same day. Before starting the data collection, each of the participants was asked to sign a declaration of consent regarding the usage of the data.8 Additional background information like the demographic data of the participants are displayed in table 9. 8The declarations are available from the researcher on request. Participant 6 was a special case, as she brought her twoyear-old daughter along for the shopping trip as she usually does. All other participants were alone with the researcher. 3.2. Direct Observation and Verbal Protocol Analysis In a first step, the participants were observed during their regular grocery shopping in order to capture their actual consumer behavior as well as body language and external factors while buying food and beverages. According to the Verbal Protocol Analysis (VPA) (Ericsson,2006;Ericsson & Simon, 1985), also known as the “think out loud” method (Reicks et al.,2003), participants were asked to share their thoughts and considerations in order to capture them immediately during the shopping. Using only retrospective methods like interviews may have lead to a loss of those thoughts and considerations. 3.2.1. Procedure Orientation Interview The researcher met the participants in front of the supermarket and gave them accurate and standardized instructions on the shopping protocol. After that, the researcher asked for circumstantial background information like the shopping list, the size of the household they are shopping for, or the available budget for today’s shopping. The Observation - VPA After the orientation interview, the researcher walked with the participants who were asked to shop in their usual manner but, in addition, to verbalize all thoughts and considerations in the context of selecting the food and beverages. The researcher responded mostly to the participant by nonverbal signals to show that he was following the participant’s thoughts and that he was interested, or by making a neutral comment. If the participant stopped speaking for a longer period (more than 60 seconds), the researcher used standardized non-leading sentences to encourage the monologue, such as “What are your thoughts?”. In the standard VPA, the researcher does not respond to the participant’s 9See appendix section A3.1 for additional information regarding the sample. M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467 443 Table 9: Participants and additional information9 Proband Gender Birth Highest Current job Household Urban(U) Observation Observation No. year education size Rural (R) city shop 1 M 1993 Bachelor of Arts Student 2 U Munich Obergiesing City Rewe 2 F 1978 Abitur Foreign language correspondent 2 R Pfaffenhofen Lidl 3 F 1977 Vocational Training Tax expert 2 R Weissenhorn Rewe 4 M 1991 Master of Eng. Engineer 2 R Senden Lidl 5 M 1980 Vocational Training Gas station owner 1 R Pfaffenhofen Rewe 6 F 1984 Vocational Training Paralegal 4 R Weissenhorn Lidl 7 M 1994 Master of Science Research Assistant 2 U MunichSchwabing Edeka Express 8 M 1990 Master of Science Controller 2 U Munich-Pasing Lidl 9 M 1993 Bachelor of Arts Student 1 U Munich-Schwabing Lidl 10 F 1984 Medical state examination Physician 4 U Munich Fürstenried VollCorn Biomarkt Own representation questions or comments to avoid interrupting the process (Ericsson,2006;Ericsson & Simon,1985;Reicks et al.,2003). In an interactive, potentially busy, and loud environment, such as a supermarket, it is better to communicate with the accompanying person rather than to speak to oneself (Saarela et al.,2013). Immediate Feedback Interview and Debriefing Right after the shopping, short feedback interviews were conducted. The participants were asked general questions like “How did you feel about the shopping experience you just had? What was it like to think out loud?”. The participants were also given an opportunity to ask questions or address concerns.10 3.2.2. Pretest As pretest one observation was made prior to the actual data collection in order to test the applicability, completeness, comprehensibility, and quality of the research instrument (Raithel,2008). The pretest worked out fine. The participant stated he did not feel strange during the shopping trip, that he was instructed well and understood his task. As the participant did not keep the bill, reconstructing what he actually bought during the trip was rather time-consuming, as each product had to be recorded individually. As a result, the instruction 10See the appendix section A2.1 for the full observation guide, including instructions and the debriefing guide. given to the participant prior to the start of the observation was expanded, adding the request to keep the bill. Apart from that, the pretest worked out well and nothing else was changed. The pretest was used as regular observation, making the pretest participant “Participant 1”. 3.2.3. Data Collection As mentioned in section 3.1 data was collected from eleven participants over the course of about six weeks. One researcher accompanied each participant to her most frequently visited supermarket. Shopping trips took between seven and 25 minutes. Prior to the actual trip, additional information about the participants and the circumstances of the shopping were elicited with a short interview (see chapter 3.1.1). The verbal protocol of each participant was recorded with a cable bound and smartphone assisted microphone that was clipped to the collar of the respective participants. Thus, the protocol of each shopping trip is saved as one audio file which was later transcribed verbatim. At the same time, the researcher noted all observed behavior of the participants (which products did she look at, which did she put back, what did she actually buy, body language, striking or unusual behavior etc.). Additionally, the researcher noted external factors like special offers, sold-out products, crowded areas in the store etc. During the observation the audio gear failed three times, resulting in either a complete stop of the audio record (Partic- M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467444 ipants 6 and Participant 8) or in a record of incomprehensible noise (Participant 7). In these cases, no verbal protocol could be recorded. However, in these cases a protocol was written on the same day of the observation from the memory of the researcher who accompanied and observed the participant, thus still ensuring rich insights in the participants shopping behavior. The transcript of the verbal protocol as well as the notes from the observation were combined into one consolidated and comprehensive report per participant. These reports are a combination of two transcript forms introduced by Mayring (2016). From the audio file transcript, which was the result of the verbal protocol, a summary transcription is created. Mayring (2016) suggests reducing the quantity of information in order to improve the quality content. Then, based on the concept of the commented transcript (Mayring,2016), the notes from the observation are added, thus creating the consolidated report. 3.3. Analysis of Actual Purchase Decisions In a subsequent step, the actual purchase decisions of the participants were evaluated by either analyzing the bill from the shopping trip that was observed and/or the shopping cart and/or the food supply stored at participants home or in order to see what the participant actually purchased. It is important to mention that this part of the study was not the main focus of this thesis, but rather an additional analysis, enabling a rough crosscheck of the self-reported attitude and behavior stated by the participants during the interviews and their actual purchased products. Thus, the result of this analysis should be interpreted with care, as results might not be universally valid or generalizable. While the observation and the VPA focuses on the overall behavior and thoughts during the shopping trip, this analysis focuses on the actually purchased products. According to the impact dimensions of food products identified in chapter 2.1.4, the purchased goods are examined on a high-level. Therefore, a photo is taken of the bill, the shopping cart, and/or the participants food storage, if it was feasible. Based on the photos a list of the purchased products is created, and each product is evaluated regarding the three impact dimensions scheme elaborated in chapter 2.1.4. as well as regarding fair trade and organic production. The aspect of compliance with animal rights is excluded from the analysis as it was impossible to evaluate the compliance for the products after they got purchased, solely on the basis of the photos. Impact from Production The products were evaluated regarding their GHG impact according to the table 4, as far as they could be found in it. Then they were classified based on the three impact levels provided in table 5in chapter 2.1.4 and received a score (low impact =1, medium impact =2, high impact =3). By calculating the average score per participant, a comparable evaluation regarding the impact from production was achieved. Impact from Transportation To evaluate the purchase decisions regarding the impact from transportation, the share of percentages explicitly marked as regional products will be calculated for each participant. Impact from Packaging As described in chapter 2.1.4, an evaluation of sustainable packaging is complicated and cannot be done superficially. Therefore, in order to superficially evaluate the purchase decisions, the percentage of unpackaged products for each participant is calculated. Fair Traded and Organic Products Finally, the percentage of fair-traded products as well as a percentage of organic products out of all products is calculated. 3.4. Semi-structured Interviews In a last step, the participants were interviewed in order to investigate their attitudes, subjective norm, and PBC in more detail, as well as to pick up on striking behaviors during the grocery shopping. By specifically asking for underlying beliefs forming attitude, subjective norm, and PBC these determinants can be explained and understood. To uncover these underlying, potentially hidden or unconscious beliefs, a semi-structured depth interview is a suitable method (Flick, 2018;Giri & Biswas,2019). 3.4.1. Pretest As pretest, one interview was done prior to the actual data collection in order to test the applicability, completeness, comprehensibility and quality of the research instrument (Raithel,2008). Again, the pretest was successful, and the participant gave a positive feedback. The interview generated a deep insight into the participant’s attitude, subjective norm, PBC, and self-efficacy and provided some explanations for the ABG. However, it was often necessary to ask deeper questions and deviate from the key questions, as they mostly resulted in superficial answers. These deeper, detailed questions were noted and added to the interview guideline as examples. The pretest showed, that the interviewer needs to be flexible and adapt his questions if necessary, in order to unveil the hidden beliefs. However, the interview provided meaningful and purposeful insights, which is why it was used as a regular interview, so the pretest participant was “Participant 1”. 3.4.2. Data Collection Similar to the observation, the data was collected by one investigator that interviewed the previously mentioned participants according to the interview guideline11. The guideline was split into five parts. The first part was rather introductory with general questions like, “what do you think is sustainable food consumption?” or “how often do you go grocery shopping?” in order to get the participant to start talking 11See the appendix section A2.2 for the full interview guide. M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467 445 about their general shopping behavior. The other parts were developed in accordance with the structure of determinants as described in section 2.2. The second part aimed at eliciting the attitude of the respective participant by questioning the attitude itself as well as underlying beliefs. The third part covered the subjective norm, similar to the previous part, covering the determinant itself by asking questions like “Which people from your social environment influence your choice in groceries?” as well as underlying beliefs. The fourth part is about the PBC and self-efficacy, again addressing the determinants themselves and underlying beliefs. The last part is optional in case the data collected up to that point are not rich enough in the eyes of the researcher. The question of that part center on the ABG and how it could be counteracted or anticipated. The interviews were recorded with the same recording technique used for the observations and transcribed verbatim as suggested by Mayring (2016). 3.5. Qualitative Data Analysis The analysis process follows a slightly different order than the data collection process. Here, data from the qualitative interviews were analyzed first in order to see how participants self-reported their behavior and of course attitude, subjective norm, PBC, and self-efficacy. In the following, the combined transcripts from the observation and VPA were analyzed in order to see how they actually behave during grocery shopping and what their actual thoughts are. In a last step, the actual purchase decisions are analyzed in order to match these against the self-reported behavior from the qualitative interviews. The analysis of the interview transcripts and the combined reports of the observations and the VPA follows the principle of qualitative content analysis by Mayring (2010). With the intention to identify and summarize objectively as well as systematically the content of the gathered data and to draw conclusions from it (Mayring,2010). This bears the advantages of a structured approach by maintaining openness (Kohlbacher,2006). Basically, the analysis consists of three process steps. The first step is called summary and reduces the material into a manageable scope by preserving the essential content. Afterwards, the explication step helps to clarify the content and the last process step is structuring. This describes the most important part of the qualitative analysis by coding the text excerpts into suitable categories (Kohlbacher,2006;Mayring,2010). Qualitative content analysis is a proven and suitable tool for analyzing data within qualitative research projects. Besides the previously mentioned advantages, it enables the integration of context and different material as well as the use of quantitative steps for the analysis (Kohlbacher,2006). To manage all the gathered data in this research project the software MAXQDA and Microsoft Excel are used to facilitate the content analysis. 3.6. Overview: Triangulated Research Process The whole research process is graphically illustrated in figure 10. That research design guarantees a multiple triangulation. By using different sources respectively questioning different persons at different times in different locations, a data triangulation is given, ensuring an enhanced gain in information (Bohnsack et al.,2018;Flick,2011). Furthermore, a methodological (between-method) triangulation results from the usage of observations as well as interviews. 4. Findings and Interpretation This part presents the findings. This means at first the results of the qualitative interviews are introduced, followed by the results of the observation and the VPA and the results from the analysis of the actual purchased products. The last section combines the findings from the previous sections in order to examine the occurrence of the ABG and develop explanation approaches. 4.1. Findings from the Qualitative Interviews This section provides the findings of the qualitative interviews. At first, the general shopping behavior as self-reported by the participants is described. Subsequently, insights about the determinants of behavior according to the TPB are presented. The sources for the statements in that section are the interview transcripts with the respective participants. For example, the interview transcript of Participant 1 is shortened as “P1.I”. 4.1.1. Findings from the General Shopping Behavior Most of the participants stated that they do one big weekly grocery shopping trip and two additional smaller ones (P2.I; P3.I; P4.I; P6.I; P7.I; P10.I). The others indicated to do one (P3.I) or two (P1.I) trips per week. However, it seems like almost all participants do at least one bigger shopping trip per week. Participant 1 and Participant 3 stated that they exclusively go grocery shopping in the evening after work when it is busy and sometimes some products are already sold out for the day (P1.I; P3.I). Participant 1 even said that this caused him to have a rather negative attitude regarding shopping in general and that he aims at getting over with the grocery shopping as fast as possible in order to only spend a minimum time in the store (P1.I). Participant 5 explained as well that he tries to minimize the time he is spending for grocery shopping (P5.I). When it comes to choosing a store for their grocery shopping the biggest part of the participants named the proximity to their workplace respectively to their place of residence as one main driver (P1.I; P4.I; P5.I; P10.I). Other factors that were mentioned are the quality of the products (P4.I), the price compared to other stores (P9.I), the size of the product selection (P10.I) and the fact that some participants prefer to go to the same store every time because then they know exactly where to find which product, which increases shopping efficiency (P1.I; P5.I). This corresponds with the statements of Participant 1 and Participant 5 that they do not like grocery M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467446 Own representation Figure 10: Triangulated research process shopping and try to minimize the time they are spending for it, as previously mentioned (P1.I; P5.I). The category scheme regarding general shopping behavior, providing an overview of the number of statements assignable to the respective category (n) as well as the total number of mentions (m) and the respective participants, is displayed below in table 10. 4.1.2. Attitude Participants Evaluation of Attitude It is striking that all participants, except for Participant 6, indicated to have a positive attitude regarding sustainable food consumption. While four participants (P1.I; P2.I; P3.I; P10.I) just stated a positive attitude, five participants (P5.I; P6.I; P7.I; P8.I; P9.I) added certain limitations to their positive attitude. For example, Participant 4 explained that even though 12See the appendix section A4.2 to get access to the full coding scheme. sustainability is important for him, his goal is not even to consume fully sustainably but he rather tries to improve his consumer behavior only in certain areas (P4.I). Participant 5 added that he does not want to overdo it with thinking about sustainable consumption, as eating and drinking is meant to be an enjoyment (P5.I). Some participants explicitly pointed out that their consumer behavior got more sustainable in the last two to three years (P1.I; P3.I; P7.I). Participant 7 explained in that context that his personal transition to sustainable consumption was nothing that happened overnight, but he rather described it as a process that started more than two years ago. He has been trying to improve his ecological footprint but does not really have the ambition to be completely sustainable today (P7.I). The reason for this change in attitude could be the fact that many participants (P3.I; P4.I; P6.I; P7.I) feel affected by the media. As sustainability is gaining more and more attention, participants are made to think about the topic and reflect their consumer behavior, which seemingly benefits a M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467 447 Table 10: Category scheme regarding general shopping behavior12 Main Category Sub-category 1 Sub-category 2 Mentions Participants n m 1 General shopping behavior 1.1 Reasons for the store choice 1.1.1 1 1 P10.I Large selection 1.1.2 1 1 P9.I Price 1.1.3 4 4 P1.I, P4.I, P5.I, P10.I Proximity to work/place of residence 1.1.4 2 2 P1.I, P5.I Always the same shop (routine) 1.1.5 1 1 P4.I Product quality 1.2 2 6 P1.I, P5.I Negative attitude regarding shopping 1.3 2 2 P1.I, P3.I Shopping in the evening 1.4 Number and kind of shopping trips 1.4.1 1 1 P3.I One per week 1.4.2 1 1 P1.I Two trips per week 1.4.3 6 6 P2.I, P4.I, P6.I, P8.I, P9.I, P10.I One big trip plus two small trips per week 1.4.4 1 1 P7.I Two - Three trips during the week, one big every two weeks Own representation positive attitude regarding sustainable consumption. Another explanation for an attitude change seems to be the birth of a child of one’s own. The two participants, who are a parent, mentioned that the birth of their child had a great impact on their attitude (P6.I; P10.I). While Participant 10 stated the birth of her children had a positive influence on her attitude, as she wants to be a positive role model for her children regarding sustainable consumption (P10.I), Participant 6 explained that only with the birth of her children, she started thinking about what will happen to this world in the future and how she is influencing that (P6.I). Even though most of the participants indicated to have a positive attitude, it is striking that half of the participants are currently not (yet) consuming as sustainable as they could and that they are aware of their potential for improvement. Table 11 provides the category scheme regarding the participants’ attitude evaluation, giving an overview of the number of statements assignable to the respective category (n) as well as the total number of mentions (m) and the respective participants. 13See the appendix section A4.2 to get access to the full coding scheme. Underlying Beliefs Understanding of Sustainable Consumption When it comes to the underlying beliefs regarding the attitude, it is important to capture what people understand by sustainable food consumption. Therefore, the participants were asked to describe what sustainable food consumption means to them and what different aspects are covered by the term. The most often mentioned aspect is the reduction of the consumption of products with excessive packaging especially if it is made out of plastic (P2.I; P3.I; P4.I; P5.I; P6.I; P7.I; P9.I; P10.I). Almost as many participants mentioned the origin country of a food product as a determinant of sustainability. Regional products are perceived as more sustainable than products imported from foreign countries (P1.I; P2.I; P3.I; P4.I; P6.I; P7.I; P9.I; P10.I). The origin of products is related to another aspect that is frequently addressed by participants as an important part, namely the C02-footprint. Consuming products with the lowest possible C02 emissions during production is seen as sustainable (P3.I; P6.I; P7.I; P8.I; P9.I). As M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467454 their own impatience (P1.I; P3.I; P4.I). Firstly, this refers to the fact that they only want to go to one store to get everything they need (P4.I), as mentioned in chapter 4.1.4. Secondly, it also refers to participants not taking much time for their shopping trip and therefore choosing products without really dealing with them (P1.I; P3.I). In that context, Participant 1 added he wants to minimize the time spent in the store as he feels uncomfortable while shopping (P1.I). Table 17 provides the category scheme regarding selfefficacy, giving an overview of the number of statements assignable to the respective category (n) as well as the total number of mentions (m) and the respective participants. Summary Overall, there is a variety of internal obstacles preventing people from consuming according to their attitude. Again, some obstacles may be a result of the same basic issues. Correspondingly, participants’ laziness and convenience are connected to their impatience and the fact that they may feel uncomfortable while shopping. All these factors lead people to minimizing the time spend on grocery shopping. This leads to the following three main internal obstacles: 1. Minimizing the time spent for grocery shopping 2. Unconscious decision/habit 3. Desire for unsustainable products 4.2. Observation and the Verbal Protocol Analysis The first chapter of this section presents the insights of the observation as captured by the researcher. After that, the second chapter is dealing with the thoughts of the participants captured by the VPA. The sources for the statements in that section are the observation combined transcripts from the respective participants. For example, the observation combined transcript of Participant 1 is shortened as “P1.O”. 4.2.1. Observation During the observation, it was most striking that most of the purchases (m=57) did not include an observable decision process. It seemed like the participants just took the respective products without even really looking at them or considering alternative products, probably because they were already familiar with the product. Often it appeared as if the actual purchase decision had been made earlier and in the store, the purchase is only carried out. It is important to mention that this could be observed multiple times during the shopping trips of all ten participants (P1.O; P2.O; P3.O; P4.O; P5.O; P6.O; P7.O; P8.O; P9.O; P10.O). Sometimes the observed persons did not even stop to pick a product but rather just put them into the shopping cart or bag while passing by (m=22). Often the purchases seemed to be spontaneous. A major part of the participants showed this behavior (P2.O; P4.O; P6.O; P7.O; P8.O; P9.O; P10.O). 19See the appendix section A4.2 to get access to the full coding scheme. Often the participants took a superficial look at the product before picking it (m=33). Participants seemed to evaluate its appearance, e.g. regarding its freshness or different flavors within the same brand but did not properly read the information on the packaging respectively really thinking about the product. Here as well, it is important to mention that this behavior could be observed multiple times during the shopping trips of all participants (P1.O; P2.O; P3.O; P4.O; P5.O; P6.O; P7.O; P8.O; P9.O; P10.O). Only six participants (P1.O; P2.O; P3.O; P7.O; P9.O; P10.O) appeared to even consider alternatives at least a few times during their shopping trips (m=13). However, in many of these cases, participants seemed to not really think about the products in detail, but again rather compare superficial attributes like appearance (P2.O; P3.O) or the quantity in the package (P2.O). Only selectively the participants seem to actively think about the products and evaluate alternatives (P3.O; P7.O; P10.O). Furthermore, it was striking that many participants seemed to reflect or even hesitate where to go next, respectively were actively searching for a product at some point in the shopping trip (P1.O; P3.O; P4.O; P5.O; P9.O; P10.O). In that context, it is to be noted that especially the two participants that claimed to go to the same store every time, so they are familiar with it and know how to find each product, showed this insecurity (P1.O; P5.O). The category scheme regarding the observed behavior, providing an overview of the number of statements assignable to the respective category (n) as well as the total number of mentions (m) and the respective participants, is displayed below in table 18. Summary All in all, it can be stated that regarding the major part of the products, it seemed that the actual purchase decision was made at some point in the past. The observed behavior during the shopping trip appeared to be mostly defined by previously formed habits. 4.2.2. Verbal Protocol Analysis Reasons for Product Choices By far the biggest share of the participants’ thoughts obviously centered around the products they intend to buy and why they do so. It is striking that in most cases participants (P1.O; P2.O; P3.O; P4.O; P5.O; P6.O; P7.O; P8.O; P9.O; P10.O) only stated that they need a certain product, without thinking about why they need it, what alternative products could there be or any other additional considerations (m=82). These thoughts are all similar like: “now I am looking for cheese” (P1.O, own translation), “I need butter” (P10.O, own translation) or “Now I am going to get some grapes” (P2.O, own translation). This corresponds well with the impression from the observation that the actual purchase decision had taken place before the shopping trip, which then only marked the realization of the purchases. 20See the appendix section A4.2 to get access to the full coding scheme. M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467 455 Table 17: Category scheme regarding self-efficacy19 Main Category Sub-category 1 Mentions Participants n m 5 Self-efficacy 5.1 Laziness /Convenience 7 19 P1.I, P2.I, P3.I, P4.I, P6.I, P7.I, P8.I 5.2 Unconscious decisions /habit 7 12 P1.I, P3.I, P4.I, P7.I, P8.I, P9.I, P10.I 5.3 Desire for unsustainable products 6 6 P1.I, P2.I, P4.I, P5.I, P9.I, P10.I 5.4 Impatience /Taking too little time 3 4 P1.I, P3.I, P4.I 5.5 Uncomfortable shopping 1 1 P1.I Own representation Table 18: Category scheme regarding the observation20 Main Category Sub-category 1 Sub-category 2 Mentions Participants n m 6 Behavior during shopping 6.1 Observation 6.1.1 Selection without closer examination of the products 10 57 P1.O, P2.O, P3.O, P4.O, P5.O, P6.O, P7.O, P8.O, P9.O, P10.O 6.1.2 Superficial view at the products 10 33 P1.O, P2.O, P3.O, P4.O, P5.O, P6.O, P7.O, P8.O, P9.O, P10.O 6.1.3 Taking the product in passing 7 22 P2.O, P4.O, P6.O, P7.O, P8.O, P9.O, P10.O 6.1.4 Dealing with the product and alternatives 6 13 P1.O, P2.O, P3.O, P7.O, P9.O, P10.O 6.1.5 Reflecting/hesitating 5 8 P1.O, P3.O, P4.O, P5.O, P9.O, P10.O Own representation Also, almost all participants frequently thought about what they like or dislike regarding taste respectively about a general desire for certain products (P1.O; P2.O; P3.O; P4.O; P5.O; P6.O; P7.O; P9.O; P10.O). For example, Participant 1 chose a pack of tortellini after having stated “I’m in the mood for tortellini again”. (P1.O, own translation) or Participant 2 who did not get a certain salad as she is “has grown tired of this one” (P2.O, own translation). Another relevant category of thoughts was about the lacking offers in the respective stores or lacking alternative products (P1.O; P2.O; P3.O; P4.O; P7.O; m=15). This was the case if e.g. a certain product was sold out (P1.O), there was no alternative product without packaging (P2.O; P3.O; P4.O) or if a certain product is not available at all (P7.O). Often the product choices were directly influenced by the participants’ general social environment (P1.O; P3.O; P7.O; P8.O; m=9). Either because someone actively recommended a certain product (P7.O) or because the participant chooses a product for a person from his social environment, mostly as the partner or flatmate likes a certain product (P1.O; P3.O; P8.O). A lot of the product choices of Participant 10, who is a mother of two, were heavily influenced by the preferences of her children (P10.O). The impression from the observation, that the participants often examine the appearance of the products could be confirmed by the VPA (P1.O; P2.O; P3.O; P8.O; P9.O; m=13). Frequently, participants stated something like “they look good” (P1, own translation) or “this one does not look good” (P2.O, own translation) when choosing products. A further driver seems to be the price as implied by the majority of participants (P1.O; P2.O; P4.O; P5.O; P6.O; P7.O; P10.O) in a variety of situations (m=13). For example, Participant 1 said he chooses a certain milk as it is the cheapest (P1.O) or Participant 2 who decided to buy a pack of coconut flakes which was actually too big, but very cheap (P2.O). In fact, also sustainability plays a role in product choices, however, compared to the previously described factors, it plays a rather minor role (m=7). Correspondingly, Participant 7 tried to buy vegetarian food (P7.O). It is important to mention at that point, that this does not necessarily mean M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467456 that her vegetarian consumption is motivated by sustainability. However, it was classified as abstinence from meat like previously mentioned in sub-chapter 4.1.2.2. Participant 4 chose bananas because they were fair traded (P4.O) and Participant 5 chose pasta that was regional (P5.O). Participants 3 and 10 chose certain products because of their sustainable packaging (P3.O; P10.O). Further thoughts often centered about varying nutrition (P1.O; P5.O; P7.O; P10.O; m =6). Often these lines of thoughts started with “What could we cook next time?” (P1.O, own translation). Participant 10 stated that she chose one product as she never had it before (P10.O). Special offers influence product choices as well (P2.O; P3.O; P4.O; P6.O; P8.O; P10.O m=6). For example, Participant 4 bought a feta cheese because it was discounted (P4.O) or Participant 3 who stated to generally watch out for special offers (P3.O). The quantity in a package also seems to be an important aspect as many participants stated due to the VPA (P1.O; P2.O; P4.O; P10.O; m=5). Participant 2, for example, said that she did not choose the fair-trade bananas as they were only available in too big packages (P2.O). Other only selectively stated aspects included how healthy certain products were (P5.O, P8.O; m=2), some products’ best before date (P9.O; m=3), how easy and fast to prepare certain products are (P5.O; m=2) or that the choice was random (P9.O; m=1) General Thoughts In accordance with the observation that the participants appeared to be insecure sometimes, they frequently thought about where to find a certain product (P9.O; P10.O) or were reflecting on what they already put in their shopping cart respectively what they already have at home (P2.O; P4.O; P7.O; P8.O; P10.O). Some also considered to buy certain products which they needed somewhere else, either due to an insufficient offer at the current store (P2.O; P4.O) or personal preferences (P4.O; P10.O). Participant 5 at some point additionally stated that he does not have “the nerve to look for where anything is” (P5.O, own translation), stressing again his dislike for grocery shopping as described in chapter 4.1.1. Conversation with the Own Child Participant 6 was a special case as she brought her twoyear-old daughter along, for the shopping trip, so she had to deal with her a lot, leaving only little room for her own thoughts. Very often, she asked her daughter whether she liked a certain product and whether she should purchase it (P6.O; m=10) or explained some products to her daughter (P6.O; m=1). Also, some time Participant 6 just talked nonsense with her daughter in order to keep her occupied and in good spirits (P6.O; m=3). Nevertheless, at the end of the shopping trip, her daughter got fretful anyways and she had to finish her shopping early (P6.O). Table 19 provides the category scheme regarding the VPA, giving an overview of the number of statements assignable to the respective category (n) as well as the total number of mentions (m) and the respective participants. 4.3. Actual Purchase Decisions It was possible to examine the actual purchase behavior for all participants except for Participant 6. Table 20 presents an overview of the evaluation of purchase decisions per participant and crosschecks it against their self-reported assessment of their attitude as described in sub-chapter 4.1.2.1. The average score regarding the impact from production was calculated as explained in section 3.3. The shares displayed in the table were calculated on the basis of the list of purchased products per participant22. An additional letter indicates for each cell if the respective participant mentioned the respective aspect to be an important part of sustainable food consumption, as described in sub-chapter 4.1.2.2. In that context “Y” means that the participant did mention the aspect and “N” indicates that she did not. In most cases the average score for the impact from production was between 1.5 and 2.0 which means in average the products had a low to medium GHG impact as defined in chapter 2.1.4. This corresponds to the findings from the interviews e.g. that participants tried to avoid meat respectively dairy products (P1.I; P2.I; P3.I; P4.I; P7.I; P9.I; P10.I), which have a particularly high impact (see chapter 2.1.4). Even though all interviewees except for Participant 5 and 6 said that the origin of the product is an important aspect of sustainable food consumption for them (P1.I; P2.I; P3.I; P4.I; P6.I; P7.I; P9.I; P10.I) and they state to have a positive attitude (P1.I; P2.I; P3.I; P4.I; P7.I; P8.I; P9.I; P10.I) they mostly did not buy regional products. Participants 4 and 5 did at least buy some regional products (P4.O; P5.O), which is remarkable, as the Participant did not even state to consider the origin of the product. Only Participant 10 who went to an organic supermarket bought a substantial part of regional products (P10.O). The share of unpacked products was generally higher than the share of regional products. Again, Participant 10 had the biggest share, with almost half of the products bought being unpacked. Most of the other participants bought between approximately eight and twenty percent unpacked products (P1.O; P2.O; P3.O; P4.O; P6.O; P7.O; P8.O). Indeed Participant 8, who had the lowest share, did not mention the reduction of packaging as important aspect of sustainable food consumption (P8.O). On the other hand, Participant 5 and Participant 9 both mentioned it but did not even buy one single unpacked product (P5.O; P9.O) and one of them did at least buy one fair-traded product (P10.O). Only three participants stated fair trade to be an important part of sustainable food consumption (P7.O; P8.O; P10.O). It is remarkable that two of them did not even buy one single fair-traded product (P7.O; P8.O). Only two participants did not mention natural respectively organic production to be sustainable (P3.O; P5.O). Participant 5 did shop accordingly and bought not even one or- 21See the appendix section A4.2 to get access to the full coding scheme. 22See the appendix section A3 for a detailed list of purchases per participant 23As described in the summary of sub-chapter 4.2.2.1 M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467 457 Table 19: Category scheme regarding the Verbal Protocol Analysis21 Main Category Sub-category 1 Sub-category 2 Sub-category 3 Sub-category 4 Mentions Participants n m 6 Behavior during shopping 6.2 Thoughts/ VPA 6.2.1 Reason for purchase 6.2.1.1 "I still need X"/Habit/ Already determined before 10 82 P1.O, P2.O, P3.O, P4.O, P5.O, P6.O, P7.O, P8.O, P9.O, P10.O 6.2.1.2 Like /dislike taste 9 27 P1.O, P2.O, P3.O, P4.O, P5.O, P6.O, P7.O, P9.O, P10.O, 6.2.1.3 Lack of / insufficient offers 5 15 P1.O, P2.O, P3.O, P4.O, P7.O 6.2.1.4 Influence from social environment 6.2.1.4.1 General 4 9 P1.O, P3.O, P7.O, P8.O 6.2.1.4.2 Children 1 4 P10.O 6.2.1.5 Appearance of the products 5 13 P1.O, P2.O, P3.O, P8.O, P9.O 6.2.1.6 Price 7 12 P1.O, P2.O, P4.O, P5.O, P6.O, P7.O, P10.O 6.2.1.7 Sustainability 6.2.1.7.1 Plastic / packaging free 2 3 P3.O, P10.O 6.2.1.7.2 Vegetarian 1 2 P.O 6.2.1.7.3 Fairtrade 1 1 P4.O 6.2.1.7.4 Origin of the product 1 1 P5.O 6.2.1.8 Varied diet 4 6 P1.O, P5.O, P7.O, P10.O 6.2.1.9 Special offer 6 6 P2.O, P3.O, P4.O, P6.O, P8.O, P10.O 6.2.1.10 Quantity in the package 4 5 P1.O, P2.O, P4.O, P10.O 6.2.1.11 Best before date 1 3 P9.O 6.2.1.12 Healthy 2 2 P5.O, P8.O 6.2.1.13 Easy to prepare 1 2 P5.O 6.2.1.14 Random choice 1 1 P9.O 6.2.2 General thoughts 6.2.2.1 "I already have product X" 5 14 P2.O, P4.O, P7.O, P8.O, P10.O 6.2.2.2 "Where is product X" 2 6 P9.O, P10.O 6.2.2.3 "I will buy product x somewhere else" 3 5 P2.O, P4.O, P10.O 6.2.2.4 No desire to shop 1 1 P5.O 6.2.3 Conversation with the own child 6.2.3.1 What the child wants 1 10 P6.O 6.2.3.2 Explanation of products 1 1 P6.O 6.2.3.3 Unrelated 1 3 P6.O Own representation M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467458 Table 20: Crosscheck of participants’ self-report and the actual purchased products Participant Overall attitude Average score impact from production Share of regional products Share of unpacked products Share of fair-traded products Share of organic products Did the participant mention the respective aspect or related ones23 as an important part of sustainable food consumption? Y=Yes N=No 1Unlimited 1.69 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% positive Y Y Y N Y 2Unlimited 1.53 0.00% 15.60% 0.00% 0.00% positive Y Y Y N Y 3Unlimited 1.38 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 16.67% positive Y Y Y N N 4Limited 1.83 4.00% 12.00% 4.00% 4.00% positive Y Y Y N Y 5Limited 1.81 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% positive N N Y N N 7Limited 1.9 0.00% 14.30% 0.00% 14.30% positive Y Y Y Y Y 8Limited 1.7 0.00% 8.57% 0.00% 5.71% positive Y N N Y Y 9Limited 1.73 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% positive Y Y Y N Y 10 Unlimited 1.55 18.18% 45.45% 4.54% 100% positive Y Y Y Y Y Own representation ganic product. Participant 3 in contrast, bought more than 16% organic products, only second to Participant 10, who bought organic products only, as she visited an organic supermarket. The other participant did not buy or did only buy very few organic products even though they claimed it to be important for sustainable food consumption (P1.O; P2.O; P4.O; P7.O; P8.O; P9.O). In summary, the actual purchase decisions of the participants did not really reflect the self-report given during the interviews. The only exception is Participant 10 who did in fact buy many organic, regional, and unpacked products (P10.O). 5. Summary and Limitations 5.1. Summary This thesis picked up on the recent trend of sustainability and sustainable consumption by investigating the sustainable food consumption of German Millennials regarding an assumed gap between their attitude and their actual consumer behavior. Based on the TPB, which served as the theoretical framework of the thesis, a multi-step, qualitative research process was developed in order to find viable explanations for the ABG. The process included the triangulation of questioning everyday consumers via qualitative depth interviews, the observation of those consumers during one of their regular grocery shopping trips, and the superficial analysis of the products they bought. The summary of the study’s main findings is described in the following two chapters. 5.1.1. Occurrence of the Attitude Behavior Gap There seems in fact to be a gap between the sustainable attitude and the actual behavior. On the one hand, half of the participants even claim to still have room for improvement as described in sub-chapter 4.1.2.1. On the other hand, most participants have a clear positive attitude regarding sustainable food consumption, which was previously described in sub-chapter 4.1.2.1 as well. However, sections 4.2 and 4.3 showed as well that the actual behavior of the participants did in fact not correspond completely with that positive attitude. Many participants did often buy products with higher impacts regarding the evaluation scheme developed in chapter 2.1.4 and only selectively bought fair traded products (see section 4.3). Additionally, the results of the VPA suggest that sustainability only plays a minor role during the actual shopping trip (see chapter 4.2.2). The results presented in section 4.3 imply a gap between the participants’ self-reports and their actual behavior as well. 5.1.2. Explanations of the Attitude Behavior Gap In sum, the influence of the social environment was positive as chapter 4.1.3 showed and should therefore not provide an explanation for the ABG. However, participants men- M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467 459 tioned several factors regarding PBC and self-efficacy detaining them from fully consuming sustainably and thus providing possible explanations for the ABG. Thus, these determinants are examined in the following sub-chapters. Perceived Behavioral Control High Prices of Sustainable Products The most frequently mentioned external obstacle was the high price level of sustainable food products, implying that people may not be able to afford these products (P1.I; P2.I; P3.I; P4.I; P5.I; P6.I; P7.I; P8.I; P9.I). Especially for people who may have a limited budget like e.g. students, this could be a valid explanation. However, only one participant stated to have a limited budget for food (P1.O). All others participants said they can theoretically spend as much as they like for food (P2.O; P3.O; P4.O; P5.O; P6.O; P7.O; P8.O; P9.O; P10.O). This indicates that even though participants are actually able to afford sustainable food, they just lack in willingness to spend the higher prices compared to the other products. Lack of Knowledge /Education Regarding Sustainable Products In some cases, the ABG can be a result of a lack of knowledge. That means people may want to consume according to their attitude but fail to do so, as they are unable to identify sustainable respectively unsustainable products and therefore simply fail to choose sustainable products (P1.I; P3.I; P4.I; P6.I; P7.I; P8.I; P9.I). Insufficient Sustainable Food Product Range Another possible obstacle is the lacking range of sustainable products. Especially in the regular supermarkets like Aldi, Lidl or Rewe, there is only a poor offer of unpacked product. On the other hand, people could also choose to shop at organic supermarkets or the weekly farmers’ market that definitely provide a sufficient offer of sustainable products. However, the participants stated various reasons why they do not choose to shop there, above all, the higher prices and the expectation to not getting everything they need at one store (P1.I; P2.I; P3.I; P5.I; P6.I; P7.I; P10.I). Self-efficacy Minimizing the Time Spent for Grocery Shopping One important internal obstacle preventing participants from consuming according to their attitude is peoples’ laziness and their tendency to be convenient (P1.I; P2.I; P3.I; P4.I; P6.I; P7.I; P8.I). That means people are too lazy to deal with the subject sustainability in order to fill their knowledge gaps. Also, people like the convenience of getting all products needed in one store, which is why they keep shopping in regular supermarkets that might have an adequate offer of sustainable products (as described in the previous sub-chapter). Additionally, many participants claimed to be impatient (P1.I; P3.I; P4.I). All in all, that means people are trying to minimize the time and effort they put into grocery shopping, possibly leading to hasty and spontaneous purchases, which corresponded with the findings from the observation and the VPA (see section 4.2). As they are often in a hurry, they do not really think about why they choose a certain product but rather do it automatically as confirmed by the observation and VPA (P1.O; P2.O; P3.O; P4.O; P5.O; P6.O; P7.O; P8.O; P9.O; P10.O). This may result in unthoughtful and unconscious product selection that is not reflecting the consumer’s attitude. Unconscious Decisions Respectively Habit Also, participants frequently stated that many of their purchase decisions are unconscious or habitual (P1.I; P3.I; P4.I; P5.I; P8.I; P9.I; P10.I) which corresponds to the findings from the observation and the VPA (see section 4.2). This means the actual decision was made before the shopping trip, which is only the realization of that decision. In combination with the fact that some participants said that they changed their attitude in the last years, a possible explanation for the ABG is that people simply di not have enough time to change their habits. Desire for Unsustainable Products Many participants mentioned that they sometimes buy unsustainable products out of desire. However, this is only the case for single exceptions (P1.I; P2.I; P4.I; P5.I; P9.I; P10.I). Accordingly, this aspect does probably not provide a suitable explanation for the ABG, as the gap does not only refer to single purchase behaviors but rather the overall consumer behavior. 5.2. Limitations General limitations regarding all qualitative research, e.g. regarding intersubjectivity or generalizability have to be kept in mind in any case (Flick,2018;Giri & Biswas,2019). Furthermore, there are specific limitations of this thesis, which will be discussed in this section. 5.2.1. Theoretical Framework On the one hand, one of the main findings of the study is that sustainable food consumption is strongly determined by habit. On the other hand, the TPB was previously often discussed regarding its validity in the context of habitual behavior (see sub-chapter 2.2.2.3). Possibly, another framework, for example, one that explicitly conceptualizes the habitual aspect of behavior would have been more suitable for this thesis. The SHIFT model This model has recently been used to encourage a change of behavior to act more sustainably (White, Habib, & Dahl, 2020;White, Habib, & Hardisty,2019). The authors explicitly state that the framework can help to address the attitude behavior gap so it could have also been a suitable approach to explain the attitude behavior gap. It includes five key drivers of behavior change regarding sustainability: social influence, habit formation, the individual self, feelings and cognition, and tangibility (White et al.,2020). The “Social Influence” is similar to the subjective norm from the TPB, involving beliefs about what is socially appropriate or expected. M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467460 The “Individual Self” depicts a group of factors centered on the actual individual, who desire to have a positive selfview (White et al.,2019). This can lead to positive outcomes (Dunning,2007) or to negative outcomes as a result of selfdefensive reactions (Dickinson,2009). Self-consistency describes that in addition to the fact that people want to see themselves positively, they also want to see themselves as ben consistent. Self-consistency research suggests that consumers engaging in sustainable behavior at one point in time often leads to consistent sustainable behavior in the future (White et al.,2019). Also, self-interest plays a major role in influencing behavior according to White et al. (2019) as well as self-efficacy which they base on the work of (Bandura & Walters,1977). Also, individual differences that are similar to the “external factors” as described in subchapter 2.2.1.1, play a role according to the SHIFT model (White et al.,2019). In summary, it can be stated, that many of the concepts subsumed under the “individual self” can also be found within the extended TPB as described in this chapter. The key factor “Feelings and Cognition” describes on the one hand how positive (e.g. love for nature or pride) and negative emotions (e.g. guilt or fear) can heavily influence consumer decisions and are therefore a major part of the SHIFT model. On the other hand, it also includes how information, learning, and knowledge as important aspects (White et al.,2019). This coincides with one of the major findings from this thesis, the lack of knowledge as a driver influencing PBC and therefore a reason for the ABG. White et al. (2019) also introduce some rather new aspects like the key factor “Tangibility”. This depicts the unique facet of sustainable consumption that respective actions and outcomes often seem abstract, vague, and distant from oneself. If respective outcomes are communicated clearer, more concrete, and more comprehensive, people are more likely to consume sustainably. Most importantly, “Habit Formation” is stated as one key driver (White et al.,2019). That includes the breaking of bad habits as well as the actual formation of desirable habits. Retrospective, as habits emerged as a main driver for the ABG in the context of sustainable food consumption of German Millennials the SHIFT model may have been a more suitable guiding framework in order to explore the gap than the TPB. On the other hand, the framework originally refers to changing consumer behavior and not explaining it (White et al.,2019), which was not the scope of this thesis. That is why the TPB was chosen over the SHIFT model for this thesis. Value-belief-norm-theory Another possible theory that is frequently mentioned in the context of pro-sustainable behavior is the Value-belief- norm-theory. It does not conceptualize habits as well, but rather focuses on a person’s values (Stern,2000). It did not have obvious advantages over the TPB with regard to explaining and exploring sustainable consumer behavior. However, it was less suitable to illustrate the ABG, which is why it was not chosen as guiding framework of this thesis. Conclusion In Summary, the TPB illustrates the ABG well and was designed to explore and explain behavior. It was a sound theoretical framework for this thesis and succeeded in providing several sensible explanation approaches for the ABG. However, for further research in the domain of sustainable consumption, a further extension of the TPB is needed in order to better capture habits respectively the processual and repeating character of sustainable food consumption. 5.2.2. Research Design Sample The sample is especially composed of people at least indirectly personally known to the researcher. As the sample was not randomly chosen, this might lead to a selection bias and therefore possibly limiting the generalizability of results (Atteslander,2013;Geddes,1990). Furthermore, there was only a limited geographical spread, as only participants from the south of Germany were selected. Including participants from other parts of Germany may have added some additional insights. However, it is questionable if people from other parts of Germany really differ considerably in their consumer behavior. Content Analysis The content analysis followed the approach by Mayring (2010) but the involvement of just one researcher in the process did not offer the possibility to assess the inter-coder reliability. 5.2.3. Results Technical Fails During Shopping Trips Like described in chapter 3.2.3, the audio gear failed in three cases (P6.O; P7.O; P8.O). A considerable part of the information, that could have been captured with the audio record was lost for these participants. In these cases, a protocol was created from the fresh memories of the researcher, still ensuring insights into these participants’ shopping behavior and partially compensate for this loss. Possible Bias Additionally, results may be distorted e.g. due to the social desirability bias (Atteslander,2013;Nederhof,1985), which reflects the tendency on behalf of the participants to deny socially undesirable traits and behaviors and to claim socially desirable ones, and the tendency to say certain things in order to appear in a favorable light (Atteslander,2013; Nederhof,1985). In order to lower the bias, the study also included an observation part in addition to the self-report in the interviews. Evaluation of the Purchase Decisions The evaluation of the purchase decisions regarding sustainability is done on a high level and was not developed within a scientifically sound process. Therefore, the evaluation provides only a limited value. However, the quantification was explicitly not the main objective of the thesis. The evaluation was only used to roughly crosscheck the participants’ self-report and their actual purchase decisions and in order to be able to compare the purchase decisions of the different participants. M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467 461 6. Implications, Contribution, and Further Research The last part describes the practical implications, which can be derived from the key findings of the thesis provides as well as the theoretical contribution and possible directions for further research. 6.1. Practical Implications 6.1.1. Sustainable Food Manufacturers and Supermarket Chains This thesis provides insights into the decision-making of consumers and contributes to a better understanding of the ABG gap within the food industry. The presented findings might be of potential interest to sustainable food manufacturers and supermarket chains, who are keen to transform consumers’ sustainable attitudes into actual buying behavior. Understanding the consumers’ attitude towards sustainable consumption as well as their constraints regarding PBC and self-efficacy may help the industry to the following issues. Participants complained about the insufficient range of sustainable products (see chapter 4.1.4) in the regular supermarket chains. That indicates that there is actually a big demand for sustainable products and extending the offer could, therefore, bear a competitive advantage. Simply extending the portfolio is not enough. Sustainable food manufacturers also have to rethink their communication and marketing & sales strategy. It is not possible to give specific recommendations as even within the food sector, different products may have very different purchase drivers, target customers, etc. In any case, manufacturers should consider the fact that often the consumer behavior is habitual, respectively the purchase decisions are made before the actual shopping trip (chapter 4.1.5). Referring to customer journey literature, the pre-purchasing phase (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016) gains importance and should be especially considered. It is essential to understand and address the factors influencing this decision, in order to get people to change their habits or even form them in favor of the respective company. Exploring the factors that influence the formation or breaking is a major challenge for these companies or could even be a direction for further research. 6.1.2. Public Policy Apart from profit-driven firms, the findings are also valuable for public policy. Based on the findings of this thesis, necessary steps could be initiated in order to foster sustainable food consumption and make an effort in order to close the ABG. As described in chapter 5.2.1, participants showed a low willingness to pay the price premium for sustainable products despite the fact that they could actually afford to pay it. Therefore, a sensible action for public policy would be the implementation of a GHG based tax that would raise the prices of unsustainable products. Rising the prices of unsustainable products would lift the barrier of sustainable products being too expensive (relatively) and would foster sustainable food consumption. If other taxes were lowered in return, the overall tax load, respectively the tax revenue for the German state could be kept constant. Another ecologically worthwhile step, would be the development and implementation of a transparent, universally valid, and for all food products mandatory sustainability label. That way, people would not need to have extensive knowledge about sustainability. If it was a simple and concise concept like e.g. a traffic light system, people could additionally minimize the time necessary to evaluate the sustainability of products to simple checking the traffic light label with one look. Moreover, sustainability and especially sustainable consumption should be part of the curriculum of any school type. It would guarantee that all people in Germany have a basic understanding of sustainability and would be able to evaluate different product alternatives regarding their sustainability. 6.1.3. Consumers This thesis also bears implications for private consumers. They should actively reflect on and challenge their grocery shopping behavior regarding a possible ABG. Also, they should rethink and possibly adjust their habits as well as actively trying to take more time for grocery shopping and make conscious decisions (when grocery shopping). In this way, the gap could be closed or at least reduced, even if in special cases they give in to their desire and give themselves a treat. If someone lacks the knowledge regarding sustainable food consumption, there are consumer protection and information apps like “Codecheck”, which can help to evaluate the sustainability of products in an easy, fast and comprehensive way. 6.2. Theoretical Contribution This thesis contributes to the consumer research on the ABG, as it is one of few studies focusing on sustainable food consumption in Germany and provides several explanation approaches for the gap. The work was built on previous research on the ABG, which was either generic (e.g. Prothero et al. (2011)) or had a focus on other industries (e.g. Schäufele and Hamm (2018)) and/or other countries (e.g. de Barcellos et al. (2011)). It is remarkable that most studies chose a rather quantitative approach to explore the ABG (e.g. Farjam et al. (2019), Götze and Naderer (2019), or Schäufele and Hamm (2018)). This thesis provided rich and new, qualitative insights as only a few studies had a comparable research object and setup (Aschemann-Witzel & Niebuhr Aagaard,2014;Wiederhold & Martinez,2018). Some of the findings of this thesis are conform to these studies (as described in chapter 2.2.3) but also new explanations were uncovered. Most important is the emergence of habit as main driver of consumer behavior regarding food consumption. Wiederhold and Martinez (2018) also mentioned habit but described it mostly as the choice of the store consumers shop in, while the findings on habit in this thesis refer to the M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467462 product choices and. Also, the explanation approach that people try to minimize the time spent for grocery shopping is new. Additionally, this thesis adds to behavioral research by applying the TPB and successfully extending it by one determinant, the self-efficacy. The extension worked out well, by clearly distinguishing between internal and external obstacles or reasons that keep people from putting a respective behavior into practice. Especially when it comes to removing these obstacles, this distinction is reasonable. While the food industry and public policy possibly have an influence on the external factors, it is more the call for the consumers themselves if it comes to the internal obstacles. With this extension the TPB was improved as one major criticism of the theory could be refuted. At the same time, directions for further research can be derived from this thesis. One possibility could be quantifying and thereby verifying the qualitative findings of this study. A conceivable approach could be an online survey quantifying the attitude, subjective norm, PBC, self-efficacy, and the behavior itself and testing for possible interrelations. Another sensible research direction could be to examine the habit formation in more detail in order to elaborate influencing factors, how people can change their habits themselves or how third parties, like public policy or food manufacturers or supermarket chains, can influence peoples’ habits. Last, it is important to mention that a generally valid and holistic measure of sustainability would highly benefit the whole research stream on sustainability and public policy by making sustainability tangible and comparable. M. Lindner /Junior Management Science 6(3) (2021) 424-467 463 References Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior [Book Section]. In Action control: From cognition to behavior (p. 11- 39). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior (US Edition ed.) [Book]. Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Educational Enterprise Limited. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior [Journal Article].Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50(2), 179-211. Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior 1 [Journal Article].Journal of Applied Social Psychology,32(4), 665-683. Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behaviour [Book]. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control [Journal Article]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,22(5), 453-474. Amatulli, C., De Angelis, M., Peluso, A. M., Soscia, I., & Guido, G. (2019). The effect of negative message framing on green consumption: An investigation of the role of shame [Journal Article].Journal of Business Ethics,157(4), 1111-1132. Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2015). How categorisation shapes the attitude–behaviour gap in responsible consumption [Journal Article]. International Journal of Market Research,57(1), 51-72. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review [Journal Article].British Journal of Social Psychology,40(4), 471-499. Aschemann-Witzel, J., & Niebuhr Aagaard, E. M. (2014). Elaborating on the attitude–behaviour gap regarding organic products: young danish consumers and in-store food choice [Journal Article].International Journal of Consumer Studies,38(5), 550-558. Astrøm, A. N., & Rise, J. (2001). Young adults’ intention to eat healthy food: Extending the theory of planned behaviour [Journal Article]. Psychology and Health,16(2), 223-237. Atapattu, S. (2019). From "our common future" to sustainable development goals: Evolution of sustainable development under international law [Journal Article].Wisconsin International Law Journal,36(2), 215- 246. Atteslander, P. (2013). Verzerrungen im interview: zu einer fehlertheorie der befragung (Vol. 32) [Book]. Springer-Verlag. Babutsidze, Z., & Chai, A. (2018). Look at me saving the planet! the imitation of visible green behavior and its impact on the climate valueaction gap [Journal Article].Ecological Economics,146, 290-303. Baker, S. (1996). Sustainable development and consumption: The ambiguities [Journal Article].The Oslo Ministerial Roundtable Conference on Sustainable Production and Consumption, Oslo, 6–10 February 1995. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action [Journal Article].Englewood Cliffs, NJ,1986. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1) [Book]. Prentice-hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Bedard, S. A. N., & Tolmie, C. R. (2018). Millennials’ green consumption behaviour: Exploring the role of social media [Journal Article].Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,25(6), 1388-1396. Bellmann, L., & Koch, T. (2019). Ökologische Nachhaltigkeit in deutschen Unternehmen: Empirische Ergebnisse auf Basis des IAB- Betriebspanels 2018 [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://doku.iab .de/forschungsbericht/2019/fb0819.pdf Bernyte, S. (2018). Sustainability marketing communications based on consumer values and principles [Journal Article].Regional Formation and Development Studies,26(3), 26-35. Biology Dictionary. (n.d.). Biology Dictionary - Consumer [Webpage]. Retrieved from https://biologydictionary.net/consumer/ Black, J., Hashimzade, N., & Myles, G. (2012). A dictionary of economics [Book]. OUP Oxford. BMU. (2016). Konsum und Ernährung [Webpage]. Retrieved from https:// www.bmu.de/themen/wirtschaft-produkte-ressourcen -tourismus/produkte-und-konsum/produktbereiche/ konsum-und-ernaehrung/ Bohnsack, R., Meuser, M., & Geimer, A. (2018). Hauptbegriffe qualitativer sozialforschung [Book]. Opladen, Germany Toronto, Canada: UTB GmbH. Boyon, N. (2020). Climate Change and Consumer Behavior Global changes in consumer behavior in response to climate change [Webpage]. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos.com/ sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-01/ global-advisor-climate-change-consumer-behavior.pdf Brühl, J. (n.d.). Generationenübersicht [Webpage]. Retrieved from https:// den-wandel-gestalten.de/generationenubersicht/ Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S., & Gal, D. (2016). Is ecofriendly unmanly? the green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption [Journal Article].Journal of Consumer Research,43(4), 567-582. Brundtland, G. H., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., & Chidzero, B. (1987). Our common future [Journal Article].New York. Bucic, T., Harris, J., & Arli, D. (2012). Ethical consumers among the millennials: A cross-national study [Journal Article].Journal of Business Ethics,110(1), 113-131. Bui, M., Droms, C. M., & Craciun, G. (2014). The impact of attitudinal ambivalence on weight loss decisions: Consequences and mitigating factors [Journal Article].Journal of Consumer Behaviour,13(4), 303- 315. Bulut, Z. A., Kökalan Çımrin, F., & Do˘ gan, O. (2017). Gender, generation and sustainable consumption: Exploring the behaviour of consumers from izmir, turkey [Journal Article].International Journal of Consumer Studies,41(6), 597-604. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung. (2015). Jeder Deutsche isst im Jahr run 60 kg Fleisch [Webpage]. Retrieved from https://www.ble.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/ DE/2015/150928-Fleisch.html Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie. (2019). BMWi - Lebensmittelindustrie [Webpage]. Retrieved from https:// www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Artikel/Branchenfokus/ Industrie/branchenfokus-lebensmittelindustrie.html Bundesregierung. (2019). Die Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie [Webpage]. Retrieved from https://www.bundesregierung.de/ breg-de/themen/nachhaltigkeitspolitik/eine-strategie -begleitet-uns/die-deutsche-nachhaltigkeitsstrategie Bundesverband der deutschen Ernährungsindustrie. (2019). BVE - Statistikbroschüre [Webpage]. Retrieved from https://www.bve-online .de/presse/infothek/publikationen-jahresbericht/ bve-statistikbroschuere2019 Cambridge Dictionary. (2014). Cambridge Dictionary: "Consumption" [Webpage]. Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/ worterbuch/englisch/consumption Carfora, V., Cavallo, C., Caso, D., Del Giudice, T., De Devitiis, B., Viscecchia, R., ... Cicia, G. (2019). Explaining consumer purchase behavior for organic milk: Including trust and green self-identity within the theory of planned behavior [Journal Article].Food Quality and Preference,76, 1-9. Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I., & Wright, J. (2004). Shopping for a better world? an interpretive study of the potential for ethical consumption within the older market [Journal Article].Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(6), 401-417. Carrington, M. J., Zwick, D., & Neville, B. (2016). The ideology of the ethical consumption gap [Journal Article].Marketing Theory,16(1), 21-38. Center for Generational Kinetics. (2016). An intro to generations [Webpage]. Retrieved from https://genhq.com/faq-info-about -generations/ Chan, D. K., & Fishbein, M. (1993). Determinants of college women’s intentions to tell their partners to use condoms 1 [Journal Article].Journal of Applied Social Psychology,23(18), 1455-1470. Chen, Y., Ghosh, M., Liu, Y., & Zhao, L. (2019). Media coverage of climate change and sustainable product consumption: Evidence from the hybrid vehicle market [Journal Article].Journal of Marketing Research, 56(6), 995-1011. Chung, S.-S., & Leung, M. M.-Y. (2007). The value-action gap in waste recycling: the case of undergraduates in hong kong [Journal Article]. Environmental Management,40(4), 603-612. Collins Cobuild. (n.d.). Collins Dictionary: " Consumption" [Web-