The pursuit of beauty is as old as mankind – throughout history, people have tried to improve their attractiveness and enhance their beauty. Aesthetic medicine, often considered as ancient as medicine itself (Krueger et al., 2013), traces its roots back to early civilizations. The ancient Egyptians, for instance, used oils, salt, alabaster, and milk to aesthetically improve the skin of their body and face (Brody et al., 2000). Nowadays, with rapid technological advancements and ongoing developments in medical science, aesthetic medicine offers patients/clients the possibility of seemingly eternal youth and an ideal figure (Napiwodzka-Bulek, 2017). These modern methods provide women as well as men the opportunity to maintain a young look and to age in the best possible way, while also significantly enhancing patients’ quality of life (Welsch, 2005; Asscher, 2014).

The aesthetic medicine market has emerged as a significant segment of the self-financed medical industry (Lin & Yen, 2020). The global aesthetic medicine market size was valued at USD 82.46 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.3% from 2024 to 2030 (Grand View Research, 2024). Medical tourism, an influential factor in this growth, exhibited a compound annual growth rate of 15% by 2018 (Chistobaev & Semenova, 2018). In Europe, Spain is notably prominent in aesthetic medicine, with regulations permitting cosmetic procedures for patients as young as 14 years old (Pustułka & Jędrzejczak, 2018).

In Poland, the value of the aesthetic medicine market was estimated at 112 milions USD in 2022 (Posełek, 2024). The rates of individuals interested in improving their external appearance have steadily increased over time. Notably, male patients are becoming more frequent visitors to aesthetic medicine clinics. Men are increasingly self-aware, with their external appearance influencing their sense of attractiveness, self-confidence, and masculinity (Załuski, 2023).

The development of the aesthetic medicine market is shaped by several current trends, including:

• personalized treatments,
• cell-based therapies,
• increased integration of artificial intelligence (AI),
• the use of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technologies, and
• advances in non-surgical technologies.

The distinctive characteristics of the aesthetic medicine market – such as comparatively high costs, lack of public funding, individualized services and outcomes, and subjective assessments of appearance – play a significant role in determining patient satisfaction. Importantly, satisfaction in aesthetic medicine differs significantly from satisfaction with other medical treatments. This distinction underscores the need for further investigation into consumer behavior within this market (Ankiel et al., 2021). A number of factors contribute to the limited understanding of this field, including the following:

• Aesthetic medicine is a relatively new area of medical study, having been the subject of limited research from economic, sociological, and psychological perspectives.
• Services in aesthetic medicine often remain an intimate topic; minimal downtime allows patients to recover privately, which may lead to reluctance in participating in studies and consequently smaller sample sizes (Liao et al., 2019).

The primary objective of the present study was to identify and evaluate the determinants of satisfaction among patients/clients with aesthetic medicine treatments that are based on innovative technologies. A secondary aim was to analyze commonly performed procedures (from the perspectives of both doctors and patients) and assess patient satisfaction levels.

2. Theoretical background

Aesthetic medicine employs minimally invasive methods to prevent skin aging and reduce fat tissue. It is often referred to as “wish-fulfilling medicine,” as its procedures are directed by patients’ desires, seeking to improve their quality of life and mental well-being. One way to define aesthetic medicine is medical interventions to prevent and manage skin aging, thereby enhancing patients’ appearance and subjective well-being (Boon & Tan, 2007; Ankiel et al., 2021). As such, unlike traditional medicine, aesthetic medicine does not seek to treat diseases. Patients seeking such treatments are typically healthy images who wish to enhance their physical image (Rymkiewicz, 2018).

Aesthetic medicine often works in tandem with cosmetology, which focuses on contemporary and evolving treatments. These treatments are tailored to meet consumer demands for preventative care against skin aging (Pfenninger & Fowler, 2011). The integration of medical and cosmetological techniques ensures a comprehensive approach to patient needs.

Table 1 outlines a classification of aesthetic medicine treatments.

The number of aesthetic medicine clinics is increasingly significantly each year, driven by growing consumer interest. Non-surgical treatments, including botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A), hyaluronic acid, other dermal fillers, and laser treatments, have been the fastest-growing procedures in aesthetic medicine over the past five years (Vlahos & Bove, 2015). For instance, the use of botulinum toxin A injections has surged remarkably since their first use in this setting in the mid-1980s (Dover et al., 2018; Carruthers & Carruthers, 1998). Current aesthetic uses of BoNT-A include treating glabellar lines, forehead wrinkles, periorbital and perioral lines, platysmal bands, horizontal necklines, and the masseter muscle, among many other applications (Blitzer et al., 1993; Dorizas et al., 2014). Aesthetic medicine is a rapidly evolving field, propelled by innovative technologies and advancements in treatment materials (Przylipiak, 2017). Modern aesthetic medicine employs a wide range of lasers, energy-based devices, and natural or synthetic fillers (Redaelli & Ignaciuk, 2000). Technological progress has significantly expanded the possibilities for aesthetic treatments, transforming the delivery of skincare within clinical dermatology. In particular, the harmful effects of UV irradiation have spurred the development of therapies aimed at reversing photodamage. Among these, laser technologies have become a cornerstone of skin rejuvenation treatments (Theodorou et al., 2021).

Table 2 presents the growth in innovative aesthetic medicine services since 1965. Research papers since 2018 have highlighted the introduction of the newest technology, High-Intensity Focused Electromagnetic Field (HIFEM) used in body contouring and urinary incontinence treatments, and address the safety and effectiveness of this technology (Jacob & Paskowa, 2018; Samuels, 2018; Samuels et al., 2019). A variety of technologies and less invasive methods to treat a wide range of beauty defects and difficulties in daily life are constantly being improved. The advancement of medical technology, the provision of professional services, and the functional training of aesthetic medical practitioners all significantly contribute to the profitability of enterprises in this field (Skountridaki, 2017).

Consumer satisfaction in aesthetic medicine is understood as a psychological state in which the perceived characteristics of the product or services match consumer expectations (Hunt, 1998). In this context, patient satisfaction depends on the post-treatment effects. Many objective and sub-objective factors influence patient satisfaction, such as treatment availability, the ongoing care process, health improvements health, and service price (Małecka & Marcinkowski, 2007; Ankiel & Kuczyńska, 2018). One of the most important determinants of patient satisfaction is the experience and expertise of the medical doctor who is carrying the treatments, who should provide patients with positive emotions and a sense of safety. Patient trust, doctors’ empathy, attentive listening, and professionalism are critical factors in aesthetic medicine. Moreover, effective communication between doctor and patient provides an opportunity to thoroughly understand the patients’ concerns and fosters a sense of trust in the doctor (Bukowska-Piestrzyńska, 2017).

Patient satisfaction is a key metric for evaluating a healthcare organization’s success. In the United States, physician bonuses are linked to patients’ evaluation of their interaction with doctors (Funk et al., 2012). A variety of tools and measures have been developed to estimate patients satisfaction and evaluate specific outcomes, which are important to receiving aesthetic medicine services (Cohen & Scuderi, 2017). For instance, Likert-type scales may be used to rate patients’ satisfaction, such as the Facial Lines Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (Cox et al., 2003). Another instrument is the Facial Line Outcome questionnaire, which evaluates specific outcomes such as perception of attractiveness, self-perception of aging, and extended facial lies, which may project expressions such as stress, anger, or simply looking tired which the patient does not actually feel (Dayan et al., 2019). For a more objective and reproducible assessment of aesthetic procedures and patient satisfaction, the Aesthetic Numeric Analog Scale has been introduced. This scale builds on established tools such as the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale and the 11-Point-Box-Scale to create a standardized approach (Funk et al., 2012).

The Net Promoter Score (NPS) is a versatile tool employed across various service industries, including healthcare, to gauge how likely a patient or other consumer is to recommend a service. In this framework, consumers are categorized as Promoters (those who actively recommend the services), Passives (those who are satisfied, but do not actively recommend the services); and Detractors (consumers who actively discourage others from using the services) (Reichheld, 2003). NPS is increasingly being used to measure patient satisfaction , serving as a simple yet effective indicator of overll cosumer experience.

One notable application of NPS is the Family and Friends Test, widely used by the National Health Services (NHS) of the United Kingdom to measure overall patient satisfaction and likelihood of recommendation (Stirling et al., 2013; Wilberforce et al., 2019). The straightforward and unambiguous nature of the NPS methodology has contributed to its growing popularity in consumer satisfaction studies, often outperforming alternative models like SERVQUAL or SERVPERF in terms of usability and ease of interpretation (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Cronin & Taylor, 1992).

However, while NPS and similar tools have been extensively studied and applied in fields like plastic surgery, dentistry, and orthodontics (De Vries et al., 2014; Sharp et al., 2014; Abbas & Karadavut, 2017), aesthetic medicine remains underexplored in the context of consumer satisfaction. Existing research on consumer behavior in healthcare highlights significant gaps in understanding the determinants of satisfaction among patients undergoing aesthetic medicine treatments and the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty of consumers/patients.

The present study, therefore, aims to identify the satisfaction indicators of the clients using innovative aesthetic medicine services based on innovative technologies. Evaluating client satisfaction in this context will enable a more precise identification of patient expectations, allowing practitioners to better align their offerings with client needs.

3. Materials and methods

The research process was structured in two stages, combining both quantitative and qualitative methods to ensure a comprehensive analysis of satisfaction indicators among clients and practitioners of aesthetic medicine services.

Stage 1: quantitative survey
The first stage involved a quantitative survey conducted through direct interviews at aesthetic medicine clinics located in selected large cities in Poland (with more than 500,000 inhabitants) – Poznań, Kraków, Warsaw, Łódź and Gdynia – in the period from May to June 2019. As a research tool, we used a direct interview questionnaire prepared and verified in piloting. The research population included consumers declaring regular use of aesthetic medicine services. The research sample included 745 respondents; the selection of respondents was based on purposive sampling (Tongco, 2007). The reliability of the construction of the questionnaire was verified using the Alpha-Cronbach test (the coefficient was 0.81, indicating good reliability).

Two crucial aspects of the research are worth emphasizing (Ankiel et al., 2021):

• the distinctive research site: large aesthetic medicine clinics in the above-mentioned cities (each with more than 500 patients in their client bases),
• the significant size of the research sample composed of patients of these clinics (n=745).

A review of the existing literature shows that there have been relatively few comparable research attempts in aesthetic medicine, mainly due to the difficulties of obtaining consent for participation of the patients in a direct questionnaire. These challenges arise from the very personal nature of the procedures and the sensitive reasons for their implementation (Angelini & Carmignani, 2017; Betancur et al., 2014).

Stage 2: qualitative survey

The second stage involved a qualitative survey conducted among aesthetic medicine doctors. This phrase aimed to identify the key determinants influencing the development of treatment offerings in aesthetic medicine. The survey was carried out in August 2019, among physicians attending the XXI 5 Continent – Congress Barcelona, and in September 2019, among attendees of the XX International Congress of the Polish Society of Aesthetic Medicine and Anti-Aging in Warsaw. The research sample included 20 respondents – doctors from Poland, the United States, and Spain. Individual in-depth interviews (IDIs) were conducted using a pre-tested direct interview questionnaire to explore the perspectives of medical professionals.

The satisfaction survey of patients using aesthetic medicine services in Poland was carried out using the Net Promoter Score technique.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Identification the most popular innovative aesthetic medicine treatments

Continuous technological advances and the evolution of aesthetic medicine techniques have significantly expanded the options available to patients, enabling the use of non-invasive or minimally invasive techniques to improve the external appearance and address signs of skin and body aging. The primary goals driving modern aesthetic medicine are to reduce the invasiveness of treatments and shorten the recovery time while maintaining the best possible results.

Striving to meet evolving trends in consumer expectations, manufactures of Energy Based-Devices (EBDs) are continually introducing innovative technologies. Among the latest technologies to be introduced into the aesthetic medicine market is the High-Intensity Focused Electromagnetic Field (HIFEM). In Poland, distribution of HIFEM devices began in 2019. HIFEM is used for body contouring treatments and treating urinary incontinence (Jacob & Paskowa, 2018). Owners of aesthetic medicine clinics and medical doctors can choose among various medical devices and fillers, and other injection materials. However, the wide array of available equipment and materials poses challenges in creating the most effective and appealing service offerings. The selection process requires careful consideration of consumer preferences, market trends, and the specific benefits of each technology. The most popular aesthetic medicine services in medical doctors’ opinions are shown in Table 3.

The most popular aesthetic medicine services selected by medical doctors is hyaluronic acid treatment. Hyaluronic acid is commonly used to fill the wrinkles, giving the client/patient a younger and smoother skin surface. It is also used to enhance the volume of the cheeks and to augment the lips. Its popularity is largely due to the low percentage of post-treatment complications. Other fillers, such as autologous fat tissue or collagen, cause post-treatment complications more often (Carruthers & Carruthers, 2011).

The second most popular aesthetic medicine treatment indicated by medical doctors is botulinum toxin type A injections – one of the most widely used treatments for reducing signs of skin aging. BoNT-A works by inhibiting the secretion of acetylcholine, leading to the relaxation of the facial muscles and making the face appear smoother and younger (Baumann et al., 2016). Additionally, neurologists use it to treat migraine headaches.

The third most popular aesthetic treatment services is laser hair removal (60% of indications by the medical doctors). Laser hair removal is based on selective thermolysis, which targets melanin in the hair to produce a localized thermal effect, damaging the hair follicle and stopping hair growth (Lanigan, 2000). This treatment provides satisfactory post-treatment outcomes.

Next most frequently, medical doctors selected PDO thread treatments (25% indications). PDO threads are applied under the face skin, providing a revitalizing and lifting effect (Przylipiak, 2017). The least popular aesthetic medicine treatment, as indicated by the physicians, is laser telangiectasia removal (with only 10% indications). However, despite its lower popularity, this treatment remains the only effective option for addressing flushing – an involuntary or temporary reddening of the face, neck, and décolletage caused by factors such as temperature changes, physical activity, or consuming hot and spicy foods – and telangiectasia, which involves the chronic dilation of small blood vessels, resulting in visible dark red or light red blotches on the skin.

The popularity of innovative aesthetic medicine services as ranked by the patients surveyed, on the other hand, is shown in Table 4.

Based on patient responses, botulinum toxin type A injections (75% indications) are the most popular aesthetic medicine treatment. This is followed closely by procedures based on hyaluronic acid injections (67% indications). The third most popular selection is laser hair removal (37% indications), with lip augmentation ranking next (34% indications). While this latter service is typically performed by using hyaluronic acid, doctors might also apply collagen or silicon.

The next innovative treatment in the patients’ ranking is microneedle mesotherapy (25% indications). This treatment has gained its popularity due to its versatility in treating various conditions, such as alopecia or selected skin inflammations (Jager et al., 2011). Ranking next are laser telangiectasia removal (20% indications) and fractional ablative laser eCO2 (18% indications). The fractional ablative laser is particularly notable for its effectiveness in scar removal and skin resurfacing. This treatment works by damaging targeted areas of the skin to stimulate the repair process, which shortens collagen fibers and results in smoother, more delicate skin (Alexiades-Armenakas et al., 2008). Despite being one of the most invasive treatments in aesthetic medicine, it remains a highly rated and sought-after service.

The next most popular aesthetic medicine treatments are High Intensity Focused Ultrasounds and Dermapen® treatment and face volumetry (both with 17% indications). Contemporary High Intensity Focused Ultrasounds (HIFU) is one of the most effective methods of non-invasive skin lifting. This treatment’s main aim is to provide to focused thermal damage in deep layers of the skin or fat tissue (Wasiluk, 2007). Dermapen®, in turn, is a treatment that uses superficial skin needling to start skin self-recovery (Hou et al., 2017). Volumetry treatment gives increasing volume to tissues in the checks, jawline, etc. (Baumann et al., 2016). Other treatments were indicated by less than 15% of respondents and were therefore not included in this analysis.

In summary, aesthetic medicine treatments incorporating innovative techniques such as laser therapy and HIFU are very popular due to their fast post-treatment effects and minimal recovery time. The findings of this part of the present study may be invaluable for medical doctors and the owners of aesthetic medicine clinics in shaping their service offerings to better align with patient preferences and expectations.

4.2. Aesthetic medicine services – consumer satisfaction

This study study aimed to evaluate the satisfaction of patients receiving aesthetic medicine treatments based on innovative technologies, performed at aesthetic medicine clinics in large Polish cities. Figure 1 shows the extent to which post-treatment effects complied with patient expectations.

Most of the respondents making use of aesthetic medicine services in large cities in Poland positively assessed the adequacy of those services in meeting their expectations (59% reported that the service was as expected, 16% that it was above their expectations, and 18% that it exceeded significantly beyond their expectations) (Fig. 1). Respondents highlighted such aspects as the clinic’s prestige, its range of facilities (devices and fillers), positive energy, and the quality of the information provided by the clinic. Addressing any post-treatment complications was also deemed crucial, as it enhances patients’ sense of safety (Ankiel et al., 2021). About 6% of respondents indicated that the post-treatment effects were below their expectations, while only 1% indicated that they fell significantly below their expectations.

In this context, it is important to stress that the main contraindication for all aesthetic medicine services is having unreal expectations. Sometimes, the patient’s expectations may be simply impossible to meet. Moreover, in some cases, the patient’s state of health may preclude certain medical procedure from being carried out.

In summary, a majority of respondents were found to be pleased with the outcomes of aesthetic medicine services. Treatments that align with or exceed patient expectations positively influence satisfaction, enhance quality of life, and contribute to better overall well-being. Hence, addressing both procedural outcomes and the holistic patient experience is key to maintaining high levels of satisfaction in aesthetic medicine services.

The main objective of this study was to identify the level of patient satisfaction with aesthetic medicine services rendered in Poland. Additionally, the study assessed the role of clinics as significant determinants in the development of the aesthetic medicine market. It is noteworthy that this study is one of the few large-scale surveys conducted in Poland targeting a broad group of aesthetic medicine clients through direct questionnaire interviews, carried out shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic.

As mentioned earlier, the Net Promoter Score (NPS) methodology was employed for this assessment. In accordance with the NPS procedure, clients of aesthetic medicine clinics were first asked about the likelihood of their recommending the treatments to their friends. Subsequently, respondents were asked about their likelihood of recommending the specific clinic to potential clients. Recommendations were rated on a 0–10 scale, reflecting the level of likelihood. The results for the first issue, analyzed across the general population and various age groups, are presented in Table 5. Gender analysis was excluded due to the relatively small representation of male respondents (12% of the total).

The results in Table 5 show a clear dominance of the Promoters group across all age categories, with values exceeding 70% in every subgroup. This indicates a high likelihood of respondents recommending aesthetic medicine treatments (scored 9 or 10). Conversely, the proportion of Detractors is remarkably low, never exceeding 7%, except for the 51–60 age group, where it slightly increased to 11.8%.

The overall NPS score for the entire population reached 71.4%, reflecting a very positive evaluation and high satisfaction with aesthetic medicine services in Poland. The NPS score was even higher among respondents aged 41–50, exceeding 75%. These findings suggest a consistently high level of consumer satisfaction with aesthetic medicine services, regardless of the patients’ age. Additionally, the results indicate a promising outlook for the growth of aesthetic medicine services in Poland in the coming years.

The study also explored the likelihood of respondents recommending the specific aesthetic medicine clinics they had utilized. These results, presented in Table 6, closely align with the general recommendations for aesthetic medicine treatments. The overall NPS score for clinics was 77.1%, reflecting a high probability of recommendation. This value remained consistently high across all age groups, with a slightly lower score observed in the 51+ age group.

These findings reinforce the conclusion that both treatments and specific clinics offering aesthetic medicine services in Poland are highly regarded by consumers, underscoring the importance of maintaining high service quality and customer satisfaction to drive market growth.

5. Conclusions

The theoretical and empirical literature offers numerous studies on patient satisfaction with medical services, but they mainly focus on aspects related to the patient’s attitude, nurses, emergency room service, or general healthcare staff. Many studies specifically explore plastic surgery services and factors determining patient satisfaction with this type of services, such as clear explanations of problems/conditions, addressing patient questions/worries, involvement in decision-making, information about medications, follow-up care instructions, the use of clear language, the time clinicians spend with the patient, etc. (Clapham et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2018). Aesthetic medicine, being a much younger field of study compared to plastic surgery, has had relatively few studies assessing patient satisfaction.

In Poland, our own study was one of the first to examine patient satisfaction with services offered by aesthetic medicine clinics (Ankiel & Kuczyńska, 2018). However, given the very similar nature of the outcomes achieved by aesthetic medicine and plastic surgery procedures – such as appearance enhancement and the correction of natural defects – based on our findings, it can be assumed that the sets of determinants of patient satisfaction are largely similar across both fields. On the other hand, satisfaction surveys for services provided in offices and clinics must take into account specific factors such as location, decor, equipment quality, professionalism of medical staff, and the level of patient care and service.

More broadly, the present findings support the conclusion that the aesthetic medicine market in Poland is poised for strong growth, both in terms of the number of procedures performed and the overall value of the services provided. The high level of patient recommendations reflects the exceptional quality of aesthetic medicine services available in Poland: the satisfaction levels reported by respondents differ significantly from those observed in other medical services in the country. This is particularly notable given that the overall evaluation of healthcare services in Poland is often considered relatively low compared to other European Union countries.

The present study has a number of practical implications. First of all, it shows that a professional approach to patient care and the delivery of high-quality treatments and accompanying processes are essential for achieving patient satisfaction. In Poland, aesthetic medicine is characterized by high satisfaction ratings, whereas other types of medical services are generally evaluated as being of low satisfaction and poor quality. We believe that this derives from the fact that these services are predominantly provided by private offices and aesthetic medicine clinics. From the marketing point of view, therefore, it is important to build positive relationships with patients before, during, and after each procedure, which results in very positive WOM (word of mouth), necessary for increasing the demand for this type of service. Moreover, in the private sector, implementing innovative technologies as part of various types of treatments is typically a short and simple process (usually with a single decision-maker). Offering cutting-edge treatments is another dimension important for building a positive image and reputation for an office or clinic.

Despite its potential for growth, however, the aesthetic medicine market in Poland faces some limitations. One significant challenge is the affordability of services; many innovative treatments represent a substantial financial burden for patients, limiting access. Moreover, intense market competition could lead to reduced prices for aesthetic medicine services in the future.

The market’s development will also be influenced by factors such as increasing household wealth and advancements in medical technology. However, the lack of public education on aesthetic medicine, particularly in rural areas, and the absence of reimbursement for such services from the state healthcare system are additional barriers.

Further research by the authors of the present study will focus on examining the determinants of consumer satisfaction in aesthetic medicine services in international markets, with a particular emphasis on Western Europe, Turkey, the United States, and Brazil.

References

Abbas, O. L., & Karadavut, U. (2017). Analysis of the Factors Affecting Men’s Attitudes Toward Cosmetic Surgery: Body Image, Media Exposure, Social Network Use, Masculine Gender Role Stress and Religious Attitudes, Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 41(6), 1454–1462.

Alexiades-Armenakas, M. R., Dover, J. S., & Arndt, K. A. (2008). The spectrum of laser skin resurfacing: Nonablative, fractional, and ablative laser resurfacing, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 58(5), 719–737.

Angelini, A., & Carmignani, G.G. (2017). The consumer experience of aesthetic medicine services. In 20th Excellence in Services International Conference, Conference Proceedings (pp. 11–22), University of Verona.

Ankiel, M. & Kuczyńska, A. (2017). Wyznaczniki satysfakcji klientów korzystających z usług medycyny estetycznej, Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, 330, 7–15.

Ankiel, M., Sojkin B., & Gogołek A. (2021). Determinants of purchasing decisions of innovative aesthetic medicine services in Poland, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 29(3), 373–386.

Asscher, E.C. (2014). Wish-fulfilling medicine in practice: opinions and arguments of lay people, Journal of Ethics, 40(12), 837–841.

Baumann, L., Dayan, S., Connolly, S., Silverberg, N., Lei, X., Drinkwater, A., & Gallagher, C. J. (2016). Duration of Clinical Efficacy of OnabotulinumtoxinA in Crow’s Feet Lines, Dermatologic Surgery, 42(5), 598–607.

Betancur, D. M., Castaneda, K.M., & Tavera-Mesias, J. (2014). Correlational study of the factors that influence in the recommendation and loyalty of patients of aesthetic medicine Medellín Colombia, Cuadernos de Administracioìn Journal of Management, 33(58), 3–17.

Blitzer, A., Brin, M. F., Keen, M. S., & Aviv, J. E. (1993). Botulinum Toxin for the Treatment of Hyperfunctional Lines of the Face, Archives of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, 119(9), 1018–1022.

Boon, K., & Tan, H. (2007). Aesthetic medicine: a health regulator’s perspective, Clinical Governance: An International Journal, 12(1), 13–25.

Brody, H.J., Monheit, G.D., Resnik, S.S., & Alt, T.H. (2000). A history of chemical peeling, Dermatologic Surgery, 26(5), 405–409.

Bukowska-Piestrzyńska, A. (2017). Quality of Medical Services – Based on the Example of Dental Services, Problemy Jakości, 6, 8-16.

Carruthers, J., & Carruthers, A. (1999). Practical Cosmetic Botox Techniques. Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery, 3(4_suppl), S4–49–S4–52.

Chen, K., Congiusta, S., Nash, I. S., Coppa, G. F., Smith, M. L., Kasabian, A. K., Tanna, N. (2018). Factors Influencing Patient Satisfaction in Plastic Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 142(3), 820–825.

Chistobaev, A. I., & Semenova, Z. A. (2018). Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of the Global Medical Tourism, Journal of Environmental Management & Tourism, 9, 267–75.

Clapham, P. J., Pushman, A. G., & Chung, K. C. (2010). A Systematic Review of Applying Patient Satisfaction Outcomes in Plastic Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 125(6), 1826–1833

Cohen, J. L., & Scuderi, N. (2017). Safety and Patient Satisfaction of AbobotulinumtoxinA for Aesthetic Use: A Systematic Review, Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 37(suppl_1), 32–44.

Cox, S.E., Finn, J.C., Stetler, L., Mackowiak, J., & Kowalski, J.W. (2003). Development of the Facial Lines Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire and initial results for botulinum toxin type A-treated patients, Dermatologic Surgery, 29(5), 444–459.

Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension, Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68.

Dayan, S., Yoelin, S. G., De Boulle, K., & Garcia, J. K. (2019), The Psychological Impacts of Upper Facial Lines: A Qualitative, Patient-Centered Study, Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum, 1(2).

De Vries, D., Jochen, P., Nikken, P., & de Graaf, H. (2014). The Effect of Social Network Site Use on Appearance Investment and Desire for Cosmetic Surgery Among Adolescent Boys and Girls, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 71(9), 283–295

Dorizas, A., Krueger, N., & Sadick, N. S., (2014). Aesthetic Uses of the Botulinum Toxin, Dermatologic Clinics, 32(1), 23–36.

Dover, J. S., Monheit, G., Greener, M., & Pickett, A. (2018). Botulinum Toxin in Aesthetic Medicine, Dermatologic Surgery, 44(2), 249–260.

Funk, W., Podmelle, F., Guiol, C., & Metelmann, H. R. (2012). Aesthetic satisfaction scoring – Introducing an aesthetic numeric analogue scale (ANA-scale), Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 40(5), 439–442.

Grand View Research (2024). Aesthetic Medicine Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Procedure Type (Invasive Procedures, Non-invasive Procedures), By Region (North America, Asia Pacific, Europe), And Segment Forecasts, 2024-2030. Grand View Research.
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/medical-aesthetics-market.

Hou, A., Cohen, B., Haimovic, A., & Elbuluk, N. (2017). Microneedling, Dermatologic Surgery, 43(3), 321–339.

Hunt, H. K. (1991). Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, Journal of Social Issues, 47(1), 107–117.

Jacob C.I., Paskowa K. (2018). Safety and efficacy of a novel high-intensity focused Electromagnetic technology device for non-invasive abdominal contouring, Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 17, 783–787.

Jäger, C., Brenner, C., Habicht, J., & Wallich, R. (2011). Bioactive reagents used in mesotherapy for skin rejuvenation in vivo induce diverse physiological processes in human skin fibroblasts in vitro ‒ a pilot study, Experimental Dermatology, 21(1), 72–75.

Krueger N., Luebberding S., Sattler G., Hanke C.W., Alexiades-Armenacas M., Sadick N. (2013). The History of Aesthetic Medicine and Surgery, Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, 7(7), 737–742.

Lanigan, S. W. (2000). Lasers in dermatology. Springer.

Liao, K., Chen, S., & Jhou, Y. (2019). An exploration of factors influencing the potential customers perceived value in aesthetic medicine, Commerce & Management Quarterly, 20(2), 109–130.

Lin, T. T., & Yen, H.-T. (2020). The Criteria of Optimal Training Cost Allocation for Sustainable Value in Aesthetic Medicine Industry, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(7), 149.

Małecka, B., & Marcinkowski, J.T. (2007). Satysfakcja pacjenta czynnikiem kształtującym współczesny rynek usług medycznych, Problemy Higieny Epidemiologicznej, 88(1), 17–19.

Napiwodzka-Bulek, K. (2017). Medycyna estetyczna – humanistyczne dążenie czy „enhancement”? Filozofia Publiczna i Edukacja Demokratyczna, 6(1), 151–166.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research, Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.

Pfenninger, J. L., & Fowler, G. C. (2011). Pfenninger and Fowler’s procedures for primary care (2nd ed.). Elsevier/Saunders.

Posełek, M. (2024, August 4). Ile jest wart rynek medycyny estetycznej? Fashion Biznes. https://fashionbiznes.pl/wartosc-rynku-medycyny-estetycznej-ile-wynosi/

Prendergast, P.M., & Shiffman, M.A. (2012). Aesthetic medicine: Art and techniques, Springer.

Przylipiak, A. (2017). Medycyna Estetyczna: Podręcznik dla studentów kosmetologii. Wydawnictwo Lekarskie PZWL.

Pustułka, A., & Jędrzejczak, A. (2018, October 14). Medycyna estetyczna to duży biznes. Chcemy być coraz piękniejsi. Retrieved from https://plus.dzienniklodzki.pl/medycyna-estetyczna-to-duzy-biznes-chcemy-byc-coraz-piekniejsi/ar/13601996

Redaelli, A., & Ignaciuk, A. (2000). Medycyna Estetyczna. Wydawnictwo Medycyna Estetyczna.

Reichheld, F.F. (2003). The one number you need to grow, Harvard Business Review (81), 46–55.

Rymkiewicz, D. (2018). Relevance of information and contractual modality of aesthetic medicine: A comparative analysis between Spanish and Polish case-law. Review of European and Comparative Law, 35(4), 103–111.

Samuels J.B. (2018). Nonsurgical Vaginal Rejuvenation. In G. H. Branham, J. S. Dover, H. J. Furnas, M. M. J. Tenenbaum, & A. E. Wulc (Eds.), Advances in Cosmetic Surgery (Vol. 1, pp. 75–84). Elsevier.

Samuels, J. B., Pezzella, A., Berenholz, J., & Alinsod, R. (2019). Safety and Efficacy of a Non-Invasive High-Intensity Focused Electromagnetic Field (HIFEM) Device for Treatment of Urinary Incontinence and Enhancement of Quality of Life, Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 51(9), 760–766.

Sharp, G., Tiggemann, M., & Mattiske, J. (2014). The role of media and peer influences in Australian womens’ attitudes towards cosmetic surgery, Body Image, 11(4), 482–487

Skountridaki, L. (2017). Barriers to business relations between medical tourism facilitators and medical professionals, Tourism Management, 59, 254–266.

Stirling, P., Jenkins, P.J., Clement, N.D., Duckworth, A.D., & McEachan, J.E. (2019). The Net Promoter Scores with Friends and Family Test after four hand surgery procedures, Journal of Hand Surgery, 44(3), 290–295.

Theodorou, S.J., Chia, Ch.T., & Dayan, E. (2021). Emerging technologies in face and body contouring. Thieme Medical Publishers.

Tongco D. C., (2007). Purposive sampling as tool for informant selection, Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 5, 147–158.

Vlahos, A., & Bove, L. L. (2016). Went in for Botox and left with a rhinoplasty Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 34(7), 927–942.

Wasiluk, M. (2016). Medycyna estetyczna bez tajemnic. Wydawnictwo Lekarskie PZW.

Welsh, W. (2005). Estetyka poza estetyką: o nową postać estetyki. Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych ‘Universitas’.

Wilberforce, M., Poll, S., Langham, H., Worden, A., & Challis, D. (2018). Measuring the patient experience in community mental health services for older people: A study of the Net Promoter Score using the Friends and Family Test in England, International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 34, 31–37.

Załuski, K. (2023, November 28). Mężczyźni w gabinecie medycyny estetycznej. Co poprawiają i ile to kosztuje? Onet – Jesteś na bieżąco. https://www.onet.pl/styl-zycia/facet-xl/mezczyzni-w-gabinecie-medycyny-estetycznej-co-poprawiaja-i-ile-to-kosztuje/jjm64np,30bc1058

Overall meat consumption and demand for it have been rising for many decades and are projected to continue rising, albeit at a slower rate, compared to 10 years ago (eu.boell.org, 2021). To put the volume of consumption into numbers, global meat consumption was estimated to have grown to 320 million tons in 2018, which is more than twice, when compared to the amount consumed just 20 years ago from then. The increased global consumption can be largely attributed to the following three most significant factors – population growth, higher average incomes, and ever increasing per capita meat consumption (eu.boell.org, 2021; Sans & Combris, 2015). With respect to Polish consumers, data collected by OECD & FAO (2020) assessed that in 2019, Polish consumers ate, on average, 96.24 kg of meat, including 54.15 kg of pork, 29.51 kg of poultry, 12.44 kg of fish and seafood, 1.01 kg of beef, 0.03 kg of sheep and goat, and 0.10 kg of other meats. This amount of meat consumed annually lands on the higher end of the spectrum of meat consumption for developed countries.

Meat is commonly used as a source of protein and as a high caloric, nutritionally dense food source (Godfray et al., 2018). The evidence pertaining to since how long ago meat has been present in the human diet allows estimating this number to be over 1 million years (Klurfeld, 2015). Including meat in one’s diet may be beneficial in terms of nutrients it provides; however, it is not an essential food; and it is possible to have a complete, balanced diet without meat or any other animal product (Bakaloudi et al., 2021; Wood, 2023). Some consumers are deciding to switch from conventional meat consumption to conventional meat alternatives, which function also as an alternative protein source. Conventional meat alternatives can be divided into four groups: plantbased proteins, insect-based proteins, single cell proteins, and 'clean meat’ (Siddiqui et al., 2022a).

'Clean meat’ is meat obtained via growth of animal muscle tissue in bioreactor, which has been previously obtained from an animal via biopsy. Stem cells used for proliferation in the bioreactors are the skeletal muscle tissue obtained via biopsy of skeletal muscles from a live animal, which need to be of high quality. Those cells need to be able to self-renew, generate at the single cell-level differentiated progeny cells, and reconstitute a given tissue in vivo (Srutee et al., 2021) Cells used for growth serum come from meat harvested from an embryo of an animal, most often from a foetus of a pregnant cow, although alternatives have been developed, based on microorganisms or algae (Chirki et al., 2022). This shift from foetal bovine growth serum will enable a greater reduction in need for animal input in production of animals, making it a 'cleaner’ meat alternative (Michail, 2021). The serum formulation also includes vitamins and minerals. The methods of producing meat by cell multiplication can be divided in two advanced tissue engineering techniques, namely the scaffold-based and the self-organising techniques.

In terms of flavour profile and nutrient characteristics of 'clean meat’, producers are working on developing characteristics that will both satisfy consumers’ preferences and offer health benefits. During the production process, elements such as type of cell multiplied and type of growth medium used are carefully chosen, and characteristics such as amount of fat, cholesterol, protein, or other nutritional qualities can be manipulated to create a more desirable product for the consumer (sciencefocus.com, 2022). 'Clean meat’ quality cannot diverge from conventional meat quality if it is to achieve consumer acceptance (Vermeir et al., 2020).

The name for this product is still not universally agreed upon, although there has been research already done for both of the following objectives: (i) to arrive at and establish a name that could be used for most optimally communicating the concept of 'clean meat’ to potential consumers, which is also expected to be a name that would be in adherence to the marketing needs associated with such product; and (ii) to study the reactions of consumers to various such names. Through research, it was determined that the best five names for this product are: 'slaughter-free meat’, 'craft meat’, 'cultured meat’, 'cell-based meat’, and 'clean meat’. In the course of further research some interesting findings became apparent, when comparing reactions of the respondents to those five names: the willingness to try, buy, and find the 'clean meat’ overall appealing does not correlate with the descriptiveness of the name and how clearly a name distinguishes itself from conventional meat. The findings suggest not only that the appeal of the 'clean meat’ is connected with how it is presented but also that its appeal to consumers is dependent on the careful choice of the name. In the light of the research, the name 'slaughter-free meat’ scored the highest on average, with 47% of respondents declaring a high likelihood of buying it. The name 'cell-based meat’, although scoring the highest on the differentiation criterion and second on the descriptiveness, was least attractive in terms of perceived attractiveness by respondents; therefore, the third highest ranking name, 'clean meat’, was adopted for the purpose of this study. The reason for not choosing the name 'slaughter-free meat’ is that it does not translate well, and the reaction to the polish equivalent has not been studied, whereas the polish equivalent of 'clean meat’ is easily translatable and will be somewhat visually and audibly similar to the names for this product in other languages (Vermeir et al., 2020).

In recent years, there can be observed changes not only in the variety of meat alternatives available but also in consumer preferences in terms of meat options or protein sources, and this change is predicted to only grow in prominence (govgrant.co.uk, 2023). Just in 2025, the forecasted percentage of vegan meat alternatives is expected to grow up to 10% of overall meats consumption, and by 2035 it is expected to more than double, growing to 23%. What is interesting is the fact that there is also forecasted even more rapid growth of 'clean meat’ in the world consumption, which is predicted to reach as high as 22% by 2035, surpassing vegan meat alternatives in the following 5 years. By 2040, the consumption of conventional meat is forecasted to account for less than 50% of overall meat consumption. We thus perceive that considerable potential for alternatives to conventional meat has been noted, in particular the potential of 'clean meat’; and in this context, it needs to be noted that while the so-called 'clean meat’ is technically still an animal muscle-based food product, it can offset some of the negative ecological impact of the meat industry as well as offers progress in ensuring the welfare of animals and addresses the ethics of the livestock industry.

Precise details of environmental impact and potential environmental benefits of switching to 'clean meat’ production from the conventional one are still both analysed and calculations and means of large-scale production developed. The development and further analysis are especially needed in terms of carbon dioxide emitted and water used during 'clean meat’ production processes, as those processes consume large quantities of electrical energy (Lynch & Pierrehumbert, 2019). Those processes would result in high climate impact, with majority of the energy produced currently still being carbon-based (IEA, 2023).

Current estimates indicate that by switching to 'clean meat’, greenhouse gasses can be reduced significantly, precisely by 17% when switching to clean chicken, 52% for switching to clean pork, and even as high as 85%–92% for beef (Sinke & Odegard, 2021). To achieve that, a significant number of consumers would have to switch from conventional meat to cultured meat, which is yet to happen (Lynch & Pierrehumbert, 2019). Currently, some modes of 'clean meat’ production result in higher overall global warming impact, especially in more recent calculations, which consider more precise estimates, and calculate not only carbon dioxide emitted, but also nitrous oxide and methane, which have, respectively, 289 and 25 times more intense impact than carbon dioxide, according to the calculations using the GWP100CO2 equivalent (vetsalus.com, 2021).

Although 'clean meat’ is a fairly new food product and topic of research, some studies concerning 'clean meat’ perception and consumer acceptance have already been conducted among consumers from different countries. What is apparent across all the studies is that assessing consumer perception of 'clean meat’ encompasses many areas, such as the degree of weight attached to hedonistic values, emotional attachment towards meat consumption owing to traditional and cultural habits, the perceived importance of meat in diet, aspect of naturalness and perceived artificiality of food, and drive for societal or environmental benefits when making consumer choices (Bryant & Barnett, 2020).

Introducing an alternative of a type of a product already used or a complete novelty on its own ought to evoke positive, but also some level of negative, reaction, as well as an unwillingness to try it, from consumers (Onwezen et al., 2021). Protein alternatives based on plants receive the highest levels of consumer acceptance, due to several factors, but among them the key ones are that they do not evoke disgust or safety concerns, do not seem to be a completely unfamiliar food product, and have health benefits associations (Onwezen et al., 2021). What is important to note is that when compared to different consumer acceptance drivers for different types of meat replacement/alternative protein source, cultured meat and insect meat are being met with the most barriers and preconceived notions (Siddiqui et al., 2022a). Both are met with food neophobia (from consumers in whose cultural background insects are not commonly included in their diets), disgust, and concerns regarding the taste. However, there are also 'positive drivers’, which refer to, for example, connecting 'clean meat’ with positive environmental or social impact.

Methodology

The study was conducted using an online survey placed on the Google Forms platform, and the research tool was a survey questionnaire. The selection of the sample was non-random – the study population consisted of Polish meat consumers, and the research sample consisted of 418 people. The study was conducted from Jan. 24 to Feb. 1, 2022 in Poland. Additionally, the questionnaire included information enabling profiling of respondents in terms of gender, age, education, place of residence, and income. The study conducted was not representative of consumers in Poland, but it may constitute a valuable illustration of the research problem under consideration and an introduction to in-depth representative research. The survey was conducted using a Computer-Assisted Web Interview (CAWI). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare statistically significant differences of the results obtained. To verify the significance of differences between the mean values, Tukey’s test (α = 0.05) were applied using the Statistica 13.3 Computer Software (StatSoft).

The research sample consisted of 418 respondents with a diverse sociodemographic profile (Table 1).

Most of the group of respondents was comprised of women (72.0%), followed by 22.3% men, and 5.7% of respondents outside the gender binary or not wishing to indicate their gender identity. Over a half of the respondents belonged to the 18–26 year age group (56.9%) and almost 20% belonged to the 27–35 year age group. What is worth noting is that close to a half of the respondents declared having higher education (49.3%). In terms of the income of respondents, there was a quite-good representation of a majority of the income brackets, with the biggest percentage of the respondents belonging to the categories of 2,000–3,000 PLN (24.6%) and 3,000–4,500 PLN (25.6%) income per person in a household group. Respondents represented also varied dietary preferences, with a majority of them consuming meat (64.8%), either on a standard/omnivorous diet (59.1%) or a pescatarian diet (5.7%), and 35.2% of them following diets excluding meat, precisely 23.0% following a vegetarian diet and 12.2% following a vegan diet.

Results

Firstly, in a section dedicated to respondents who declared following a diet that includes meat (omnivores and pescatarians), the significance of meat in a diet was surveyed. According to the collected answers, meat was given a medium score by respondents in terms of importance in a diet, averaging 3.9 on a 7-point scale. Men assigned notably higher importance of meat in the diet (4.5) than women (3.9) and respondents outside the binary gender divide (3.6). The declared frequency of meat consumption is most often a few times per week (40.6%), and then it is followed by very similar scores for three categories, namely: once daily (19.6%), with almost every meal (18.0%), and a few times a month. These results differ from the results obtained in CBOS’s survey (2019), where once-daily consumption was declared by 33% of all respondents and a few times per week was declared by 52% of all respondents. The biggest difference appears to be that the declared consumers’ meat consumption. In this survey the declared consumption is of higher frequency, as multiple times a day consumption is close to 18% (Fig. 1.), while in the CBOS survey it was only 3% for this frequency.

Respondents’ willingness to reduce eating meat and to stop eating meat were similar, with slightly higher percentage of declarations of reducing meat consumption (53.5%) than declared ability to quit eating meat (49.8%) (Table 2). It is worth noting that 7.4% more respondents were undecided or not sure that they would be able to quit eating meat (19.2%) than people who say that they try to limit their meat consumption (11.8%). This comparison indicates that the interviewees are rather open to adjusting than completely changing their diets, especially given that the reduction question gathered over 10% more of the 'Definitely yes’ declarations.

A growing trend among Polish consumers, especially the younger population, is seeking to reduce or completely eliminate meat from their diets. A 2021 survey of a research sample of 1,300 people aged 15–29 years found that almost half of the respondents (44%) claim that they have limited their meat consumption, including in this number 8% of people already on a vegetarian or vegan diet (HBF, ISD, 2022).

In the following questionnaires section, applied for all respondents, knowledge, openness, barriers, and motivations regarding 'clean meat’ were assessed. When asked if they know what 'clean meat’ is, only a little over 25% of respondents confirmed that they do know what it is, with the rest of the respondents saying no (39.5%) or that they are not sure (35.4%).

Surprisingly, although 'clean meat’ is an animal product, almost 50% of the vegan respondents (49.0%) knew about it, while only 19.8% omnivores and pescatarian respondents declared knowledge of the subject. Other groups with some of the highest scores in terms of the knowledge about the product were respondents who earned 4,500–5,500 PLN (40.5%) and above 5,500 PLN (40.0%), those not identifying on the gender binary (37.5%), respondents scoring the highest on openness to trying 'clean meat’ (36.9%) and other new foods (34.3%), and people in the 27–35 years age range (32.5%). Comparing these results to Pachołek and Popek’s survey (2021), which also aimed at establishing Polish consumers’ knowledge and attitude towards clean meat, it was established that respondents who did not eat meat (50.5%), identified as women (41.8%), and had higher education (50.5%) were more likely to declare that they know what in-vitro meat is and correctly identify it, with over 33% of respondents overall claiming knowledge of the product. The results of this survey also show a higher declared knowledge of the product by people with higher education (28.6%), while in terms of gender, women scored lower than men and respondents outside the gender binary, with respective declared knowledge scores of 20.6%, 36.6%, and 37.5%.

Despite low awareness of the product, a majority declared being open to trying it (Figure 2). Vegans and vegetarians scored the lowest on the 7–point scale of openness to trying 'clean meat’, scoring, respectively, 4.3 and 4.8, while people on a pescatarian diet scored the highest, 5.9, and standard diet averaging 5.3. Notably, among respondents who marked their openness as 7 (33.7%), as high as 36.9% of them knew what 'clean meat’ was, as opposed to groups who ranked their openness to trying meat lower than 7, who had lower percentage of awareness of 'clean meat’. Respondents who ranked their openness as 1 also had the lowest awareness of the product (10.7%). Scores between 1 and 7 had more similar results, ranging from 17.5% awareness for openness ranked as 6, to 26.9% for openness marked as 3. This can be attributed to the higher 'clean meat’ acceptance that is observed to prevail when there is already a familiarity in the mind of the potential consumer concerning this product, or when additional information pertaining to the product is brought to the potential consumer’s attention; these are phenomena that have been found to improve openness to trying 'clean meat’, although it has not been possible to find an association between the prevalence of this openness and any specific type of communication. The importance of consumer familiarity, which is considered as one of the keys, if not the key element, to gaining consumer acceptance of 'clean meat’, was stressed by quite a few studies, albeit with reservations. Some information, the same as framing, can deteriorate consumers’ acceptance of 'clean meat’ despite the rule being that any information is better than no information (Bryant & Dillard, 2019). What is worth noting is that people who declared the most definite unwillingness to quit eating meat were less open to trying 'clean meat’ (4.3) than people following a diet excluding meat (4.6).

Polish consumers’ willingness to try 'clean meat’, as reported in Popek and Pachołek’s study (2021), was as high as 56.1% for all respondents, with a slightly higher openness among men (62.5%), and it was higher for those in age categories from 12 years to 30 years, as well as nearly 20% higher for those who eat meat than respondents on meat-free diets. The group presenting a significantly higher willingness to try cultured meat is respondents from cities with more than 250,000 residents.

Additionally, for respondents following a diet that includes animal products, three questions were asked to roughly evaluate respondents’ awareness concerning alternatives to conventional meat, their degree of environmental awareness, or care for the environment, as assessed based on their choice of products regarded to be environmentally friendly, and their care for animal welfare. These questions referred to buying organic meat, paying attention to the class of eggs bought, and whether it is important to the respondents that the products they buy be marked as 'eco’ or 'bio’. A majority of respondents answered that they always (61.1%) pay attention to the type of eggs bought, with only 3.5% answering that they never do that. Respondents claiming that they always pay attention to the type of eggs bought also expressed a noticeably more positive attitude towards 'clean meat’ than those who do it less frequently. Buying organic meat was a much rarer practice among the participants of the survey, with only 3.0% of them answering they always do it and 12.9% that they usually do it, while as much as 20.3% of respondents said that they never buy organic meat.

In light of the research, several factors have been identified as both motivations and barriers when it comes to being open to trying 'clean meat’ and choosing food for consumption in general. Those barriers are (Figure 3): food made in laboratory, taste, appearance, unnaturalness, being a genetically modified food, higher price, and availability. Results show that on average, the biggest barriers for potential consumers to overcome, which scored on the higher end of the 5-point scale, are: availability (3.7), taste (3.6), higher price (3.6), and appearance (3.2). Polish consumers seem to not be overly discouraged by the origin of the 'clean meat’, which can be perceived as unnatural, since it was produced in a laboratory, not an animal farm and slaughterhouse, and this is in conformity with the results observed in other studies, which indicated consumers’ reluctance or complete unwillingness to try 'clean meat’ when it is connected to or framed with the technological aspects of production and the perceived unnaturalness (Bryant & Dillard, 2019). For 'clean meat’, providing too much information or focusing too much on the technical aspects and the production process can evoke disgust, confusion, and distrust, which leads to a lowering of the overall consumer acceptance and willingness to try product (Bekker et al., 2017; Bryant & Dillard, 2019, Mancini & Antonioli, 2019).

The youngest and the oldest groups among the respondents obtained the highest combined score of factors that constitute barriers to trying 'clean meat’. The reasons for such results can be two-fold: (i) as individuals age, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to change their opinions about food and dietary habits (Grasso et al., 2019); and (ii) among the respondents, young consumers who had finished only primary or lower secondary education were a major constituent, and these are the same individuals, who, as groups, expressed a less positive view of 'clean meat’ in comparison with the views of the secondary and higher education groups.

For respondents who indicated the lowest openness to trying 'clean meat’ (6.7%), the major barriers were price (4.0), availability (3.9), taste (3.9), and appearance (3.9). They also scored the highest average in terms of all barrier categories combined (3.6), which creates a consistent picture of how respondents perceive the innovation in question. Other groups that expressed high barriers were interviewees following an omnivorous diet (3.2), valuing meat highly in diet (3.4–3.3), not interested in reducing their meat consumption (3.4–3.3), and never (3.5) or only sometimes (3.4) paying attention to the type of eggs bought.

What characterises today’s consumers in Poland is how highly they value the aspect of taste when choosing a product (EFSA, 2022). Cost influences food choices the most in most countries in the European Union but in Poland taste and cost of food are valued equally. Ethics and beliefs are becoming noticeably more important as a factor driving foodpurchasing decisions for Polish consumers, rising by 7 percentage points from 2019 to 2022 (EFSA, 2022). An overwhelming majority of consumers claim that they care about the welfare of the animals in the context of animal husbandry. Polish respondents scored 36%, the highest in the EU, with regard to concern about dangers associated with additives in food, with no or virtually zero worries regarding problems with farming (0%), product information (1%), production (2%), packaging (0%), origin (1%), environmental impact (1%), ethics (2%), nutritional value (2%), and genetically modified organisms (2%). Polish respondents expressed relatively high concern about risks associated with health impact (9%), quality and shelf life (7%), and the price of the food (8%); and low concern with risks associated with food being natural, organic, or artificial (3%). What is important to note is that a complete lack of worry was expressed by only 9% of respondents (EFSA, 2022, p. 110). Poland scored the lowest on the topic of personal interest in food safety, with only 33% being involved in the topic, 70% being the EU average.

As for results of the associations of meat with nine categories of either positive or negative descriptors, the overall perception of the 'clean meat’ by respondents is rather positive (Figure 4). A category in which 'clean meat’ scored the lowest was naturalness, though as a barrier it was scored as second lowest. Therefore, although the in-vitro meat is not being seen as very natural, it does not repulse potential consumers.

On average, the greater the importance that was assigned by a respondent to meat in their diet, the less positive associations they had with 'clean meat’. This correlation could be observed through the averages of all categories when scoring associations with 'clean meat’. The less important meat was in a respondent’s diet, the more positive associations were for 'clean meat’. Furthermore, people following diets that exclude meat, in general, had a more favourable overall perception of 'clean meat’, albeit with one notable exception: namely, a category in which people who don’t eat meat had a significantly worse view of 'clean meat’ than people who eat meat, with this category of people being of the view of 'clean meat’ being disgusting as opposed to appetising.

In terms of differences between respondents from different income brackets, no correlation can be noticed other than respondents who have monthly income per person in a household lower than 1,000 PLN having a less positive view of 'clean meat’ (5.0) than those from other income brackets.

In terms of declared factors, which would encourage interviewees to try 'clean meat’, the most often-given answers were ecological benefits (21.1%), good taste (16.4%), and attractive price (16.2%). Less popular answers were connected to safety (12.5%) and health reasons, such as good nutritional value (11.5%) and health benefits (11.2%). These inferences indicate a variation from the survey conducted by Gomez-Luciano et al. (2019), where aspects of health, safety, and the nutritional content were major factors constituting the motivators to pay for 'clean meat’. The results reported by Popek and Pachołek (2021) also stressed the importance of ecological benefits being seen as a primary advantage by respondents, as well as ethical and animal welfare concerns connected with limiting the number of animals used for breeding for animal products and the possibility of securing a more sustainable and affordable meat source.

On the other hand, the motivators and barriers mentioned in the 2022 alternative proteins consumer acceptance review largely overlap, where the major consumer acceptance drivers for cultured meat were taste, environmental impact, food neophobia, and disgust (Siddiqui et al., 2022a).

There have been several studies and surveys, performed in quite a few countries, with the aim of establishing the drivers of, and accordingly ascertaining the factors directly or indirectly influencing, the attitude towards 'clean meat’ and the openness to try it. The surveys performed in countries such as Poland, China, Netherlands, and Spain allowed the identification of the demographical factors needing to be considered when preparing a social or marketing strategy aimed at improving consumer perception and acceptance of 'clean meat’. General drivers of higher consumer acceptance and willingness to try 'clean meat’ are (in no particular order):

1. Liberal political affiliation
2. Living in urban areas
3. Receiving education /being informed on the topic of 'clean meat’
4. Higher income
5. Familiarity with 'clean meat’, awareness of 'clean meat’
6. Young age
7. Identifying as a man/male
8. Ethical priorities
9. Nutritional priorities
10. Getting informed on the topic of 'clean meat’.

The opposite of qualities or affiliations mentioned above may lower the likelihood of positive attitude towards 'clean meat’ (Siddiqui et al., 2022b). The political affiliation was not a factor considered in this survey, although some of the factors overlap. Participants who were familiar with 'clean meat’ prior to taking part in the survey expressed a more positive attitude towards 'clean meat’, and the same tendency applied to younger participants, and those with higher income brackets. However, in terms of differences between groups of respondents created based on sociodemographic characteristics, differences were, in most cases, quite slight and did not indicate noticeable regularities, such as the differences between groups based on consumer preferences and values.

The purposive selection of respondents used in the study (Internet users) means that the results and conclusions obtained do not provide a basis for generalisation to the entire population. However, they do make an interesting contribution to further research.

Conclusions

'Clean meat’ offers potential benefits in terms of lessening some of the environmental impact of meat production, increase in global availability of safe protein source, and more humane approach in obtaining animal tissue for consumption as well as improving working conditions of people involved in the conventional meat production processes. However, before introducing 'clean meat’ to consumers, concerns pertaining to, as well as the prevailing negative perception of, 'clean meat’ expressed by some of the consumers have to be addressed. In general, a majority of respondents are not aware of the concept of the 'clean meat’, but despite limited awareness of the concept, a majority are still expressing being open to trying it. The biggest barriers that could discourage people from trying 'clean meat’, as pointed out by respondents, are of a practical and hedonistic nature, rather than a negative perception of clean meat as a novelty food product created in a laboratory. Limited or non-existent prior knowledge of this food alternative did not cause respondents to have negative perception of 'clean meat’. In fact, it scored upper-half ratings for every category of a given negative to positive spectrum, even for naturalness and appetising aspects. Connecting the survey results with the fact that a large number of Polish consumers value meat highly in their diets (CBOS, 2019), some of them wanting neither to quit nor reduce eating it, 'clean meat’ can present a compromise in terms of not changing the diet but rather changing the meat industry. The future of 'clean meat’ as a product seems to depend principally on the aspects connected with this product’s development, and the rigorous adoption of such development will result in a clear, definite difference for the environment as well as the emergence and flourishing of a market offering an attractive and easily available protein product, at least in comparison with conventional meat.

The results of this survey were largely consistent with the general trends, such as the ones reported by EFSA (2022), showing that the two determining factors for Polish consumers in terms of food choices are taste and price, which are then followed by environmental and animal welfare concerns, the last two among which are characterised by a growing awareness about them among the Polish public; and that aspects of naturalness or artificiality of food are not of the utmost importance. Some of the factors that correlated with the most positive attitude towards 'clean meat’ were eating meat but not considering it as an important part of the diet, limiting meat consumption, having prior knowledge of the topic, following a pescatarian diet, identifying outside the gender binary, scoring low on food neophobia, and belonging to the 27–35 years age range. Factors that correlated with the least positive factors towards 'clean meat’ were declared unwillingness to quit eating meat, following a vegan diet, and income below 1,000 PLN per person in a household.

During the analysis of the answers provided, it was possible to establish more trends and correlations between consumer attitudes and the characteristics of preferred products, and ascertain what motives guide the respondents in their nutrition decisions in the context of the sociodemographic data defining them. Therefore, it would be worthwhile for further research to explore differences in attitudes towards cultured meat and other protein alternatives as the focus vs. values prioritised by consumers in food products, as well as priorities and barriers to dietary decision-making, and the most important motivators for making changes in eating habits. Additionally, the differences in the motivations of Polish consumers can be attributed to the diversity-as ascertained from the general indicators used in the present research-characterising the drivers for 'clean meat’ and other alternative sources of protein, such as Polish consumers not valuing very highly the aspect of naturalness, not being overly concerned with the safety of food products, and-probably most significantly-being able to express a positive attitude about a food product they have little knowledge about.

References

1. Bakaloudi, D. R., Halloran, A., Rippin, H. L., Oikonomidou, A. C., Dardavesis, T. I., Williams, J., Wickramasinghe, K., Breda, J., & Chourdakis, M. (2021). Intake and adequacy of the vegan diet. A systematic review of the evidence. Article in Clinical Nutrition, 40(5), 3503–3521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2020.11.035
2. Bekker, G. A., Fischer, A. R. H., Tobi, H., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2017). Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat. Appetite, 108, 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.10.002
3. Bryant, C., & Barnett, J. (2020). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: An updated review (2018–2020). Applied Sciences, 10(15), 5201. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10155201.
4. Bryant, C., & Dillard, C. (2019). The impact of framing on acceptance of cultured meat. Frontiers in Nutrition, 6, 103. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2019.00103
5. CBOS. (2019). Jak zdrowo odżywiają się Polacy. Retrieved January 4, 2023, From https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2019/K_106_19.PDF
6. Chirki, S., Ellies-Oury, M. P., & Hocquette, J. F. (2022). Is cultured meat a viable alternative to slaughtering animals and a good compromise between animal welfare and human expectations? Animal Frontiers, 12(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfac002
7. EFSA. (2022). Special Eurobarometer – March 2022, „Food safety in the EU”, Report. Retrieved January 6, 2023, From https://doi.org/10.2805/729388
8. eu.boell.org. (2021). Companies: Dominating the market from farm to display case. Retrieved on January 19, 2023, From https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/09/07/companiesdominatingmarket-farm-display-case
9. Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., Pierrehumbert, R. T., Scarborough, P., Springmann, M., & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science, 361(6399), eaam5324. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1126/ science.aam5324
10. Gómez-Luciano, C. A., de Aguiar, L. K., Vriesekoop, F., & Urbano, B. (2019). Consumers’ willingness to purchase three alternatives to meat proteins in the United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil and the Dominican Republic. Food Quality and Preference, 78(2019), 103732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103732
11. govgrant.co.uk. (2023). How well is Europe playing the cultured meat game? What the numbers tell us. Retrieved April 17, 2023
12. Grasso, A. C., Hung, Y., Olthof, M. R., Verbeke, W., & Brouwer, I. A. (2019). Older consumers’ readiness to accept alternative, more sustainable protein sources in the European Union. Nutrients, 11(8), 1904. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081904.
13. Heinrich Böll Foundation in Warsaw, The Institute for Sustainable Development (ISD). (2022). „Atlas Mięsa. Fakty I dane na temat zwierząt, które zjadamy”. Retrieved January 08, 2022, From https://pl.boell.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Atlas%20mi%C4%99sa.pdf 14. IEA (International Energy Agency). (2023). Electricity Market Report 2023.
15. Klurfeld, D. M. (2015). Research gaps in evaluating the relationship of meat and health. Meat science, Vol. 109, 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.05.022
16. Lynch, J., & Pierrehumbert, R. (2019). Climate impacts of cultured meat and beef cattle. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, Vol.3, Art.5 doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/ fsufs.2019.00005
17. Mancini, M. C., & Antonioli, F. (2019). Exploring consumers’ attitude towards cultured meat in Italy. Meat Science, Vol. 150, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.12.014
18. Michail, N. (2021). New growth medium supplement for “clean meat.” figlobal.com. https://insights.figlobal.com/startups/new-growth-medium-supplement-clean-meat
19. OECD, FAO. (2020). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2020–2029. Retrieved January 11, 2023, OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2020–2029.
20. Onwezen, M. C., Bouwman, E. P., Reinders, M. J., & Dagevos, H. (2021). A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant–based meat alternatives, and cultured meat. Appetite, 159, 105058.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058
21. Popek, S., & Pachołek, B. (2021). A survey on Polish consumers’ perceptions of meat produced from stem cells in vitro. Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, 42(4), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.2478/minib-2021-0021.
22. Sans, P., & Combris, P. (2015). World meat consumption patterns: An overview of the last fifty years (1961–2011). Meat Science, Vol. 109, 106–111. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.05.012. Erratum in: Meat Sci, (2016). Vol. 114, 154.
23. sciencefocus.com. (2022). What is lab-grown meat? How it’s made, environmental impact and more. Retrieved April 3, 2023, from https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-islabgrown-meat-a-scientist-explains-the-taste-production-and-safety-of-artificial-foods/
24. Siddiqui, S. A., Khan, S., Murid, M., Asif, Z. Oboturova, N. P., Nagdalian, A. A., Blinov, A. V., Ibrahim, S. A., & Jafari, S. M. (2022a). Marketing strategies for cultured meat: A review. Applied Sciences, 12(17), 8795. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178795
25. Siddiqui, S. A., Alvi, T., Sameen, A., Khan, S., Blinov, A. V., Nagdalian, A. A., Mehizadeh, M., Adli, D. N., & Onwezen, M., (2022b) Consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: A systematic review of current alternative protein sources and interventions adapted to increase their acceptability. Sustainability, 14(22), 15370. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su142215370
26. Sinke, P., & Odegard, I. (2021). LCA of cultivated meat. Retrieved February 26, 2023, From https://cedelft.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/04/CE_Delft_190107_LCA_of_ cultivated_meat_Def.pdf
27. Srutee, R., Sowmya, R. S., Annapure, U. S. (2021). Clean meat: Techniques for meat production and its upcoming challenges. Animal Biotechnology, 33(7), 1721–1729.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10495398.2021.1911810
28. Vermeir, I., Weijters, B., De Houwer, J., Geuens, M., Slabbinck, H., Spruyt, A., Van Kerckhove, A., Van Lippevelde, W., De Steur, H., & Verbeke, W. (2020). Environmentally sustainable food consumption: A review and research agenda from a goal-directed perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, 1603.
29. vetsalus.com. (2021). Briefing: Some basic facts about methane. Retrieved January 12, 2023, From https://vetsalus.com/news/2021/11/vetsalus-briefing-some-basic-facts-aboutmethane
30. Wood, J. D. (2023). Meat composition and nutritional value. In F. Toldra (Ed.), Lawrie’s Meat Science. 9th edition. (pp. 666–685). Woodhead Publishing Limited.

The circular economy (CE) is an increasingly popular approach to create sustainable business. The aim of a CE is to attain a sustainable society and economy by avoiding and minimising resource consumption through multiple product-and-material loops (Ellen MacArthur Foundation [EMF], 2015). Sustainable consumption (SC) is a complex and ambivalent concept composed of two visibly opposite terms-consumption and sustainability. Existing definitions nevertheless show that the main aim of SC is to reach the harmony between the satisfaction of consumer needs and preservation of the environment (Piligrimiene, Žukauskaite, Korzilius, Banyte & Dovaliene, 2020). SC entails satisfying consumer needs while reducing negative impacts caused during material extraction, production and consumption (Mont and Plepys, 2008; Cooper, 2013).

SC emphasises individual actions of consumers in the areas of acquisition, usage and disposal of goods, products and services, taking into account the impact on ecological and socioeconomic conditions for today’s and future generations (Geng, Mansouri & Aktas, 2017). According to Phipps et al. (2013), SC is a compromise between environmental, social and economic aims, acquiring, using and utilising products, seeking global welfare for the present and future generations. SC, representing the demand side of the consumption/production coin, should allow for potential changes in consumer behaviour (Phipps et al., 2013). SC patterns are necessary to realise a sustainable society and economy (Druckman & Jackson, 2010). Customer SC behaviours facilitate the efficient use of underutilised resources (e.g. sharing spare household resource) and extend the life cycle of accessed products (e.g. keeping items in good conditions for others), thereby reflecting the significant potential of sustainability in the sharing economy (SE) (Munoz & Cohen, 2017). Second-hand clothing is an example of recycling that extends the life of products by reusing. Reuse of clothing is associated with reducing the amount of disposed clothing, thereby reducing environmental pollution (Farrant, Olsen & Wangel, 2010). Second-hand and vintage clothes are getting popular due to environmental benefits and also for a personal style (Johansson, 2010).

The main purpose of this paper is to identify the importance and to determine the influence of selected types of motives on the attitudes towards using collaborative fashion consumption (CFC) applications/ platforms and willingness to use them in the future.

The Concept of CFC

Collaborative consumption (CC) is one of the new consumption trends in consumer behaviour that includes an alternative approach to meeting needs. This trend is based on access to goods without the need to own and transfer property rights. In Belk (2014), the term 'collaborative consumption’ was defined as 'people coordinating the acquisition and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation’. CC is dynamically developing in various areas of human activity. The popularity of CC has significantly increased due to the development of digitalisation. Owing to the dissemination of smartphones, the development of mobile technologies, Internet accessibility and the proliferation of online payment, the CC has never been so easy and widespread (Muangmee, Kot, Meekaewkunchorn, Kassakorn & Khalid, 2021; Kapoor & Vij, 2021). The growing consumer awareness of environmental concerns and anticonsumerist attitudes also contribute to the development of CC. The areas in which it is most developed include transport, tourism, education, food, clothing, healthcare and leisure (Paczka, 2020). CC is most often studied in the context of the SE (Belk, 2014), prosumption (Ritzer & Jurgenson, 2010), sharing (Belk, 2010; Lamberton & Rose, 2012), access-based consumption (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012) or connected consumption (Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015). The principal idea behind all of these approaches is to promote the notion of using, as opposed to owning, products (Iran & Schrader, 2017).

According to Iran and Schrader (2017), CFC is a consumption trend 'in which consumers, instead of buying new fashion products, have access to already existing garments either through alternative opportunities to acquire individual ownership (gifting, swapping or second hand) or through usage options for fashion products owned by others (sharing, lending, renting or leasing)’. CFC can be between peers; then, we are talking about 'pure cooperation’, a form that has existed since forever, when clothes were shared between family members prior to the industrial revolution (Belk, 2014). Nowadays, it could be organised by peers themselves either through online or offline platforms. But it can also take place between businesses and end consumers; then, we are talking about 'trading cooperation’. There are companies offering either service as substitutes for product ownership (renting and leasing) or second-hand retail service to make the purchase of new products dispensable (Iran & Schrader, 2017). Finally, CFC can be mediated by a third party; then, we are talking about 'sourcing collaboration’ (Henninger, Brydges, Iran & Vladimirova, 2021). On the basis of the literature review, the following forms of CFC can be distinguished: sharing, borrowing, reuse, charity, second-hand market, SC, anti-consumption, swapping, resale, take-back schemes and repurpose. These practices result in reduced new product acquisitions, increased product reuse and extended product life cycle (Armstrong, Niinimäki, Lang & Kujala, 2016). Various forms of CFC are accepted and practiced by consumers. Some people accept one or more form(s) of CFC, while others reject the concept entirely and are against sharing their clothes (Iran, Geiger & Schrader, 2018). In the apparel industry, the SE enables consumers to have access to fashion products that would not be accessible otherwise, achieving more variety in apparel choice (Balck & Cracau, 2015).

CFC has gained an increasing amount of attention among not only consumers but also academia (Lang, Seo & Liu, 2019). Researchers identify that CFC serves to not only reduce waste and negative environmental impact (Gopalakrishnan & Matthews, 2018) but also increase sustainability in the apparel industry (Geissdoerfer, Savaget, Bocken & Hultink, 2017).

The emergence of new information and communication technologies has caused significant changes in the rules of fashion sharing. Such activities, initially carried out only with family members or friends and acquaintances, gradually began to be undertaken also with previously unknown people. Access to new technology and digital platforms makes it easier to communicate at a distance and to find people who have spare resources and those who would like to use them. More and more platforms for CFC have emerged around the world, e.g. Rent the Runway, Share Wardrobe, GlamCorner, Dress & Go, Vinted, Zalando Pre-owned and E-Garderobe.com (Lee, Jung & Lee, 2021). Such platforms are having a serious impact on the fashion industry. Contemporary SE applications create a market form in which strangers rather than kin and communities exchange garments, thereby creating new ways of provisioning goods and services as well as opportunities for CC. Many consumers are becoming more open to renting and thrifting and, as a result, businesses are adapting by making the shift from not only selling products but also offering subscription services. An individual who cannot afford to buy luxury goods can rent various designer fashion items at lower prices. It is worth noting that CFC applies to different consumer segments of the clothing market. According to experts, CFC could rapidly grow into one of the fastestgrowing segments of retail in the next 10 years (Chieng, 2021).

Hypotheses Development and Conceptual Model

Users’ motivation to participate in CFC has been the subject of research by scientists all over the world for many years. Guiot and Roux (2010) distinguished three main categories of motives for second-hand shopping: critical motivations (distance from the consumption system, ethics and ecology), economic motivations (gratificative role of price, searching for a fair price) and hedonic/recreational motivation (treasure hunting, originality, social contact and nostalgia). Padmavathy, Swapana and Paul (2019) proposed a scale to measure online second-hand shopping motivation and focussed on economic motivation (price orientation, bargaining power and critical orientation), convenience motivation (usefulness and ease of use) and ideological motivation (need to be unique, nostalgia, trust and assurances). Based on a literature review, Becker-Leifhold and Iran (2018) identified the drivers of CFC from a consumers’ perspective — hedonic motives (e.g. availability of rare items, excitement, fun, satisfaction, treasure hunting, nostalgia and social interaction), utilitarian motives (smart purchase behaviour, fair price, frugality and bargains) and biospheric motives (environment-friendly consumption, prevention of wasteful disposal and distance from the system). Zaman, Park, Kim and Park (2019) distinguished six consumer orientations relevant to second-hand clothing shopping: frugality, style consciousness, ecological consciousness, dematerialism, nostalgia proneness and fashion consciousness. Park and Armstrong (2019) classified five basic consumer motivations for collaborative apparel consumption: saving money, saving time, finding desirable product assortment, utility and no burden of ownership. Cervellon, Carey and Harms (2012) have studied the influence of nostalgia, fashion involvement, need for uniqueness, need for status, frugality and value consciousness and environmental-friendly proneness on the intention to purchase second-hand fashion pieces (and vintage pieces). Xu, Chen, Burman and Zhao (2014), in their cross-cultural study, distinguished four perceived values for purchasing second-hand clothing: economic value, hedonic value or treasure hunting, uniqueness and environmental value. The results of their study have shown significant differences in second-hand clothing consumption behaviour between US and Chinese consumers. This justifies the conduct of research in individual countries, as the behaviour of consumers from different countries may differ significantly from each other.

The subject scope of our study includes the recognition of the impact of economic and utility motives (e.g. promotions, convenience and saving time), social motives (e.g. being a part of a group of people with similar interests, image and following trends) and ecological motives (e.g. to protect/care for the natural environment, to limit excessive consumption and to extend the life of the products) on attitudes towards CFC applications and the willingness to use them in the future.

Economic and Utility Motives

The analysed literature on the consumption of used clothing suggests that pragmatic motivations based on time and money saving play an important role in shaping attitudes towards second-hand buying (Williams & Paddock, 2003). Guiot and Roux (2010) state that economic motivations are important incentives of second-hand purchase behaviour. The results of a study conducted by Cervellon et al. (2012) have shown that the main driver for the purchase of second-hand clothes is frugality. Studies indicate that economic factors play the most important role for clients when making decisions on the use of SE (Barnes & Mattsson, 2016). However, it should be noticed that the findings of the study by Won and Kim (2020) suggest that utilitarian motives (saving money or maximising utility) do not affect consumer attitude towards fashion-sharing platforms. On the other hand, the findings of Ek Styvén and Mariani (2020) indicate that economic motivations influence positively the attitude towards buying second-hand clothing on SE platforms. The study by Yan, Bae and Xu (2015) has shown that college students’ shopping frequency for second-hand clothing was predicted by price sensitivity.

Based on a review of previous research, the authors propose the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Economic and utility motives positively influence the attitudes towards using CFC applications/platforms.

Hypothesis 1b (H1b): Economic and utility motives positively influence the willingness to use CFC applications in the future.

Social Motives

Social motives are incorporated for instance in the possibility of getting to know other people who have similar desires (Benoit, Baker, Bolton, Gruber & Kandampully, 2017). Findings from a study by Angelovska, Èeh Èasni and Lutz (2020) suggest that motives such as meeting with people and social responsibility are significant predictors of participation in the SE. A study by Yan et al. (2015) suggests that consumers who shopped for second-hand clothing might do so for social reasons (among others). Psychological factors promote people to interact on peer-to-peer (P2P) platforms and form the basis for borrowing and rental mechanisms, as well as transferring ownership through exchange, donation or purchase of used goods (Hamari, 2013; Hamari, Sjöklint & Ukkonen, 2016; Piscicelli, Cooper & Fisher, 2015).

Based on a review of previous research, the authors propose the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Social motives positively influence the attitudes towards using CFC applications/platforms.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b): Social motives positively influence the willingness to use CFC applications in the future.

Ecological Motives

The SE is part of ethical consumerism, and participation in it can be perceived as a form of sustainable consumer behaviour (Perlacia, Duml & Saebi, 2017). Sold sales, transition, renting or transferring unwanted/unnecessary clothes contributes to the extension of the product life, reduction of production and fashion waste (Perlacia et al., 2017; Sarigöllü, Hou & Ertz, 2021). Although participation in the sharing economy may potentially have a positive impact on the environment (Botsman & Rogers, 2010) (no resource consumption), it does not seem to be a strong motivator for many consumers (Habibi et al., 2016). Furthermore, Leismann, Schmitt, Rohn and Baedeker (2013) show that 'use instead of having’ patterns may also have undesirable ecological side effects, because customers can abuse shopping, which can eliminate positive environmental effects. Some studies suggest that purchase of second-hand clothes is not driven by ecological consciousness directly but through the mediating effect of bargain hunting (Cervellon et al., 2012). Findings from the study by Won and Kim (2020) indicate that hedonic and ecological motivation affects consumer attitude towards fashion-sharing platforms. Ek Styvén and Mariani (2020) found that perceived sustainability influences positively the attitude towards buying second-hand clothing on sharing-economy platforms. On the other hand, the study by Yan et al. (2015) did not confirm the relationship between environmental attitudes and the shopping frequency for second-hand clothing among college students. Those authors noticed, however, that second-hand shoppers tend to be more environmentally conscious than non-shoppers.

The literature review findings regarding the impact of ecological motives on attitudes towards SE/CC and participation in SE/CC are ambiguous. The authors propose the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 3a (H3a): Ecological motives positively influence the attitudes towards using CFC applications/platforms.

Hypothesis 3b (H3b): Ecological motives positively influence the willingness to use CFC applications in the future.

Attitude

According to the theory of planned behaviour, an individual’s intention to perform a certain behaviour is determined by a combination of three factors: attitudes towards the behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control (Ajzen, 1991). The assumption of the positive influence of the attitude towards CC or second-hand shopping on behaviour intention (participation in CC or buying second-hand fashion) is supported in the literature. In the study by Hamari et al. (2016), attitude had a significant positive effect on behavioural intentions to participate in CC. Ek Styvén and Mariani (2020) suggest that attitude towards buying second-hand fashion positively influences behavioural intention to buy second-hand goods on P2P-SE platforms. Won and Kim (2020) indicate that consumers’ attitudes towards fashion-sharing platforms have a positive effect on their purchase intentions.

Based on a review of past research, the authors assume that the attitude towards CFC positively affects behavioural intention and thus propose the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): The attitudes towards using CFC applications/platforms positively influence the willingness to use them in the future.

The following conceptual research model is proposed (Figure 1):

Research Design

The data was collected through an online research panel (Nationwide Research Panel Ariadna) with the use of an online survey in 2021 on a total of 412 Polish respondents. The non-random sampling method was used in the selection of the research sample. The structure of the research sample corresponded to the structure of adult Poles in terms of gender, age, education level and place of residence. The dataset was created with SPSS, version 27 (IBM). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed and a structural equation model (SEM) was developed using AMOS, version 21.0. Based on prior studies, a multi-item measurement scale was developed to measure motives and attitude. Economic and utility motives, social motives, ecological motives and attitude were each measured with four items and behaviour intention with one item. All items were measured utilising a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

The selection of the research sample was carried out by the quota method (selection criteria: sex, age and place of residence). The structure of the research sample is presented in Table 1.

Measurement Model

Table 2 shows the results of the CFA, including factor loadings and descriptive statistics. Two of three motives to participate as a user of CFC platforms were of relatively high importance: economics and utility motives (EU) (meanEU = 3.88) and ecological (ECO) (meanECO = 3.65). Social (SOC) motives were considered by the respondents as less important (meanSOC = 3.22).

SEM was used to test the hypothetical relationships between observable and/or latent variables in experimental and non-experimental research (Konarski, 2009, p. 15). The SEM consisted of a structural and a measurement part — the structural part of the model describes the theoretical cause-and-effect relation or correlation between the studied phenomena, while the measurement part takes place when the analysed phenomena are not directly measurable (therefore, they are represented in the constructed model by unobservable/latent variables). This means that before starting the estimation of the SEM, its measurement part should be determined and verified. One of the methods of verification of the measurement model is by the use of CFA (Bedyńska & Książek, 2012, pp. 219–223). The reliability of the measurement instrument was tested using CFA, where the results showed acceptable model fit indices (Table 3).

The evaluation of the overall measurement model (Figure 2) and the assessment of reliability and validity of the constructs were performed with a CFA. In the process of evaluating the measurement model, the discriminant and convergent validities were verified — the discriminant validity measures the extent to which the factors intended to measure a specific construct are actually unrelated (Wang & Wang, 2012). The Fornell and Larcker approach for the assessment of discriminant validity was used (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Within this approach, the average variance extracted (AVE) for each research construct should be higher than the square of the correlation between the construct and other constructs (Ode & Ayavoo, 2020). The diagonal (shown in bold with asterisks — *) elements shown in the table are the squares of multiple correlations between the research variables. As shown in Table 4, the AVE ranges from 0.57 to 0.81, while the diagonal values range from 0.75 to 0.90, indicating that the diagonal variables are higher than the AVE values (in rows); this result suggests that all constructs have appropriate discriminant validity. The data presented in the table shows that the measurement model has satisfactory discriminant validity.

Convergent validity measures the degree to which the factors measuring single constructs are consistent with each other. Convergent validity was assessed using composite reliability (CR) and AVE — the minimum values adopted in the analysis were such that AVE should be >0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), factor loadings should be >0.6 and CR should be >0.6 (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson, 2009; Ahmed, Romeika, Kauliene, Streimikis & Dapkus, 2020; Popa & Dabija, 2019; Szczepańska-Woszczyna, 2021). On the basis of the obtained results, all three minimum values were reached, which suggests that the reliability and validity of the model and the constructs used are acceptable.

Structural Model

Based on the research conducted in the literature review, the results of CFA and the proposed hypotheses, a research model was developed and is graphically illustrated in Figure 3. All the fit indices of the SEM allow us to proceed to the verification of the research hypotheses.

Testing the Hypotheses

The test results for the hypotheses are shown in Table 5. The results indicate that ATT was influenced by EU (β = 0.410, p < 0.001), SOC (β = –0.195, p = 0.002) and ECO (β = 0.455, p < 0.001). We found that EU (β = 0.255, p < 0.001), SOC (β = –0.223, p < 0.001) and ATT (β = 0.706, p < 0.001) influenced BI. ECO has been found to be not significantly associated with BI. It should be noticed that the hypothesis regarding social motives (H2a and H2b) were not supported due to the negative effect of those factors on ATT and BI.

Discussion

Our study allowed to identify the importance and to determine the effect of economic and utility motives, social motives and ecological motives on the attitudes towards using CFC apps/platforms and behavioural intention regarding the willingness to use them. We investigated also the influence of attitude towards using CFC platforms on behavioural intention. As assumed, our study confirmed the effect of attitude on willingness to use CFC applications in the future.

The findings suggest that economic and utility motives were considered by the respondents to be the most important type of motivation for participation as a user (consumer) of CFC applications. The results confirm previous findings wherein economic/utility/frugality motivation was suggested to be a main or important driver of secondhand fashion consumption (Guiot & Roux, 2010; Cervellon et al., 2012). Furthermore, economic and utility motives significantly affected the attitude towards CFC apps and the willingness to use them in the future. Those conclusions are in line with the works of other researchers (e.g. Ek Styvén & Mariani, 2020; Yan et al., 2015). It should be recalled that the overall findings of prior studies in this area are ambiguous. In some studies, utilitarian motives (saving money or minimalising utility) did not affect consumer attitude towards fashion-sharing platforms (Won & Kim, 2020).

Social motives turned out to be the least important factor (among the three types of motivation) for participation in CFC as a consumer. While analysis of the literature suggests that social motives might be an important reason for second-hand clothing shopping behaviour (Yan et al., 2015) or can be a significant predictor of participation in the SE (Angelovska et al., 2020), our findings seem to be quite interesting in that aspect. In our research, social motives significantly affected both attitude towards CFC platforms and intention to use them in the future; however, the effect on those variables was negative.

Ecological motives were considered to be a relatively important factor for buying second-hand clothing through CFC platforms. Our study findings confirm that ecological motives positively influence the attitudes towards using CFC applications/platforms, which is in line with previous studies by Won and Kim (2020) or Ek Styvén and Mariani (2020). It should be noted, however, that our results did not support the hypothesis that those motives positively influence the willingness to use CFC applications in the future, same as in Yan et al. (2015). Ecological motivation can be seen as a quite important factor regarding participation in CFC platforms, but they may not directly affect the behavioural intention to use them.

Conclusions

The results of our research have shown that there is significant evidence to conclude that the most important motives for using online applications for collaborative fashion consumption were economic and utility motives. Moreover, their impact on attitudes towards these applications and the willingness to use them was confirmed. Past research demonstrates that second-hand consumers are more likely to be price-sensitive and motivated by low prices. Saving money is a key driver for consumers. Thus, low prices exert a major influence on consumers’ willingness to purchase second-hand goods (Cervellon et al., 2012; Guiot & Roux, 2010; Isla, 2013; Williams & Paddock, 2003). Ecological motives emerged as relatively important determinants of the use of CFC applications. Environmental and ethical benefits of garment reuse are also significant drivers according to previous research (Guiot & Roux, 2010; Waight, 2013; Xu et al., 2014). Social motives not only were the least important determinants of participation in CFC, but they seem to have a negative impact on both ATT and willingness to use CFC platforms.

From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes to the fashion literature by shedding light on the motivations for using CFC online platforms, especially in the context of the results on social motives. The findings presented in this article can be extremely valuable and useful in designing and implementing solutions to support CFC, such as mobile applications or dedicated websites. The results of our research can be used when designing activities in the field of marketing communication. In order to promote their applications/platforms, enterprises should first of all focus on economic and utility benefits, as well as on ecological aspects, and not focus on social benefits.

Limitations and future research directions

The study has several limitations. Because of the sample size and the selected method of sampling, the results cannot be treated as representative for the general population of Polish consumers who use CFC platforms to buy second-hand clothing. Due to the differences in consumer behaviour regarding various forms of participation in SE/CC, it should be kept in mind that the possibility of inference is limited only to CFC platforms. Our research was focussed on three types of motivation regarding the usage of CFC applications, so it would be a good idea to widen the spectrum of motives in future research. The research findings could be used to describe the consumer behaviour of Polish consumers; however, it should be noticed that due to cultural differences, the importance and the influence of motives for using CFC platforms can differ in other countries. It would be interesting to conduct cross-country research in that aspect. Future studies could also explore other forms of consumer behaviour regarding the usage of CFC platforms, e.g. consumer engagement.

Acknowledgements

The study was conducted within the research project Economics in the face of the New Economy financed within the Regional Initiative for Excellence programme of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of Poland, years 2019–2022, grant no. 004/RID/2018/19, financing 3,000,000 PLN.

References

1. Ahmed, R. R., Romeika, G., Kauliene, R., Streimikis, J., & Dapkus, R. (2020). ES-QUAL model and customer satisfaction in online banking: Evidence from multivariate analysis techniques. Oeconomia Copernic, 11, 59–93.

2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

3. Angelovska, J., Èeh Èasni, A., & Lutz, C. (2020). Turning consumers into providers in the sharing economy: Exploring the impact of demographics and motives. Ekonomska misao i praksa, 29(1), 79–100. Retrieved from https://hrcak.srce.hr/239585.

4. Armstrong, C. M., Niinimäki, K., Lang, C., & Kujala, S. (2016). A use-oriented clothing economy? Preliminary affirmation for sustainable clothing consumption alternatives. Sustainable Development, 24, 18–31. doi:10.1002/sd.1602

5. Balck, B., & Cracau, D. (2015). Empirical analysis of customer motives in the shareconomy. Working Paper Series, University of Magdeburg. Retrieved from https://www.fww.ovgu.de/fww_media/femm/femm_2015/2015_02.pdf

6. Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing, Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881–898. doi:10.1086/666376.

7. Barnes, S., & Mattsson, J. (2016). Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: A Four-Stage Delphi Study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 200–211. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01

8. Becker-Leifhold, C., & Iran, S. (2018). Collaborative fashion consumption — Drivers, barriers and future pathways. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 22, 189–208. doi:10.1108/JFMM-10-2017-0109

9. Bedyńska, S., & Książek, M. (2012). Statystyczny drogowskaz 3. Praktyczny przewodnik wykorzystania modeli regresji oraz równań strukturalnych; Szkoła Wyższa Psychologii Społecznej: Warsaw, POL, pp. 159–200, ISBN 9788363354053

10. Belk, R. W. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–734. doi:10.1086/612649.

11. Belk, R. W. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres. 2013.10.001.

12. Benoit, S., Baker, T. L., Bolton, R. N., Gruber, T., & Kandampully, J. A. (2017). Triadic framework for collaborative consumption (CC): Motives, activities and resources & capabilities of actors. Journal Business Research, 79, 219–227.

13. Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours. The rise of collaborative consumption.? New York: Harper Business.

14. Cervellon, M., Carey, L., & Harms, T. (2012). Something old, something used: Determinants of women’s purchase of vintage fashion vs second-hand fashion. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40(12), 956–974. doi:10.1108/09590551211274946

15. Chieng, F. Y. L. (2021). Collaborative fashion consumption: You don’t have to own high fashion to own it. Curtin Insight Articles. Retrieved from https://news.curtin.edu. my/insight/2021-2/collaborative-fashion-consumption-you-dont-have-to-own-highfashion-to-own-it/

16. Cooper, T. (2013). .Sustainability, Consumption and the Throwaway Culture. W: Walker S. and Giard J. (red.) The Handbook of Design for Sustainability, pp. 137–155, Bloomsbury Academic.

17. Druckman, A., & Jackson, T. (2010). The bare necessities: How much household carbon do we really need? Ecological Economics, 69(9), 1794–1804.

18. Ek Styvén, M., & Mariani, M. M. (2020). Understanding the intention to buy secondhand clothing on sharing economy platforms: The influence of sustainability, distance from the consumption system, and economic motivations. Psychology Marketing, 37(5) 1–16. doi:10.1002/mar.21334

19. Farrant, L., Olsen, S. I., & Wangel, A. (2010). Environmental benefits from reusing clothes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(7), 726–736.

20. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18/3, 382–388.

21. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy — A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.

22. Geng, R., Mansouri, S. A., & Aktas, E. (2017). The relationship between green supply chain management and performance: A meta-analysis of empirical evidences in Asian emerging economies. International Journal of Production Economics, 183, 245-258. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.10.008

23. Gopalakrishnan, S., & Matthews, D. (2018). Collaborative consumption: A business model analysis of second-hand fashion. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 22(3), 354–368. doi:10.1108/JFMM-05-2017-0049.

24. Guiot, D., & Roux, D. (2010). A second-hand shoppers’ motivation scale: Antecedents, consequences, and implications for retailers. Journal of Retailing, 86(4), 355–371. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2010.08.002

25. Habibi, M. R., Davidson, A., & Laroche, M. (2017). What managers should know about the sharing economy. Business Horizons, 60(1), 113–121. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2016.09.00

26. Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed., pp. 627–686). Upper Saddle River: NJ, USA: Pearson International Edition. ISBN 9780138132637.

27. Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12, 236–245 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2013.01.004.

28. Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. The Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 2047–2059. doi:10.1002/asi.23552

29. Henninger, C. E., Brydges, T., Iran, S., & Vladimirova, K. 2021. Collaborative fashion consumption — A synthesis and future research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 319, 128648.I doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128648

30. International EMF Project — Progress reports — June 2015–2016. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/international-emf-project-progress-report2015-2016

31. Iran, S., & Schrader, U. (2017). Collaborative fashion consumption and its environmental effects. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 21(4), 468–482. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.163

32. Iran, S., Geiger, A. M., & Schraeder, U. L. (2018). Collaborative fashion consumption — A cross-cultural study between Tehran and Berlin. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 313–323. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.163

33. Isla, V. L. (2013). Investigating second-hand fashion trade and consumption in the Philippines: expanding existing discourses. Journal of Consumer Culture, 13(3), 221–240. doi:10.1177/1469540513480167

34. Johansson, J. K. (2010). Global Marketing Strategy. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing.doi:10.1002/9781444316568.wiem01024

35. Kapoor, A. P., & Vij, M. (2021). Want it, Rent it: Exploring attributes leading to conversion for online furniture rental platforms. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16, 188–207. doi:10.4067/S0718-18762021000200113.

36. Konarski, R. (2009). Modelowanie równań strukturalnych. Teoria i praktyka (p. 15). Warsaw, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. ISBN 9788301160944

37. Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems, Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 109–125. doi:10.1509/jm.10.0368.

38. Lang, C., Seo, S., & Liu, C. (2019). Motivations and obstacles for fashion renting: A crosscultural comparison. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 23(4), 519–536. doi:10.1108/JFMM-05-2019-0106

39. Lee, S. E., Jung, H. J., & Lee, K.-H. (2021). Motivating collaborative consumption in fashion: Consumer benefits, perceived risks, service trust, and usage intention of online fashion rental services. Sustainability, 13, 1804. doi:10.3390/su13041804

40. Leismann, K., Schmitt, M., Rohn, H., & Baedeker, C. (2013). Collaborative consumption: Towards a resource-saving consumption culture. Resources, 2(3), 184–203. doi:10.3390/resources2030184

41. Mont, O., & Plepys, A. (2008). Sustainable consumption progress: Should we be proud or alarmed? Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(4), 531–537.

42. Muangmee, C., Kot, S., Meekaewkunchorn, N., Kassakorn, N., & Khalid, B. (2021). Factors determining the behavioral intention of using food delivery apps during COVID19 pandemics. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16, 1297–1310. doi:10.3390/jtaer16050073

43. Munoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2017). Mapping out the sharing economy: A configurational approach to sharing business modeling. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 21–37. 44. Ode, E., & Ayavoo, R. (2020). The mediating role of knowledge application in the relationship between knowledge management practices and firm innovation. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5, 209–217.

45. Paczka, E. (2020). Collaborative consumption i jej wpływ na rozwój przedsiębiorczości w obliczu zmian pokoleniowych. Przegląd Prawa I Administracji, 120, tom 2, 749–761. doi:10.19195/0137-1134.120.104.

46. Padmavathy, C., Swapana, M., & Paul, J. (2019). Online second-hand shopping motivation — Conceptualization, scale development, and validation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 19–32. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.014

47. Park, H., & Armstrong, C. M. J. (2019). Is money the biggest driver? Uncovering motives for engaging in online collaborative consumption retail models for apparel. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 42–50. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.022

48. Perlacia, A. S., Duml, V., & Saebi, T. (2017). Collaborative consumption: Live fashion, don’t own it. Beta, 31, 6–24. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2860021

49. Phipps, M., Ozanne, L. K., Luchs, M. G., Subrahmanyan, S., Kapitan, S., Catlin, J. R., & Weaver, T. (2013). Understanding the inherent complexity of sustainable consumption: A social cognitive framework. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1227–1234.

50. Piligrimiene, Ž., Žukauskaite, A., Korzilius, H., Banyte, J., & Dovaliene, A. (2020). Internal and external determinants of consumer engagement in sustainable consumption. Sustainability, 12(4), 1349. doi:10.3390/su12041349

51. Piscicelli, L., Cooper, T., & Fisher, T. (2015). The role of values in collaborative consumption: Insights from a product-service system for lending and borrowing in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 21–29, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.032.

52. Popa, I. D., & Dabija, D. C. (2019). Developing the Romanian organic market: A producer’s perspective. Sustainability, 11, 467.

53. Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital 'prosumer’. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36. doi:10.1177/1469540509354673

54. Sarigöllü, E., Hou, C., & Ertz, M. (2021). Sustainable product disposal: Consumer redistributing behaviors versus hoarding and throwing away. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), pp. 340–356. doi:10.1002/bse.2624

55. Schor, J. B., & Fitzmaurice, C. J. (n.d.). Collaborating and connecting: the emergence of the sharing economy. Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption, 410–425. doi:10.4337/9781783471270.00039

56. Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K. (2021). Management theory, innovation, and organisation. A model of managerial competencies. Milton Park, UK: Routledge. ISBN 9780367485528

57. Waight, E. (2013). Eco babies: reducing a parent’s ecological footprint with second-hand consumer goods. International Journal of Green Economics, 7(2), 197–211. doi:10.1504/IJGE.2013.057444

58. Wang, Z., & Wang, N. (2012). Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(10), 8899–8908.

59. Williams, C. C., & Paddock, C. (2003). The meanings of informal and second hand retail channels: some evidence from Leicester. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 13(3), 317–336. doi:10.1080/0959396032000101372

60. Won, J., & Kim, B.-Y. (2020). The effect of consumer motivations on purchase intention of online fashion — Sharing platform. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(6), 197–207. doi:10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO6.197

61. Xu, Y., Chen, Y., Burman, R., & Zhao, H. (2014). Second-hand clothing: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38, 670–677. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12139

62. Yan, R.-N., Bae, S.Y., & Xu, H. (2015). Second-hand clothing shopping among college students: The role of psychographic characteristics. Young Consumers, 16(1), 85–98. doi:10.1108/YC-02-2014-00429

63. Zaman, M., Park, H., Kim, Y.-K., & Park, S.-H. (2019). Consumer orientations of secondhand clothing shoppers. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 10(2), 163–176. doi: 10.1080/20932685.2019.1576060

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports that one third of the world’s food production ends up lost or wasted, which corresponds to 1.3 billion metric tons (FAO, 2019). The problem of food wastage occurs at all stages of the food supply chain, but the share varies in particular countries and depends on the GDP per capita. Decreasing the amount of edible food, mainly at the production stage, is characteristic of low-income countries, while developing countries struggle with the lack of technical facilities related to transportation and storage, as well as with low consumer awareness at the stage of handling and preparation of foodstuffs (Parfitt et al., 2010). These situations refer to what is called „food loss”. In developed countries, food is lost mainly at retail and consumer levels, which is considered „food waste” (FAO, 2019). In the European Union countries, the sector contributing the most to food waste is households (47 million metric tons ±4 million metric tons), which account for 53% of the total mass of food wasted. This is equivalent to a mean value of 92 kilograms per person annually (±9 kg /person/year), but the estimates vary in member states due to differing shares of household food waste. The costs associated with household food waste in the European Union have been estimated at around 98 billion euros per year (Fusions, 2016). The most frequently reported reasons for household food wastage are lack of consumption at the right time, resulting in spoilage or expiration of food products (Aitsidou et al., 2019), food-related routines related to decisions in the food provisioning process (reuse of leftovers routines, planning routines and shopping routines), closely associated with the perceived skills of household members (Stancu et. al., 2016), poor stock management, and improper food storage (Lanfranchi et al., 2016). Consumers often feel confused by labels and do not understand the difference between various types of date labelling. This may result in throwing out safe and edible food products due to misunderstanding or excessive safety concerns (Wilson et al., 2017). The presence of competing goals, such as competition between health and food waste, competition between enjoyment and food waste, and between maintaining the budget and food waste, seems to have an impact on the intentions of consumers to reduce wastage (van Geffen et al., 2020). It was reported that low food prices do not motivate consumers to reduce food waste. Hungarian consumers admitted that they would need more money to reduce waste, arguing that it was often caused by low-quality food that spoils too fast. The empirical evidence on the predictive power of socio-demographic factors is not clear. Earlier studies have reported a negative correlation between age and the amount of household food waste — young people have a greater propensity to waste food than elderly people (Karunasena et al., 2021; Bravi et al., 2020; Visschers et al., 2016; Quested et al., 2013; Secondi et al., 2015). The food waste behavior of younger generations is related to a lack of food management skills, for example the inability to plan their schedules due to extensive activities such as studies, work and social life (Ellison et al., 2019; Ghinea and Ghiuta, 2019). Young consumers found it difficult to identify appropriate portion size during food preparation (Bravi et al., 2020; Quested et al., 2013; Romani et al., 2018). The choice by young adults not to prepare shopping lists results in impulse buys, which also encourages household food waste behavior (Clark and Manning 2018). There is evidence that the younger generation’s knowledge of how to proceed with food is low. Problems occur in deciding whether leftovers or outdated food are still safe to eat (Samotyja, 2021; Nikolaus et al., 2018). Millennials tend to regard date labels as food safety indicators instead of making a distinction between the „use by” and „best before” dates (Leib et al., 2016). According to Labuza et al. (2008), in the US in 2001 fewer people were able to identify correctly the meaning of the date labels on milk products than had been 20 years earlier. Contrary to young people, the 60+ generation tend to have relatively high skill levels in food management, including the specific areas of preservation and the creative use of leftover ingredients (Visschers et al., 2016; Quested et al., 2013). Some researchers noticed that older consumers have more time and show high skill levels due to their involvement in food management around the home from an early stage of their lives (Conde-Caballero et al., 2021; Lanfranchi et al., 2016; Godfray et al., 2010). Additionally, personal experiences such as hunger or food insecurity are linked to concern about food waste (Karunasena et al. 2021). McAdams and von Massow (2018) stated that guilt was the unanimous feeling established in the childhoods of elderly consumers, associated with food waste. On the other hand, contradictory findings are also presented in the literature. Some authors argue that younger people are more concerned about the environment and thus more aware of the concept of food waste and less likely to waste food products (Grasso et al., 2019; Zepeda and Balaine, 2017) or that there is no significant relationship between age and the amount of food wasted in households (Falasconi et al., 2019).

There is also no agreement about the role of education in the amount of food wasted. In some studies, no significant influence was shown (Falasconi et al., 2019; Visschers et al., 2016; Stancu et al., 2016; Koivupuro et al., 2012). Hazuchova et al. (2020) reported that well educated consumers waste the least. In contradiction to this, other studies showed that consumers with higher education waste more food than less educated individuals (Secondi et al., 2015). This phenomenon is attributed to the higher income of better-educated people. According to the „food waste paradox”, lower-income consumers may waste more food than their middle-class counterparts. In the literature, this phenomenon is explained by the previous experience of lower-income consumers with food deficit (Porpino et al., 2015), or the fact that they can simply afford to waste food (Secondi et al., 2015).

According to previous studies, the size of the household significantly affects the amount of food wasted in households. It was found that on a per capita basis, the amount of food waste decreases with the increasing number of people in the household, but, at the same time, larger households waste more food in total than smaller ones (Silvennoinen et al., 2014; Koivupuro et al., 2012). Visschers et al. (2016) stated that factors such as household size and children are fixed. Households with children waste more food because parents pay a lot of attention to food quality or experience difficulties in predicting the right amount of food needed (Visschers et al., 2016; Schanes et al., 2018). According to Grasso et al. (2019), the predictive value of the number of household members depends on the country and the average size of household.

The problem of consumer food waste is receiving increasing scientific attention. Previous studies greatly contributed to understanding the factors influencing consumer food waste and food waste behavior, but the results are not consistent and further work needs to be conducted regarding household food waste. A better understanding of the demographic and economic conditions that differentiate consumer opinions on the reasons for food waste is necessary. Alongside the scientific contribution, the findings of this study constitute a key issue for policymakers in order to implement effective preventive interventions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate consumer behavior on the food market in the context of wastage identification and assessment of consumer opinions in Poland on the causes of the problem of food waste in Polish households.

Materials and methods

The empirical research on consumer behavior in the context of food waste was conducted by face-to-face interviews during the period from April to May 2019. The research tool was an interview questionnaire prepared and checked in piloting. The quantitative study was carried out on consumer awareness of food labeling in the context of reducing food waste. One of the key research goals was to identify the behaviors and attitudes of individual consumers towards the problem of food waste in Poland, and in particular identification of consumers’ opinions on the problem of food waste (particularly the causes of food waste in their opinion). The research population was consumers declaring systematic purchase of food products. The selection of the research sample (N = 1,145) was carried out by the quota method (selection criteria: sex, age, and place of residence), which met the demand for maintaining the relative representativeness of the research population. The survey was conducted by the authors. Data analysis was performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics tool.

Results and Discussion

The main issue in the study in the context of food waste by consumers in households in Poland was to diagnose the reasons for this. The consumers surveyed were asked to define what, in their opinion, were the key causes of food waste in households. The following reasons were given, and it was the consumers’ responsibility to choose:

• lack of thought/planning in shopping,
• succumbing to the illusion of „excessive needs” when shopping,
• buying more just in case,
• it is normal that some of the products purchased are not used,
• smaller packages are not available,
• larger packages seem more cost-effective.

The results of consumer opinions on the reasons for throwing out food are presented in Table 1.

Consumers indicated that food in households in Poland is wasted mainly due to poorly planned purchases (51.0%), which means that consumers buy products that are unnecessary. The second reason is the fact that during the purchasing process, consumers have the impression that their needs are much greater than they truly are, which also leads to buying excessive amounts of products (37.0%). Another reason for wasting food is buying food products „just in case” (often for fear of a price increase in an era of inflation or a shortage of products, which was observable in the initial period of the Covid-19 pandemic). 13.8% of consumers indicated that the cause of food wastage is the purchase of large-packaged products (which seems to be more profitable), and 11.1% considered that food is wasted because it is normal for consumers not to consume all the products purchased. Only 8.0% of consumers believed that the cause of food waste was buying products in large packages (which means that the food is not consumed in its entirety), because small or standard packages are not available.

An interesting research issue is the assessment of the awareness and views of consumers in Poland on the causes of food waste depending on their level of education (Table 2).

The reason most frequently indicated by consumers for throwing away purchased food, i.e. „lack of thought / planning in shopping”, occurs to the smallest extent among consumers with vocational education (44.3%), and in consumer segments with higher education levels this percentage clearly increases and amounts to over 50.0% (the highest is in the group of people with engineering / undergraduate education — 56.4%). It can be assumed that consumers with higher education are characterized by possessing greater awareness that the lack of planning in purchasing influences food wastage than consumers with vocational education, although this awareness does not increase proportionally. It can also be associated with the lower levels of income achieved by people with a lower level of education and the need to „save when shopping”.

The relationship between „succumbing to the illusion of 'excessive needs’ when shopping” and the education of the consumers in Poland surveyed clearly indicates that with the increase in the level of education, the percentage of consumers who identify this reason for throwing away food purchased increases. While in the segment of consumers with vocational education the percentage of consumers indicating that they are misled by excessive needs while shopping for food is 30.3%, in the group of the most educated people this percentage is as high as 42.5%, which is 12.2 percentage points higher. Thus, the more educated the consumer, the greater the awareness of the fact that when shopping, you are buying food that you do not really need, leading to non-consumption and ultimately the food being thrown out.

On the other hand, when analyzing another cause of food wastage, i.e. „buying just in case”, it can be concluded that in this case there is an opposite relationship than before; namely, the highest percentage of consumers indicating this cause occurs in the segment with the lowest education (26.9%), and with the increase in the level of education, the percentage decreases (among people with higher education it is 21.4%).

Although the differences in the percentages of positive responses between consumers with vocational and graduate education are not significant, it can be assumed that with the increase in education, consumers indicate a smaller role for this factor.

Highly interesting results occur with the statement „it is normal that some of the purchased (food) products are not used”. Both in the segment of consumers with vocational education, secondary and engineering/ /bachelor’s this percentage fluctuates around 10.0% (vocational — 8.5%, secondary — 12.5, bachelor / engineering — 10.4%), while in the segment of consumers with the highest level of education it is minimal and amounts to only 1.6%. The above suggests that consumers with a master’s degree are very aware that it is irrational not to use food purchased in its entirety, so people with lower education should be educated regarding the above.

When analyzing another indicated cause of food wastage in households in Poland, namely „larger packages seem more cost-effective”, it can be seen that the highest percentage of consumers declaring this reason occurs in the segment of people with vocational education, and in the remaining segments this percentage clearly decreases (average — 9.6 %, bachelor/engineer — 12.0%, master — 13.2%). It can be assumed that people with vocational education are in the segment of economically sensitive consumers, with lower incomes than the segments of people with higher education, and therefore they buy food in larger than standard packaging due to the fact that the unit price is lower.
Unfortunately, the consumers surveyed are aware that food that has not been purchased is not consumed in its entirety, which contributes to its wastage.

The results regarding the relationship between the last indicated reason for throwing away purchased food, i.e. „smaller packages are not available”, and the education of the consumers surveyed indicate that there are no clear differences between the segments. The lowest percentage of indications is among people with a master’s degree (6.6%), and the highest among people with secondary education (10.1%), so the difference is only 3.5 percentage points. To sum up, it can be stated that with increasing education, there is a decreasing percentage of consumers who declare that:

• food waste is caused by purchasing large packages of products (inexpensive) and ultimately by not consuming the entire food product;
• food waste is caused by purchasing it just in case and creating an excess that is not consumed.

On the other hand, with increasing education, there is a rising percentage of consumers who declare that:

• food waste is due to ill-considered/poorly planned shopping;
• food waste is caused by being influenced at the point of purchase, leading to the illusion of excessive needs and of buying food that is not really needed.

It can therefore be assumed that the least educated consumers more often than other segments are guided by economic premises in their purchases (purchasing large packages), plan their purchases more rationally (for savings reasons), but also buy in advance more often. On the other hand, consumers with the highest education (master’s) believe that not consuming all of the purchased food is not a normal phenomenon and to a lesser extent they are driven by economic reasons (e.g. they are more often under the illusion of excessive needs when shopping and less often buy food in large packages). Thus, it can be concluded that the key reasons for wasting food in the segment of the least/most educated consumers in Poland are different.

In the context of consumer attitudes in Poland towards the problem of wasting purchased food, it is worth analyzing and assessing the
relationship between consumer awareness of the causes of wastage and the level of income in the household (Table 3).

When analyzing the declarations of consumers that the reason for wasting food is „lack of thought/planning in purchasing” and the lack of planning in purchases with regard to the material status of their family, it can be observed that there are no significant differences in the percentages of indications within separate segments and they oscillate around 50.0% (only in the segment of household with an average income is the ratio slightly higher, amounting to 53.6%).

On the other hand, if it is stated that „we are under the illusion of 'excessive needs’ while shopping”, there are significant differences between the segments of consumers distinguished by the material status of the family. The lowest percentage of responses is in the segment of the poorest consumers, with the material status of the family definitely below (28.6%) and slightly below the national average (29.3%). In households with incomes at the level of the national average and above the national average, the percentage of consumers agreeing with this opinion on the causes of food waste clearly increases — it is the highest in the segment of consumers whose family material status is defined as „slightly above the national average” and amounts to as much as 44.0%.

When analyzing the declarations of consumers that the reason for wasting food is „lack of thought/planning in purchasing” and the lack of planning in purchases with regard to the material status of their family, it can be observed that there are no significant differences in the percentages of indications within separate segments and they oscillate around 50.0% (only in the segment of household with an average income is the ratio slightly higher, amounting to 53.6%).

On the other hand, if it is stated that „we are under the illusion of 'excessive needs’ while shopping”, there are significant differences between the segments of consumers distinguished by the material status of the family. The lowest percentage of responses is in the segment of the poorest consumers, with the material status of the family definitely below (28.6%) and slightly below the national average (29.3%). In households with incomes at the level of the national average and above the national average, the percentage of consumers agreeing with this opinion on the causes of food waste clearly increases — it is the highest in the segment of consumers whose family material status is defined as „slightly above the national average” and amounts to as much as 44.0%.

Consumers agree to a similar extent, regardless of the material status of the family, with the statement „we buy more just in case”, which
contributes to food waste. The percentage of responses ranges from 19.8% in the segment of consumers describing the material status of their family as „definitely below the national average” to 24.7% in the segment of consumers describing the material status of their family as „slightly below the national average”. It is evident that the difference is not significant and amounts to 4.9 percentage points. Thus, it can be concluded that in the case of this opinion on the problem of food waste, the material status of the family does not significantly differentiate consumer opinions. It is similar in the case of the statement: „it is normal that some of the purchased food products are not used” — the results presented in Table 3 show that there are no significant differences in the percentages of indications between consumer segments in terms of the differing material status of the family.

Considering the views of consumers on the causes of the problem of food wastage related to the purchase of large packages (which seem favorable in price or are purchased due to the lack of smaller food packages), it is observable that there are differences in the percentages of indications between consumer segments with different family material statuses. And so, in the case of the statement: „smaller packages are not available”, the highest percentage occurs in the segment of consumers with a family material status definitely below the national average (13.2%) and in the segment with material status slightly below the national average (10.6%).

On the other hand, the lowest percentage of responses, 6.2%, is in the segment of consumers with an average familial financial status and slightly above the national average. Interestingly, in the segment of consumers from the best-off families (definitely above the national average) this percentage increases to 9.7%. Thus, the notion that buying larger packages when smaller ones are not available contributes to food waste is more popular with consumers in the poorest segment and in the most affluent segment. On the other hand, in the case of the statement: „larger packages seem more cost-effective”, the highest percentage of consumers agreeing with this opinion occurs in the segment of consumers who define the material status of their family much below the national average (18.7%), and the lowest — in the segment of consumers who define their material status as definitely above the national average (11.0%).

In the remaining consumer segments, the ratio ranges from 12.6% (slightly below the national average), through 13.8% (national average) to 15.0% (slightly above the national average). Therefore, it can be assumed that consumers in Poland from the poorest households buy larger food packaging, while realizing that not consuming this food in its entirety contributes to its wastage.

Another interesting aspect of the study is the analysis of consumer attitudes in Poland towards the causes of food waste in Polish households depending on the age of consumers. The results are presented in Table 5.

The „lack of thought/planning in shopping” is indicated as the main reason for wasting food by the consumers surveyed, regardless of the age segment, although the highest percentage of indications occurs in the group of consumers aged 20–29 (57.1%) and aged 50–59 years (53.0%). On the other hand, „the illusion of 'excessive needs’ when shopping”, indicated as another important reason for wasting food, is most important for consumers aged 20–29 and 30–39, and least important for seniors 60+.

Perhaps the elderly, due to their age and experience, limit the purchase of food products due to the feeling of excessive needs, while younger consumers do not have such long-established experiences and beliefs yet.

Buying food „just in case” may contribute to its wastage mainly according to age-mature consumers, i.e. over 40 years of age. Analyzing the results of the study, it can be observed that as the age of consumers increases, the belief that buying food „in case” is an important factor leading to throwing away non-consumed food, and thus wasting it, increases. The belief that „it is normal that some of the purchased products are not used” is highest among the youngest consumers (up to 19 years) compared to other age groups. This is very worrying because such an attitude among young consumers may result in future purchasing and consumption decisions which will unfortunately lead to food waste. In turn, this reason is the least important for consumers aged 50–59. Analyzing another reason for wasting food in households, i.e. the belief that „larger packages seem more cost-effective” in the context of the age segments studied, it can be observed that there are slight differences in the indications by individual segments (they oscillate between 12.0% and 16.4%). The „smaller
packages are not available” is the last reason for food waste indicated by the surveyed consumers. Analyzing it through the prism of age segments, it can be seen that the youngest respondents (up to 19 years) did not indicate this reason at all (perhaps these consumers do not decide to buy food in larger packages when smaller ones are not available, and so this reason for food wastage is not relevant to them). On the other hand, the highest percentage of indications can be seen in the consumer segment of 30–39 years and 60+.

The next correlation is the analysis of the relationship between the opinions of consumers in Poland about the causes of food waste and the size of the household. It is interesting to see whether consumers’ views on the causes of wastage are different in small (1, 2), medium (3.4) and large (5+) households (they differ depending on the size of the household). The results obtained in the study are presented in Table 4.

Consumers from one and two-person households (52.1% and 53.8%) and the largest 5+ households (54.4%) agree most with the statement that the cause of wasting food in households in Poland is „lack of thought / planning in shopping”. In households of three and four people, the percentage of responses is lower and amounts to about 48%.

On the other hand, in the case of the opinion „succumbing to the illusion of 'excessive needs’ when shopping”, the lowest percentage of responses concerns consumers from one-person households (31.7%), and the highest percentage from three-person households (43.0%). In the case of consumers from two-person, four-person and the largest 5+ households, the percentage of positive responses is practically the same and amounts to approximately 36%. Thus, consumers from three-person households stand out from other segments due to a relatively high percentage of people indicating that being under the illusion of excessive needs while shopping is the reason for throwing away the purchased food.

When analyzing the statement „buying more just in case”, depending on the size of the household, it can be observed that the segment of consumers from the largest households (5+) least agree with this statement (16.7%). In the remaining segments analyzed, the percentage of responses ranges from 21.1% (single-person households) to 25.7% (four-person households). Thus, it can be concluded that when analyzing the opinions of consumers regarding this cause of food waste in relation to the number of people in a household, only the most numerous households (5+) with the lowest percentage of positive responses is distinguished. It can therefore be assumed that the largest households have the lowest tendency to engage in so-called „panic buying”. However, this can also be associated with households that do make „larger”
purchases entailing significant expense.

If consumers agree with the statement that „it is normal that some of the products purchased are not used” in relation to the number of people in the household, it can be seen that the lowest percentage of consumers agreeing with the above is in the segment of two people (8.5%) and 5 + households (8.8%). In the remaining segments, the percentage of indications hovers around 13.0%. Therefore, no directly proportional relationship between the attitudes of consumers towards this cause of food wastage and the size of the household can be indicated.

On the other hand, when analyzing the opinions of consumers as to the statement: „it happens that smaller packages are not available” (which directly affects non-consumption and throwing away of food), it is interesting that the lowest percentage of indications occurs in the segment of the largest 5+ households and amounts to only 6.1%. Large households purchase larger quantities of products, so — perhaps — buying food in large packages is a standard purchase for them and does not involve the lack of consumption of the entire product, so it is the least considered cause of food waste.

However, different results are found in the case of the analysis of the last indicated cause of food waste, which is: „larger packages seem more cost-effective” depending on the size of the household. It turns out that consumers from one-person households (10.6%) agree the least with this statement, and consumers from the largest 5+ households (19.3%) most agree. Perhaps these indicators result from the specific purchasing decisions made by these households, namely individuals are less likely to buy large packages of food (although they may be cost-effective), because they will not have time to consume the product by the use by date. On the other hand, for households of 5+, the purchase of food in large packages may be standard, and unfortunately this food is not always consumed, hence such a high percentage indicating this cause of food waste in Poland.

The last segmentation variable analyzed in the context of consumer attitudes and beliefs in Poland regarding the causes of food waste is the number of children in the household. The results of the study in this area are presented in Table 6.

When analyzing consumers who indicate that the cause of food wastage is „lack of thought/planning in shopping” in terms of the number of children in households, it is evident that the highest percentage of indications occurs among consumers with 4 or more children in their family (58.8%), and the lowest — among consumers with 3 children in the family (44.4%). The above result is somewhat surprising, as it could be assumed that with the increase in the number of children, planning family purchases is rational and does not constitute a reason for wasting food, yet it turned out that there was no such relationship. On the other hand, in the case of the second most frequently mentioned reason by consumers which — in their opinion — contributes to food waste in households, i.e., „succumbing to the illusion of 'excessive needs’ when shopping”, the highest percentage occurs in families with 4 or more children (41.2%), and the lowest in the case of families without any child (33.3%). Perhaps families with many children, due to the number of children, actually experience excessive needs when shopping, which may affect their attitude towards the causes of food waste.

On the other hand, these families indicate the least (among all analyzed segments) that the reason for throwing out food products is buying them „in case” (16.2%). This may mean that such families have a limited household budget and they buy systematically, trying to avoid excessive stocks, which may limit food waste in their households. Also, when analyzing the attitudes of consumers towards the statement that „it is normal that some of the products purchased are not used” in relation to the number of children in a family, it can be noticed that consumers from families with the largest number of children least agree with this (4.4%), while consumers from families without children agreed the most (16.7%).

Therefore, it can be assumed that families with many children make more rational purchases of food, which may contribute to limiting food wastage.

Convincing consumers that buying food products in large packages contributes to wasting food because „larger packages seem more costeffective” is highest in the segment of consumers from the largest families (19.1%), and lowest among consumers from small families. Thus, it can be seen that as the number of children in the family grows, the belief that purchasing large packages of products may contribute to non-consumption of all food, and thus its wastage, also grows. On the other hand, the attitudes of consumers towards the statement that buying products in large packages contributes to wasting food, as „the smaller packages are not available” can be considered independent of the number of children in the family.

Consumers in Poland admit that they did not consume the food purchased because they are not fully aware of the difficulties with interpreting the information on the shelf life of food. In the context of the above, an interesting research issue was to identify consumer opinions on the causes of food waste and to diagnose the relationship between opinions and segmentation variables such as consumer age, consumer education, material status, the number of people in the household and the number of children in the family (Ankiel & Samotyja, 2020).

Conclusions and recommendations

Food wastage, both in Poland and worldwide, remains a key social, economic, behavioral and ethical problem. Consumers in Poland throw away food they do not consume for reasons related to poorly planned, excessive, impulse purchases, incorrect interpretation of various types of date labeling or buying food that they cannot properly prepare for consumption. Generally, our findings support the conclusion that Polish consumers consider the main cause of food waste to be „lack of thought/planning in shopping” and „the illusion of 'excessive needs’ when shopping”, while the lowest percentage of indications concerns the reason related to the purchase of food in large packages, namely: „smaller packages are not available” and „larger packages seem more costeffective”.
When analyzing the education of consumers in the context of the indicated reasons for wasting food, we found that less educated consumers more often indicated reasons related to the purchase of large packages or the belief that it is normal to always buy more. In turn, the most educated consumers more often indicated reasons based on the belief that they have greater consumption needs or that purchases are poorly planned. Taking into account the material status of consumers, consumers with a good standard of living pointed to the causes of food wastage related to irrational, impulse, and poorly planned purchases to a greater extent, while consumers with a poor standard of living pointed to the reasons related to the purchase of products in large packages (which may result from being guided by the economic determinants of the purchase). When analyzing the size of households (in terms of the number of people and the number of children in these households) in the context of the opinion on the causes of food wastage, our findings indicate that consumers from large households less frequently indicate the causes related to irrational purchasing behavior. Consumers from large households perceive the problem of „in case” purchases or those related to excessive needs to a lesser extent as the causes of food wastage in households, but more often indicate reasons related to the purchase of food in large packages.

Based on Polish consumers’ opinions on the issue, therefore, we can conclude that reducing the problem of food wastage requires intensive education of consumers in the rational planning of food purchases, rational consumption, as well as the correct interpretation of food labeling with the terms of durability. In addition to the above, a significant role in preventing food wastage is played by food producers, who should, through communication activities, make consumers aware of the scale of the problem, but they should also clearly, reliably and legibly label food with durability terms so that the consumer has no problem reading and interpreting these. In addition, food producers should limit the packaging of food products with a short shelf life in large packages, as this favors the non-consumption of the entire product, and thus its wastage. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning the role of commercial entities (mainly large-format stores), which should conduct campaigns encouraging consumers to buy food products with a short shelf life (at a reduced price), as well as educational campaigns raising consumer awareness of the problem of food waste.

This study, conducted on the opinions/attitudes of consumers in Poland regarding the causes of food waste, has obvious limitations. These result from the declarative nature of the study, which does not necessarily reflect actual purchasing and consumption behavior. Nevertheless, the results and conclusions presented constitute valuable illustrative material concerning the attitudes of consumers towards the problem of food waste in Poland, which may form the basis for communication activities aimed at increasing public awareness and thus reducing the scale of waste.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported by the National Science Centre (Narodowe Centrum Nauki), Poland [grant number 2017/27/B/HS4/00805].

References

1. Aitsidou, V., Michailidis, A., Partalidou M., & Iakovidou, O. (2019). Household food waste management: socio-ecological dimensions. British Food Journal, 121(1): 2163–2178. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2019-0111.
2. Ankiel, M., & Samotyja, U. (2020). The role of labels and perceived health risk in avoidable food wasting. Sustainability, 12(20):8725. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208725.
3. Bravi, L., Francioni, B., Murmura, F., & Savelli, E., (2020). Factors affecting household food waste among young consumers and actions to prevent it. A comparison among UK, Spain and Italy. Resources, Conservation & Recycling. 153, 104586 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104586.
4. Clark, J., & Manning, L. (2018). What are the factors that an opportunity sample of UK students insinuate as being associated with their wastage of food in the home setting? Resources, Conservation & Recycling. 130, 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.11.005.
5. Conde-Caballero, D., Rivero-Jimenez, B., & Mariano-Juarez L. (2021). Memories of hunger, continuities, and food choices: An ethnography of the elderly in Extremadura (Spain) David. Appetite. 164, 105267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105267
6. Ellison, B., Savchenko, O., Nikolaus, C.J., & Duff, B.R.L. (2019). Every plate counts: evaluation of a food waste reduction campaign in a university dining hall. Resources, Conservation & Recycling. 144, 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.046.
7. Falasconi, L., Cicatiello, C., Franco, S., Segre, A., Setti, M., Vittuari, M. (2019). Such a shame! A study on self-perception of household food waste. Sustainability. 11(1), 270. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su11010270.
8. FAO, (2019). The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/publications/sofa/en/ (21.10.2021).
9. Fusions, (2016). Estimates of European food waste levels. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute. https://www.eu-fusions.org (10.11.2021).
10. Ghinea, C., & Ghiuta, O.A. (2019). Household food waste generation: young consumers behaviour, habits and attitudes. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 16(5), 2185–2200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-1853-1.
11. Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., & Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science. 327 (5967), 812–818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383.
12. Grasso, A.C., Olthof, M.R., Boevé, A.J., Van Dooren, C., Lähteenmäki, L., & Brouwer, I.A. (2019). Socio-Demographic Predictors of Food Waste Behavior in Denmark and Spain. Sustainability, 11(12), 3244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123244.
13. Hazuchova, N., Antosova, I., & Stavkova, J. (2020). Food Wastage as a Display of Consumer Behaviour. Journal of Competitiveness. 12(2), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2020.02.04.
14. Karunasena, G.G., Ananda, J., & Pearson D. (2021). Generational differences in food management skills and their impact on food waste in households. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 175, 105890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105890.
15. Koivupuro, H.K., Hartikainen, H., Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.M., Heikintalo, N., Reinikainen, A., & Jalkanen, L. (2012). Influence of socio-demographical, behavioural and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish households. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 36, 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01080.x
16. Labuza T.P., Szybis, L.M., & Pec, J. (2008). Perishable Refrigerated Products and Home Practices Survey. In Open Dating of Foods. Trumbull, CT, USA: Food & Nutrition Press, Inc.
17. Lanfranchi, M., Calabro, G., De Pascale, A., Fazio A., & Giannetto C. (2016). Household food waste and eating behavior: empirical survey. British Food Journal, 118(12), 3059–3072. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2016-0001.
18. Leib E.B., Rice Ch., Neff R., Spiker M., Schklair A., & Greenberg S. (2016). Consumer perceptions of date labels: National Survey. https://www.comunicarseweb.com/sites/default/files/consumerperceptions-on-date-labels_may-2016.pdf (02.11.2021).
19. Martindale W., & Schiebel, W. (2017). The impact of food preservation on food waste, British Food Journal. 119, 2510–2518. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2017-0114.
20. McAdams, & von Massow, M. (2018). Food Waste and Quality of Life in Elderly Populations Living in Retirement Living Communities. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 33(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763893.2018.1451801.
21. Nikolaus, C.J., Nickols-Richardson, S.M., & Ellison, B. (2018). Wasted food: a qualitative study of U.S. young adults’ perceptions, beliefs and behaviors. Appetite. 130, 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.07.026.
22. Parfitt, J.P., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food Waste within Food Supply Chains: Quantification and Potential for Change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 365, 3065–3081. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0126.
23. Porpino, G., Parente, J. G., & Wansink, B. (2015). Food waste paradox: Antecedents of food disposal in low income households. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 39(6), 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12207.
24. Quested, T., Ingle, R. & Parry, A. (2012). Final Report: Household Food and Drink Waste in the United Kingdom, WRAP. https://wrap.org.uk/resources/report/household-food-and-drink-wasteunited-kingdom-2012 (10.11.2021).
25. Romani, S., Grappi, S., Bagozzi, R.P., & Barone, A.M. (2018). Domestic food practices: a study of food management behaviors and the role of food preparation planning in reducing waste. Appetite, 121, 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. appet.2017.11.093.
26. Samotyja U. (2021). The system of date labelling in the food supply chain — the weak links from the perspective of final consumers. Logforum. 17(3), 331–339. http://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2021.600.
27. Secondi, L., Principato, L., & Laureti, T. (2015). Household food waste behaviour in EU-27 countries: A multilevel analysis. Food Policy, 56, 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.07.007.
28. Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.M., Hartikainen, H., Heikkilä, L., & Reinikainen, A. (2014). Food waste volume and composition in Finnish households. British Food Journal, 116, 1058–1068. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2012-0311.
29. Stancu, V., Haugaard, P., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2016). Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste. Appetite, 96, 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.025.
30. van Geffen, L., van Herpen E., Sijtsema S., & van Trijp H. (2020). Food waste as the consequence of competing motivations, lack of opportunities, and insufficient abilities. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, X(5), 100026. https://doi.org 10.1016/j.rcrx.2019.100026.
31. Visschers, V.H.,Wickli, N., & Siegrist, M. (2016). Sorting out food waste behaviour: A survey on the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in households. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.007.
32. Williams, H., Lindström, A., Trischler, J., Wikström, F., & Rowe, Z. (2020). Avoiding food becoming waste in households — The role of packaging in consumers’ practices across different food categories. Journal of Cleaner Production, 265, 121775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121775.
33. Wilson, N.L.W., Rickard, B.J., Saputo, R., & Ho, S.T. (2017). Food waste: The role of date labels, package size, and product category. Food Quality and Preference, 55, 35–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.08.004.
34. Zepeda, L., & Balaine, L. (2017). Consumers’ perceptions of food waste: a pilot study of U.S. students. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 41(6), 627–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12376.
35. Zhang, H., Duan, H., Andric, J.M., Song, M. & Yang, B. (2018). Characterization of household food waste and strategies for its reduction: a Shenzhen City case study. Waste Management, 78, 426–433.10.1016/j.wasman.2018.06.010.

Dietary supplements have for years constituted one of the most stable, promising and innovative markets, both in the world and in Poland. Worldwide, the dietary supplements market was valued at USD 96 billion in 2017, with forecasts anticipating a further 6.9% growth over the next five years (https://www.researchandmarkets.com). The growing supply produced by dietary supplement manufacturers is being fuelled by demand from consumers who — in an era of ever-increasing risk of modern-day „diseases of civilization” — are growing increasingly aware of the importance of prevention in protecting their own health. In Poland, the market value is estimated in 2018 at PLN 5.363 billion, while the forecast for 2023 is PLN 6.504 billion (https://www.researchandmarkets.com/). The main reasons for positive forecasts for market development are the increased interest in supplements and the ever-broader range of such products.

From a formal point of view, dietary supplements are not considered medicinal products, although they are very often confused with over-thecounter medications. A dietary supplement has been defined as: „a food which is intended to supplement a normal diet, being a concentrated source of vitamins or minerals or other substances having a nutritional or other physiological effect, single or complex, marketed in a form enabling dosage, excluding products having properties of a medicinal product within the meaning of the provisions of the pharmaceutical law” (Polish Food Safety Act, 2006; EU Food Supplements Directive, 2002). Dietary supplements may contain vitamins and minerals that are naturally present in food and are consumed as part of it, as well as other substances exhibiting a nutritional or other physiological effect (Polish Food Safety Act, 2006).

Unit packages are an integral part of the dietary supplements market (Jamal et al., 2012). In the case of dietary supplements, the packaging primarily protects the packaged product against the negative influence of external factors and enables its distribution in the logistics chain, but it also constitutes a tool for marketing activities (Shah et al., 2013). The potential of dietary supplement packaging (generated by elements such as packaging material, design, closing systems, labelling, colours and graphics) makes them an effective tool for marketing activities (Ankiel-Homa, 2012). From the consumer’s point of view, the product packaging is a source of numerous kinds of necessary information about the supplement, a brand image identifier and one of the main purchasing determinants (Butkeviciene et al., 2008).

Properly designed packaging plays an important role in the purchasing behaviour of consumers, particularly in the process of making purchasing decisions (Granger and Billson, 1972; McDaniel and Baker, 1977; Homer and Gauntt, 1992; Underwood et al., 2001; Kuvykaite et al., 2009; Rambabu and Porika, 2020). From the consumer’s point of view, packaging of dietary supplements is a source of important information about the product, which is of particular importance in the purchasing process (Butkeviciene et al., 2008; Wang, 2013; Bahrainizad and Rajabi, 2018; Bigoin-Gagnan and Lacoste-Badie, 2018). Packaging of dietary supplements must meet increasing requirements — in addition to fulfilling the essential functions (protective, information and transport) it needs to be characterized by modern design, innovative construction and graphic solutions, high utility for consumers and environmental friendliness (Auttarapong, 2012; Casillas, 2013; Ankiel-Homa, et al., 2011).

The key factors favouring the development of packaging on the dietary supplements market include the following (Ankiel and Walenciak, 2018; Ankiel and Sojkin, 2018; Jamal et al., 2012; Grundey, 2010; Lee et al., 2008; Barska and Wyrwa, 2017):

• new trends in consumer behaviour (e.g. increased care for health and appearance) that generate increased consumption of dietary
  supplements;
• an aging society, which results in greater demand for products addressed to senior consumers;
• the development of innovative, self-service sales formats (mainly convenience stores), boosting the demand for modern packaging as an effective tool for creating a product brand and higher sales;
• environmental and ecological trends and requirements driving the development of environmentally friendly packaging;
• the dynamic development of e-commerce, boosting the demand for packaging that projects the image of the product/brand, with high information value and maximally protecting the packed product during transport.

Because, as has been mentioned, packaging is one of the key factors influencing consumer purchasing decisions, the design process for packaging should be carried out simultaneously in relation to the packed product, taking into account the needs and requirements of consumers (Abdullahi, 2018; Moskowitz et al., 2009; Perry and Cochet, 2009). As such, in this study, we resolved to try to better identify the impact of packaging (and its components) on purchasing decisions made by consumers on the dietary supplements market in Poland.

Materials and methods

The main purpose of the study was to identify and evaluate the importance of packaging as a determinant affecting the purchase of selected dietary supplements in Poland. In turn, the specific research objectives were specified as follows:

• identification of factors influencing the selection of tested dietary supplements, taking into account the differences within selected product groups;
• assessment of the importance of unit packaging during purchase;
• identifying the significance of packaging elements and features affecting the purchase decision;
• diagnosis of respondents’ tendency to opt out of purchasing due to inadequate packaging.

The study was conducted using the CAWI (Computer-Assisted Web Interview) online interview method. We considered the 3 categories of dietary supplements which, out of 12,556 products registered in Poland, show the strongest growth in sales (GIS, 2017):

• strengthening the hair, skin and nails;
• containing a magnesium preparation;
• supporting weight loss.

The survey was conducted in the period from April 2017 to May 2019 on a sample of 468 respondents in Poland. Sample selection was by deliberate choice: the survey included consumers declaring systematic consumption of dietary supplements from the studied categories.

The importance of packaging as determinants of the purchase of dietary supplements

The main objective of this study was to diagnose whether packaging is an important purchasing determinant for dietary supplements, to what extent and for which product categories (including any differences between hair, skin and nail strengthening supplements, magnesium supplements and products for slimming). To this end, the respondents were asked about the importance of packaging for them when shopping in each of the product groups studied.

The respondents’ answers showed clear differences by product category: packaging in the purchasing process was reported to be most important in the case of skin, hair and nail strengthening supplements (average 3.54); with weight loss supplements in second place (average 2.92), followed by products containing magnesium (average 2.68). These findings show that, interestingly, unit packaging is most important for consumer decisions when buying products that are directly related to the external appearance of the consumer (strengthen hair, skin and nails, and for weight loss).

The study also sought to identify the importance of packaging in the purchase process of selected dietary supplements against other purchasing factors. The results show noticeable differences between the factors determining the purchase of dietary supplements in various product categories. People looking for magnesium products, i.e. those not directly affecting the appearance of the consumer, but rather bearing upon their health and good physical condition, are most susceptible to the suggestions of pharmacists. For people looking for supplements that support weight loss, recommendations of friends are the most important. In turn, for people looking for products to strengthen the hair, skin and nails, the most important is the price / profitability of the purchase.

The most important factor influencing the choice of the tested dietary supplements strengthening the hair, skin and nails are the product’s features and properties (average 4.42). Next, respondents pointed to the product price (average 4.12), recommendation (average 3.71), advertisement (average 3.44) and a pharmacist’s suggestion (average 3.26).

In the category of dietary supplements supporting slimming, the results are different: most important for the consumer in the purchase process are the product features and properties (average 4.44), price (average 3.69), recommendation (average 3.39), and advertisement (average 3.24). The place of sale was indicated as the least important (average 2.28). On the other hand, in the case of magnesium supplements, the most important purchase determinants are the product features and properties (an average of 4.67 indications), price (average 4.27), recommendations (average 3.48) and advertisement (average 3.26). As the data presented in Table 1 show, for each of the studied groups of dietary supplements, packaging turned out to be a factor of little importance in the purchase process (average 3.06; 2.79; 2.88) compared to other factors definitely more important for the consumer, such as price, product properties or a pharmacist’s suggestion.

Assessment of selected elements and features of dietary supplement packaging

In the course of the study, the significance of elements and features of the tested dietary supplement packaging that influence consumers when shopping was also assessed. The results are presented in Table 2.

Definitely the most important factor for consumers, in each of the product groups studied, is the information on the packaging. Clear packaging containing information relevant to consumers is the most important for people buying supplements. Secondly, the functionality of the packaging is important. In the third and fourth place among the most frequently appearing responses were interchangeable aesthetics of the workmanship or ecological aspects of the packaging. The least important factors are the shape of the packaging and the design of the packaging.

One of the objectives of the study was to investigate answers to the question: „Have you ever decided against buying a dietary supplement because of its inadequate packaging?”. The results indicated that 53.85% of respondents answered this in the negative. One out of every four respondents (26.28% of answers) answered affirmatively, while 19.87% of respondents gave the answer „I don’t recall”. Participants who responded affirmatively were asked to name a maximum of three main reasons for their opting not to make the purchase. The results indicate that by far the most common motive for withdrawing from the purchasing process was a lack of comprehensive product information (56.90% of responses). The next clear indication was illegible information on the packaging (46.55% of responses). Further places were taken by: poor packaging aesthetics (24.14%), impractical closure (24.14%), inadequate capacity (too big / too small; 20.69%). A small percentage of respondents indicated as a reason „packaging difficult to dispose of after use of the product” and „uncomfortable design / packaging shape” (only 6.9%), while „unsuitable packaging material / material” was indicated by 3.45%. The results clearly show that the main negative factor motivating decisions not to follow through with a possible purchase are incorrectly designed packaging of dietary supplements, especially in the product information layer. Product features and properties have been recognized by respondents as one of the key purchasing determinants, so it is important that this information should be correctly, reliably and legibly placed on the packaging of the dietary supplement.

Conclusions and recommendations

Herein we presented some findings from an original study with a selected sample of 468 dietary supplement consumers in Poland, carried out in order to gain more into the role and significance of packaging as a determinant of purchase in relation to three selected categories of dietary supplements. Overall, we found that, in the case of dietary supplements, while unit packaging is not a crucial purchasing determinant (the most important factors being price, product properties and features, and a pharmacist’s recommendation), it is nevertheless still a fairly important factor influencing the selection and purchase of tested products. Moreover, we found that in relation to the three categories of dietary supplements studied, packaging is most important for supplements intended to aid the skin, hair and nails. Close analysis of the individual features and elements of packaging that affect the purchase of the studied categories of dietary supplements showed that the most important factors for consumers are the information placed on the packaging, the functionality of the packaging (e.g. ease of opening / closing) and the aesthetics of the packaging. These factors do not differ in relation to the three categories of dietary supplements analyzed.

Thus, in the case of hair, skin and nail strengthening supplements, the functionality of the packaging turned out to be its most important aspect, and in the case of supplements supporting slimming and magnesium supplements, the information contained therein is the most important element of the packaging in the opinion of consumers. The results of our study indicate that consumers are prone to decide not to buy a dietary supplement if they feel that the preparation has an inadequate packaging (1/4 of respondents have made such a decision). The main reason for withdrawing from a purchase was a lack of reliable and comprehensive information about the product properties on the packaging and inadequate aesthetic values. This very clearly indicates how important it is for the process of designing the visual layer of dietary supplement packaging to be done with due diligence, based on the preferences and expectations of target consumers. The dynamically growing market of dietary supplements globally, as well as in Poland, is giving rise to an ever-greater need for such research revealing more about how consumers perceive dietary supplement packaging, and how such packaging fulfils its various interrelated functions — especially the information function. In the era of the continual development of online and self-service stores, such packaging has become one of the key sources of information about dietary supplements. Our study on the determinants of the choice of dietary supplements within three separate product groups (strengthening the hair, skin and nails; supporting weight loss; containing magnesium) is admittedly only preliminary due to the selection and limited size of the research sample, but it offers a promising prelude to other, more advanced research.

References

1. Abullahi, N. (2018). Advances in food packaging technology — A review. Journal of Postharvest Technology, 06(4), 55–64.
2. Ankiel, M., & Sojkin, B. (2018). Wartość informacyjna opakowań kosmetyków jako determinanta decyzji nabywczych konsumentów. Handel Wewnętrzny, 4(375), vol. II, 296–306.
3. Ankiel, M., & Walenciak, M. (2018). Rola opakowań produktów w innowacyjnych formach sprzedaży. In M. Paździor, J. Żuchowski, & R. Zieliński (Eds.), Wybrane problemy jakości wyrobów przemysłowych (pp. 97–104). ISBN 978-83-7351-848-3.
4. Ankiel-Homa, M. (2012). Wartość komunikacyjna opakowań jednostkowych. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu. ISBN: 978-83-7417-700-9
5. Ankiel-Homa, M., Czaja-Jagielska, N., & Korzeniowski A. (2011). Innowacje w opakowalnictwie. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu. ISBN: 97883-7417-539-5
6. Auttarapong, D. (2012). Packaging design expert system based on relation between packaging and perception on consumer. Procedia Engineering, 32. 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.01.1272.
7. Bahrainizad, M., & Rajabi, A. (2018). Consumers’ perception of usability of product packaging and impulse buying: Considering consumers’ mood and time pressure as moderating variables. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 9(2), 262–282. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-04-2016-0030.
8. Barska, A., & Wyrwa, J. (2017). Innovations in the food packaging market: Intelligent packaging — a review. Czech Journal Food Science, 35, 1–6. https://doi.org/ 10.17221/268/2016-CJFS.
9. Bigoin-Gagnan, A., & Lacoste-Badie, S. (2018). Symmetry influences packaging aesthetic evaluation and purchase intention. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 46(11/12), 1026–1040. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-06-2017-0123.
10. Butkeviciene, V., Stavinskiene J., & Rutelione, A. (2008). Impact of consumer package communication on consumer decision making process. The Engineering Economics, 1(56), 57–65.
11. Casillas, C. (2013). Food packaging’s role in food safety. Food Processing Magazine, 5.
12. EU Food Supplements Directive. (2002). Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (Text with EEA relevance). Official Journal L 183, 12/07/2002 pp. 0051–0057
13. GIS. (2017). https://rejestrzp.gis.gov.pl/index.php/przegladaj/2017 (retrieved 2018.08.20).
14. Granger, C. W. J., & Billson, A. (1972). Consumers’ attitudes toward package size and price. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(3), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002224377200900301.
15. Grundey, D. (2010). Functionality of product packaging: Surveying consumers’ attitude towards selected cosmetic brands. Economics & Sociology, 3(1), 87–103.
16. Homer, P. M., & Gauntt, S. G. (1992). The role of imagery in the processing of visual and verbal packaging information. Journal of Mental Imagery, 16(3–4), 123–144.
17. Research and Markets (n.d.). Global Dietary Supplements Market — Growth, Trends, and Forecast (2019–2024). https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/4602409/globaldietarysupplements-market-growth (retrieved 2018.07.10).
18. Jamal, A., Khan, M .S., & Tsesmetzi, M. S. (2012). Information cues roles in product evaluations: The case of the UK cosmetics market. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 20(3), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2011.643919.
19. Kuvykaite, R., Dovaliene, A., & Navickiene, L. (2009). Impact of package elements on consumers’ purchase decision. Economics and Management, 14, 441–447.
20. Lee, D. S., Yam, K. L., Piergiovanni, L. (2008). Food Packaging Science and Technology. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9780824727796.
21. McDaniel, C., & Baker, R. C. (1977). Convenience food packaging and the perception of product quality. Journal of Marketing, 41(4), 57–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002224297704100406.
22. Moskowitz, H. R., Saguy, I. S., & Straus, T. (2009). Part IV: Proper packaging and preparation. In An integrated approach to new food product development. CRC Press, Boca Raton. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420065558.
23. Perry, C., & Cochet, M. (2009). Consumer packaged goods product development process in the 21st century: Product lifecycle management emerges as a key innovation driver. In H. R. Moskowitz, I. S. Saguy, & T. Straus (Eds.), An integrated approach to new food product development (Part III: The Right Food, Chapter 8). CRC Press, Boca Raton. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420065558.
24. Rambabu, R., & Porika, R. (2020). Packaging strategies: knowledge outlook on consumer buying behavior. Journal of Industry-University Collaboration, 2(2), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIUC-10-2019-0017.
25. Research and Markets (n.d.). Global Dietary Supplements Market — Growth, Trends, and Forecast (2019 — 2024). https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/4602409/globaldietarysupplements-market-growth (retrieved 2018.07.10).
26. Shah, S., Ahmad, A., & Ahmad, N. (2013). Role of packaging in consumer buying behavior: A study of University Students of Peshawar Region KPK Pakistan. International Review of Basic and Applied Sciences, 1(2), 35–41.
27. Underwood, R. L., Klein, N. M., & Burke, R. R. (2001). Packaging communication: Attentional effects of product imagery. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(7), 403-422. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420110410531.
28. Polish Food Safety Act. (2006). Ustawa o bezpieczeństwie żywności i żywienia z dnia 25 sierpnia 2006 r. (Dz.U. z 2006 r. Nr 171, item 1225 as amended)
29. Wang, E. (2013). The influence of visual packaging design on perceived food product quality, value, and brand preference. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 41(10), 805–816. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-12-2012-0113.

Integralnym elementem produktów żywnościowych są opakowania jednostkowe — znakomita większość produktów nie może zostać wprowadzona do obrotu towarowego bez opakowania (Jamal, Khan i Tsesmetzi, 2012).

Opakowania jednostkowe żywności spełniają wiele zazębiających się funkcji — ochronną, transportową, informacyjną (funkcje podstawowe), a także marketingową, użytkową, ekologiczną czy ekonomiczną (funkcje wtórne) (Soroka, 2002; Robertson, 2013; Shah, Ahmed i Ahmad, 2013). Ogromny potencjał opakowań produktów żywnościowych (generowany takimi elementami jak forma konstrukcyjna, kształt, materiał opakowaniowy, kolorystyka i grafika, etykieta) sprawia, że stają się one skutecznym narzędziem działań marketingowych: wyróżnikiem wartości produktu/marki, narzędziem budowania przewagi konkurencyjnej, kreatorem wizerunku marki (Silayoi i Speece, 2004, 2007; Grundey, 2010; Hota i Charry, 2014; Fenko, Kersten i Bialkova, 2016; Ankiel i Sojkin, 2018; Nura, 2018). Warto również zaznaczyć, iż z punktu widzenia konsumenta opakowanie jednostkowe jest źródłem rozlicznych, kluczowych informacji o produkcie żywnościowym oraz jedną z istotnych determinant nabywczych (Butkeviciene, Stavinskiene i Rutelione, 2008, Wang, Chou i Wen Lan, 2010; Wang, 2013, Manijeh i Azadeh, 2017; Bigoin-Gagnan i Lacoste-Badie, 2017).

Dynamicznie rozwijający się sektor produktów spożywczych nierozerwalnie wiąże się z rozwojem sektora opakowań adresowanych do żywności, które obecnie muszą spełniać coraz większe wymagania (zarówno w przypadku producentów, pośredników handlowych, jak i ostatecznych nabywców). Opakowania powinny cechować się maksymalnym bezpieczeństwem wobec opakowanej żywności, nowoczesnym designem, innowacyjnymi rozwiązaniami konstrukcyjno-graficznymi, dużą użytecznością dla konsumentów, przyjaznością dla środowiska oraz wysokimi walorami komunikacyjnymi (Lee, Yam i Piergiovanni, 2008; Grundey, 2010; Ankiel-Homa, Czaja-Jagielska i Korzeniowski, 2011, Auttarapong, 2012; Jamal, Khan i Tsesmetzi, 2012; Casillas, 2013; Barska i Wyrwa, 2017).

Analizując kanały dystrybucji żywności w Polsce, można zauważyć, iż podstawowym kanałem dystrybucji stały się sklepy o samoobsługowej formie sprzedaży (hiper- i supermarkety, dyskonty, sklepy typu convenience).

Należy również zwrócić uwagę, iż dynamicznie rozwija się sprzedaż internetowa żywności (www.wiadomościhandlowe, 15.01.2020). Przywołane kanały dystrybucji wymagają od opakowań żywności (poza funkcją ochronną, logistyczną czy marketingową) wysoce rozbudowanej funkcji informacyjnej — oczywiste jest bowiem, iż w sklepach o samoobsługowej formie sprzedaży opakowanie jest głównym źródłem informacji o produkcie i pełni rolę „niemego sprzedawcy” w relacji produkt–nabywca (Ankiel i Walenciak, 2016; Magnier i Crie, 2015; Bininnger, 2017). W tym kontekście funkcja informacyjna (generowana przez wartość informacyjną opakowań) nabiera szczególnego znaczenia zarówno w procesie zakupu, jak i konsumpcji produktów spożywczych. Istota funkcji informacyjnej opakowań jednostkowych produktów odnosi się do relacji zachodzących w następującym układzie: opakowanie — produkt — konsument — środowisko (Ankiel-Homa, 2012). W powyższym układzie celem funkcji informacyjnej opakowań jest dostarczenie konsumentowi rzetelnej, fachowej i zrozumiałej informacji o produkcie (jego cechach, właściwościach, atrybutach, możliwościach wykorzystania) (Dörnyei i Gyulavári, 2016; Fenko, Kersten i Bialkova, 2016).

Informacje umieszczone na opakowaniach żywności (lub na etykiecie stanowiącej integralną część opakowania) mogą być zakodowane w postaci znaków językowych (jak wyrazy, wyrażenia) oraz ideograficznych (jak cyfry, kombinacje liter i cyfr) oraz/lub ikonicznych (fotografie, rysunki i inne znaki graficzne) (Ankiel-Homa, 2012, s. 178).

Zasady znakowania opakowań żywności w Unii Europejskiej zawarte są w Rozporządzeniu Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 1169/2011 z 25 października 2011 r. Rozporządzenie powyższe precyzuje wykaz obligatoryjnych informacji zamieszczanych na opakowaniach żywności, do których należą:

• informacje o tożsamości i składzie, właściwościach lub innych cechach danego środka spożywczego,
• informacje o ochronie zdrowia konsumentów, stosowaniu środka spożywczego, trwałości produktu, sposobie przechowywania i bezpieczeństwie użycia,
• informacje o charakterystyce żywieniowej, które umożliwiają konsumentom podejmowanie świadomych wyborów zakupowych i konsumpcyjnych,
• informacje o występowaniu składników alergennych (bez względu na ich ilość),
• informacje o wartości odżywczej produktu (wartości energetycznej oraz zawartości tłuszczu, kwasów tłuszczowych nasyconych, węglowodanów, cukrów, białka i soli).

Poza informacjami obowiązkowymi producent/wprowadzający produkt do obrotu może umieścić fakultatywne informacje, głównie o charakterze marketingowym i edukacyjnym, do których należą zwłaszcza:

• podkreślające szczególne, wyróżniające cechy i atrybuty produktu (np. certyfikaty produktowe, rekomendacje instytutów rynkowych),
• kreujące pożądany wizerunek produktu i marki produktu żywnościowego (np. zdobienia, ornamenty i inne znaki językowo-graficzne),
• informujące o działaniach promocyjnych związanych z produktem żywnościowym (np. kod QR przekierowujący do reklamy produktu, fanpage).

W zależności od kategorii żywności, marki, pilności potrzeb czy też miejsca sprzedaży produktu konsument w procesie zakupu postrzega w różnym zakresie i analizuje wybrane elementy składowe stanowiące o wartości informacyjnej opakowań. Przez pryzmat postrzeganych i analizowanych informacji zakodowanych w postaci znaków na opakowaniach konsument identyfikuje cechy i atrybuty produktu oraz ocenia jego wartość, co wpływa na wybór i decyzję zakupu danego produktu żywnościowego.

Cel, zakres i metodyka badawcza

Głównym celem przeprowadzonego badania była identyfikacja zachowań nabywczych konsumentów w zakresie wybranych kategorii produktów żywnościowych w Polsce. Jednym z kluczowych aspektów badawczych była diagnoza postrzegania przez konsumentów informacji zawartych na opakowaniach żywności, w tym zarówno informacji obligatoryjnych, jak i fakultatywnych, które są analizowane w procesie zakupu. Ponadto przeprowadzona procedura badawcza pozwoliła na wyodrębnienie i ocenę kluczowych informacji zawartych na opakowaniach żywności wpływających na decyzję zakupu tych produktów. Przedmiotem badania były opakowania produktów żywnościowych, a ściślej mówiąc informacje zawarte na opakowaniach bądź na etykietach stanowiących ich integralną część. Badanie zostało przeprowadzone metodą wywiadu bezpośredniego skategoryzowanego na terenie całej Polski w okresie od kwietnia do maja 2019 r. Narzędziem badawczym był przygotowany i zweryfikowany w pilotażu kwestionariusz wywiadu. Populację badawczą stanowiły gospodynie domowe deklarujące systematyczne dokonywanie zakupu produktów żywnościowych. Dobór próby badawczej (N = 900) został przeprowadzony metodą kwotową (kryteria doboru: wiek i miejsce zamieszkania), co spełniało postulat zachowania względnej reprezentatywności populacji badawczej¹.

Identyfikacja informacji na opakowaniach wpływających na decyzję zakupu żywności

Jak już wspominano, jednym z zasadniczych celów przeprowadzonego badania była identyfikacja i ocena informacji umieszczonych na opakowaniach jednostkowych w kontekście ich wpływu na decyzje zakupu produktów żywnościowych. Opakowania jednostkowe produktów żywnościowych są nośnikiem rozlicznych informacji (obligatoryjnych i fakultatywnych) i oczywiste jest, że kontekst zakupowy sprawia, iż nie wszystkie są poddawane analizie w procesie wyboru produktów i nie wszystkie wpływają na decyzje nabywcze konsumenta (głównie ze względu na presję czasu). Zatem zasadne jest zidentyfikowanie tych informacji, które są znaczące dla konsumenta, czyli postrzegane i analizowane przez niego w procesie zakupu żywności. Jest to szczególnie istotne w kontekście „nadmiaru” informacji fakultatywnych na opakowaniach. A zatem ważne jest ustalenie, które z nich są istotne dla konsumenta. Będzie to stanowić cenną wskazówkę dla producentów/podmiotów wprowadzających produkt do obrodu towarowego w zakresie doboru fakultatywnych elementów informacyjnych oraz niwelowania asymetrii informacji w relacji producent-konsument.

W badaniu ocenie poddano 26 kategorii informacji zawartych na opakowaniach żywności, których pomiaru ważności dla konsumentki(-ta) dokonano za pomocą skali Likerta 2 . Wyniki oceny znaczenia poszczególnych informacji na opakowaniach żywności w procesie nabywczym konsumenta zaprezentowano w tabeli 1.

Jak wynika z danych zaprezentowanych w tabeli 1, najistotniejsze dla konsumenta (gospodyni domowej) informacje umieszczone na opakowaniach żywności wpływające na proces zakupowy to informacje dotyczące trwałości produktu (data minimalnej trwałości, termin przydatności do spożycia) — średnia 4,49 oraz skład produktu — średnia 4,34. Informacje powyższe należą do kategorii obligatoryjnych i są kluczowe w procesie konsumpcji żywności głównie ze względu na minimalizację ryzyka zdrowotnego (związanego m.in. z konsumpcją produktu przeterminowanego lub konsumpcją produktu, który w składzie zawiera silny dla konsumenta alergen).

Co ciekawe, poza powyższymi informacjami, żadna inna poddana ocenie kategoria nie uzyskała średniej powyżej 4,0. Badane gospodynie domowe wskazały, iż istotne dla nich w procesie wyboru i zakupu produktów żywnościowych są również takie informacje, jak: warunki przechowywania produktu — średnia 3,98, wartości odżywcze produktu — średnia 3,93 oraz sugerowana cena produktu — średnia 3,92. Analizując powyższe dane, można zauważyć, iż zarówno warunki przechowywania produktu, jak i wartości odżywcze produktu są również kluczowymi informacjami w procesie konsumpcji produktu i, podobnie jak w przypadku najwyżej ocenionych informacji, wpływają na minimalizację ryzyka zdrowotnego. Natomiast sugerowana cena produktu (jeśli jest umieszczona na opakowaniu) to kluczowa ekonomiczna determinanta zakupu.

Z kolei zdaniem badanych do kategorii informacji umieszczonych na opakowaniu w najmniejszym stopniu wpływających na wybór oraz decyzję nabywczą należą: kody QR — średnia 2,47, rysunki i zdobienia — średnia 2,55, kody kreskowe — średnia 2,59 oraz strona internetowa producenta — średnia 2,64. Wszystkie te kategorie znakowania opakowań należą do nieobowiązkowych i umieszczanie ich jest arbitralną decyzją podmiotu wprowadzającego produkt do obrotu towarowego. Warto jednak zauważyć, iż o ile kody QR i strona internetowa producenta, jako informacje o typowo marketingowym przesłaniu, nie mają większego znaczenia w procesie wyboru i zakupu produktów żywnościowych, o tyle mogą mieć znaczenie w procesie konsumpcji, np. w sytuacji, gdy konsument byłby zainteresowany wzięciem udziału w kampanii reklamowej angażującej klienta (przekierowanie kodem QR do regulaminu promocji lub na stronę producenta).

Zatem w kontekście natłoku znaków i kodów umieszczanych na opakowaniu produktów żywnościowych istotny jest odpowiedni dobór informacji fakultatywnych, tak aby umieszczane były informacje ważne dla konsumenta i niezaburzające wartości i czystości komunikacyjnej opakowania czy etykiety produktu żywnościowego.

Identyfikacja kluczowych wyznaczników wartości informacyjnej opakowań żywności

W celu redukcji wieloelementowego zbioru badanych kategorii informacji umieszczonych na opakowaniach żywności (zmiennych mierzalnych) oraz wyodrębnienia najistotniejszych informacji stanowiących o wartości informacyjnej opakowań posłużono się metodą analizy głównych składowych (metoda analizy czynnikowej). W celu weryfikacji poprawności zastosowania analizy głównych składowych przeprowadzono testy sferyczności Bartletta oraz wyliczono wskaźnik Kaisera–Meyera–Olkina (Gatnar i Walesiak, 2007), a uzyskana wartość KMO powyżej 0,9 potwierdziła zasadność przeprowadzenia analizy.

Na potrzeby badania zastosowano metodę głównych składowych z rotacją ładunków czynnikowych Varimax. W badaniu wyodrębniono główne czynniki odnoszące się do informacji zakodowanych na opakowaniach produktów żywnościowych i wpływające na decyzje zakupu (przy wykorzystaniu kryterium Kaisera). Następnie, korzystając z metody głównych składowych z rotacją Varimax, dokonano obliczenia ładunków czynnikowych.

Ostatecznie w celu poddania interpretacji czynników wspólnych wydzielono zmienne, które są skorelowane z poszczególnymi czynnikami.

Jak wynika z przeprowadzonej analizy, najistotniejsze dla gospodyń domowych informacje umieszczone na opakowaniach jednostkowych, które wpływają na zakup, to głównie informacje o produkcie, marce i producencie, czyli ważne, obligatoryjne informacje charakteryzujące produkt, producenta oraz informujące o warunkach przechowywania i terminie przydatności produktu do spożycia. Drugie w kolejności to informacje, które szczegółowo charakteryzują wartość odżywczą produktu (wartość energetyczną, zawartość tłuszczu, kwasów tłuszczowych nasyconych, węglowodanów, cukrów, białka i soli) — od stycznia 2016 r. są one obowiązkowe. Do kluczowych informacji na opakowaniach żywności zalicza się również informacje o charakterze marketingowym, np. certyfikaty jakościowe produktu/producenta i inne komunikaty poświadczające jakość produktu oraz sugerowaną cenę detaliczną.

Można zatem przyjąć, iż kluczowe wyznaczniki wartości informacyjnej opakowań jednostkowych żywności determinujące proces nabywczy konsumentów są następujące:

• czynnik 1. — identyfikacja produktu (nazwa, marka, producent),
• czynnik 2. — jakościowe i marketingowe wyróżniki produktu (certyfikaty i deklaracje jakościowe, informacje o produkcji, informacje na stronie internetowej producenta),
• czynnik 3. — przechowywanie produktu (warunki przechowywania, okres trwałości produktu),
• czynnik 4. — wartość odżywcza produktu (w tym zawartości tłuszczu, kwasów tłuszczowych nasyconych, węglowodanów, cukrów, białka i soli),
• czynnik 5. — sugerowana cena.

Oceniając wyodrębnione wyznaczniki wartości informacyjnej opakowań produktów żywnościowych, można stwierdzić, iż kluczowe dla konsumentów informacje należą do kategorii obligatoryjnych znaków i kodów, a wyniki badania potwierdzają zasadność ich umieszczania na opakowaniach produktów żywnościowych. Składowe wartości informacyjnej opakowań żywności mają poprzez swój przekaz komunikacyjny umożliwić identyfikację produktu, wskazać, jak odpowiednio i jak długo można przechowywać produkt, oraz uświadomić konsumentowi, jaka jest wartość odżywcza produktu i zawartość poszczególnych składników odżywczych (pokarmowych).

Powyższe informacje są kluczowe w procesie zakupu i wpływają na ograniczenie ryzyka zdrowotnego w procesie konsumpcji żywności. Jak już wspominano, oprócz informacji obligatoryjnych na opakowaniach żywności znajdują się również informacje fakultatywne, z których kluczowe dla wartości informacyjnej okazały się komunikaty o jakościowych i marketingowych wyróżnikach produktów oraz sugerowana cena detaliczna.

Podsumowanie

Podsumowując zaprezentowane wyniki badań, których celem była identyfikacja kluczowych informacji zamieszczonych na opakowaniach jednostkowych produktów żywnościowych (inaczej: wyznaczników wartości informacyjnej), można stwierdzić, iż w procesie zakupu istotne dla konsumenta są głównie informacje, których umieszczanie wynika z obowiązujących w Unii Europejskiej przepisów prawa. Zalicza się do nich: nazwę produktu, nazwę producenta oraz markę (czyli podstawowe informacje identyfikujące produkt), termin trwałości produktu oraz warunki przechowywania, a także szczegółowe dane dotyczące wartości odżywczej produktu, w tym zawartości poszczególnych składników odżywczych (białka, węglowodany, kwasy tłuszczowe nasycone i sól). Ponadto w procesie nabywczym ważne dla konsumenta są również informacje o charakterze promocyjnym, wskazujące na dodatkowe korzyści, które otrzyma, kupując wybrany produkt (certyfikaty i deklaracje jakościowe, szczególne, wyróżniające sposoby produkcji, np. przy użyciu tradycyjnych metod).

Warto podkreślić, iż obserwując opakowania produktów żywnościowych, nadal można zauważyć skłonność producentów do umieszczania wielu (być może zbędnych) informacji i infografik (aczkolwiek powoli zaczyna być zauważalny trend „czystej etykiety”, zgodnie z którym produkt ma prosty skład, a etykieta tylko wymagane prawem elementy). Ponadto, biorąc pod uwagę ograniczone zasoby czasowe konsumenta w toku dokonywania zakupów, nadmiar informacji (fakultatywnych) może zniechęcać do wyboru danej marki zamiast stanowić bodziec prozakupowy. Dlatego też zasadne jest identyfikowanie kluczowych informacji umieszczanych na opakowaniach żywności z punktu widzenia nabywców/konsumentów i projektowanie wartości informacyjnej opakowań w taki sposób, aby niwelować asymetrię informacji na linii producent-konsument.

Przypisy

¹ Badanie objęło kobiety/gospodynie domowe w 8 miastach w Polsce: Warszawie, Wrocławiu, Poznaniu, Szczecinie, Krakowie, Katowicach, Olsztynie i Zielonej Górze. Struktura wg wieku próby w każdym z miast odpowiadała strukturze wiekowej w każdym z miast w przedziale 20–60+ lat.

² Wartości na skali Likerta: (1) zdecydowanie nieważna, (2) raczej nieważna, (3) ani tak, ani nie, (4) raczej ważna oraz (5) zdecydowanie ważna.

Referencje

1. Ankiel, M., Sojkin, B. (2018). Wartość informacyjna opakowań kosmetyków jako determinanta decyzji nabywczych konsumentów. Handel Wewnętrzny, (4/375), t. II, 296–306.
2. Ankiel, M., Walenciak, M. (2016). Determinanty wartości informacyjnej opakowań jednostkowych produktów kosmetycznych. Opakowanie, (10).
3. Ankiel-Homa, M. (2012). Wartość komunikacyjna opakowań jednostkowych. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu.
4. Ankiel-Homa, M., Czaja-Jagielska, N., Korzeniowski, A. (2011). Innowacje w opakowalnictwie. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu.
5. Auttarapong, D. (2012). Packaging design expert system based on relation between packaging and perception on consumer. Procedia Engineering, (32).
6. Barska, A., Wyrwa, J. (2017). Innovations in the food packaging market — intelligent packaging — a review. Czech Journal Food Science, (35), 1–6.
7. Bigoin-Gagnan, A., Lacoste-Badie, S. (2017). Symmetry influences packaging aesthetic evaluation and purchase intention. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 46(11/12), 1026–1040.
8. Bininnger, A. S. (2017). Perception of naturalness of food packaging and its role in consumer product evaluation. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 23(3), 251–266.
9. Butkeviciene, V., Stavinskiene, J., Rutelione, A. (2008). Impact of Consumer Package Communication on Consumer Decision Making Process. Engineering Economics, (1).
10. Casillas, C. (2013). Food packaging’ role in food safety. Food Processing, (5).
11. Dörnyei, K. R., Gyulavári, T. (2015). Why do not you read the label? — an integrated framework of consumer label information search. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(1), 92–100.
12. Fenko, A., Kersten, L., Bialkova, S. (2016). Overcoming consumer scepticism toward food labels: The role of multisensory experience. Food Quality and Preference, 48 (part A), 81–92.
13. Gatnar, E., Walesiak, M. (2007). Statystyczna analiza danych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
14. Grundey, D. (2010). Functionality of Product Packaging: Surveying Consumers’ Attitude Towards Selected Cosmetic Brands. Economics & Sociology, 3(1), 87–103
15. Hota, M., Charry, K. (2014). The impact of visual and child-oriented packaging elements versus information on children’s purchase influence across various age groups. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 42(11/12), 1069–1082.
16. Jamal, A., Khan, M. S., Tsesmetzi, M. S. (2012). Information cues roles in product evaluations: The case of the UK cosmetics market. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 20(3), 249–265.
17. Lee, D. S., Yam, K. L., Piergiovanni, L. (2008). Food Packaging Science and Technology.CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
18. Magnier, L., Crie, D. (2015). Communicating packaging eco-friendliness: An exploration of consumers’ perceptions of eco-designed packaging. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 43(4/5), 350–366.
19. Manijeh, B., Azadeh, R. (2017). Consumers’ perception of usability of product packaging and impulse buying. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 9(2), 262–282
20. Nura, A. (2018). Advances in food packaging technology: A review. Journal of Postharvest Technology, 06(4), 55–64.
21. Robertson, G. L. (2013). Food Packaging: Principles and Practice. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
22. Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 1169/2011 z 25 października 2011 r. w sprawie przekazywania konsumentom informacji na temat żywności (Dz.U. UE L304/18 z 22.11.2011).
23. Shah, S., Ahmed, A., Ahmad, N. (2013). Role of Packaging in Consumer Buying Behavior. International Review of Basic and Applied Sciences, 1(2), 35–41.
24. Silayoi, P., Speece, M. (2004). Packaging and purchasing decisions: An exploratory study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure. British Food Journal, 66(8), 607–628.
25. Silayoi, P., Speece, M. (2007). The importance of packaging attributes: A conjoint analysis approach. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12), 1495–1517.
26. Soroka, W. (2002). Fundamentals of Packaging Technology. Naperville: IOPP.
27. Wang, E. (2013). The influence of visual packaging design on perceived food product quality, value, and brand preference. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 41(10), s. 805–816.
28. Wang, R. W. Y., Chou, M. C., Wen Lan, P. (2010). Research into the elements of design differentiation in the findability of beverage packaging. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5(2), 1–24.