The Role of Trust in The Perception of The Quality of Local Food Products - With Particular Reference To Direct Relationships Between Producer and Consumer

25/9/2014 The role of trust in the perception of the quality of local food products: with particular reference to direct
relationships between producer and

http://aof.revues.org/204?lang=fr 1/16
Anthropology of food
4 | May 2005 :
Local Foods
The role of trust in the
perception of the quality of
local food products: with
particular reference to direct
relationships between
producer and consumer
ANNE-HLNE PRIGENT-SIMONIN ET CATHERINE HRAULT-FOURNIER
Rsums
Franais English
Cette recherche sintresse la perception de la qualit des produits alimentaires travers
les relations directes entre producteurs et consommateurs. Elle sefforce dapporter un
clairage sur la manire dont se construisent ou se reconstruisent les liens de proximit
entre ces acteurs paralllement un systme de commercialisation plus classique. Elle a
plus prcisment pour ambition dtudier linfluence des relations directes entre un
producteur et un consommateur sur la manire dont ce dernier peroit la qualit des
produits alimentaires. Pour rpondre ce questionnement nous avons choisi deux terrains
diffrents en fonction de la nature des relations dveloppes : la vente directe de viande de
buf apparue suite la crise de la vache folle et lanimation commerciale par des leveurs
de volaille dans les grandes surfaces. Les rsultats tendent montrer dune part que la
dimension relationnelle prend une part effective dans le processus de qualification des
produits alimentaires et dautre part que linfluence quelle exerce est trs troitement lie
la nature de la confiance tablie entre les acteurs concerns.
This research examines how the quality of food products is perceived when there is a direct
relationship between the producer and consumer. It attempts to throw light on the way that
customer-intimacy links are forged or restored between these two participants in the chain
and draws a parallel with the more standard distribution channels. The goal is more
precisely to study the influence of direct relationship on consumers perception of food
quality. To address these issues we have selected two different areas according to the type
of relationship developed: the farmer-to-consumer sale of beef that emerged after the BSE
crisis and promotional events in the supermarkets organized by chicken farmers. The
results show that the relational dimension does influence the qualification process of food
products, and that this influence is closely linked to the components of trust emerging from
the relationship.
25/9/2014 The role of trust in the perception of the quality of local food products: with particular reference to direct relationships between producer and
Entres dindex
Keywords : local food, producer-to-consumer relationship, trust, quality, anjou foodstuffs
Texte intgral
Introduction
The relational dimension of quality:
the theoretical framework and
objectives of the study
Over the last ten years, the agri-food sector has been affected by a series of
incidents and crises that have revealed just how complex this sector is to
consumers. New risk, safety and quality related demands have thus emerged,
leading economic and institutional parties to redefine foodstuff production and
marketing methods
1
. In this area there is an increasing activity by public
authorities (official quality labels) and private initiatives in the distribution sector
(quality systems, supermarkets own local produce brands). Whilst such labels
for identifying the quality and origin of farm and food products are developing,
new forms of trade between the producer and consumer are also emerging
simultaneously (direct producer-to-consumer sales, farmers markets, CSA
2
, etc.)
showing that the participants are following a converging trend that cannot simply
be considered as an economic transaction. These new forms of trade represent a
new type of social contract between consumers seeking reassurance and producers
seeking legitimacy. On market stalls, the pumpkins suddenly look fuller, the meat
seems more tender and the wine smoother
3
, as if the fact that they come directly
from the producer gives them a different or specific quality.
1
In this contribution, we shall attempt to understand how the relational
dimension contributes in part to the notion of quality, alongside the other
dimensions that are more frequently mentioned: nutritional and health value,
functional and organoleptic qualities, etc. Using three case studies the direct
sale of beef, Anjou wine and promotional events organized in hypermarkets by the
producers of red-label poultry we will analyze in detail, the main components of
trust emerging within customer intimacy-links and their role in the qualification
process of food products.
2
Firstly we shall provide details of the theoretical framework for the study in
order to identify what contributes to the quality of a foodstuff for different players.
Secondly, we shall present the methodological choices we made; and thirdly, we
shall show that direct relationships between producers and consumers are varied
and explain how they develop to become trust devices. Finally, we shall conclude
by considering the impact of these relationships on the conceptualization of food
quality.
3
To clarify the concept of relationship-linked quality, we must describe the
theoretical framework we used for our research. We will give details here of what
we mean by a direct producer-to-consumer relationship and by quality of food
products. This will enable us to envisage the mechanisms consumers use to
4
Direct relationship as a meeting point
Quality: a multidimensional concept
assess the quality of food products and to emphasize the role played by trust in the
qualification process of food products.
During the past decade, a lot of research has focused on the exploration of new
types of adjustment to the market that have emerged and operated, more
particularly by studying how they are embedded in the social environment
4
. In
this study we will not cover the way in which these customer intimacy
relationships are set up between producers and consumers, but instead we will
focus on the components of the relationship. The direct relationship we envisage
here is first and foremost based on a meeting between a producer and a consumer
at a point of sale, whether the meeting takes place in a market, on a farm, at a
trade fair or at a promotional event in a supermarket or hypermarket. This
deliberately simplified definition of the relationship is justified by the fact that our
goal was to pay special attention to the types of relationship observed and to
demonstrate the variety and specificity of the three case studies. Although we are
aware of a considerable body of research in the Social Sciences into the
relationships between the players, there are very few reports on specific types of
producer-to-consumer relationships. We have therefore chosen to propose our
own framework to describe and understand these relationships in order to
consider their contribution to the conceptualization of food quality.
5
Over the past thirty years, many definitions of the quality of food products have
been suggested by sociologists, economists and marketers as well as by the agro-
food industry producers. Above all, quality is often viewed as a way to ensure that
a product is safe for consumers. For others, quality refers to the capacity of a
product/service to satisfy a set of user expectations (AFNOR, 1982) which are
very varied: hygienic, nutritional, organoleptic (Sylvander, 2002).
6
All these definitions of quality leave plenty of room for subjective interpretation
and show how complex the concept is. Indeed, the quality of food can be described
as a multidimensional piece of data. Intrinsic data relating to the product itself is
thus combined with more symbolic data calling upon beliefs and the imagination.
According to Cazes-Valette (2001), seven distinct facets could be distinguished to
define quality (Cf. Figure 1). Nutritional quality is the foods overall contribution
to a balanced diet. Its hygienic quality means that it contains no harmful or toxic
substance and is therefore supposedly good for your health. Over the last few
years the consumer has become increasingly focused on whether the product is
practical to purchase, handle, transport, prepare and use, so functional properties
have now become an increasingly valued dimension for consumers in the western
world. The organoleptic quality is related to the sensory pleasure or displeasure
that the product procures when it is picked, purchased or eaten. Food also has a
social dimension; the way we select, cook or eat food enables us to position
ourselves in terms of belonging to a group or in relation to a reference group.
These are known as social qualities. A food should also be on the list of eatable
products as defined by the consumers cultural background. This will define the
symbolic quality of the product. Finally, some consumers today expect their food
to be grown using environmentally friendly practices (products from organic
farming or less intensive farming) or permitting the farmers to be paid a fair price
(fair trade, for example). These new demands can be grouped together under the
7
Figure 1: The different components of food quality - Les diffrentes facettes de la
qualit dun aliment.
Cazes-Valettes, 2001.
those that consumers can identify and assess with their sensory capacities
(taste, practicality of the product)
those that the producer claims, but that consumers cannot check
themselves (race, raised in the open air, organic, traditional, local
produce, animal welfare, traceable)
Judgment devices
humanistic quality of the food product.
These different dimensions can be grouped together into two main categories,
those that relate to the generic quality of the products and those that are more
connected to their specific quality. The general consensus is that the evaluation of
the generic quality of a food product is largely dependent on its healthiness and
nutritional value. The main issue for the producer is to ensure this level of quality
since the consumer considers it as essential
5
.
8
Sylvander, Porin et Mainsant (1998) draw a distinction between two types of
specific properties:
9
Quality of food is an extremely rich concept and its multiple dimensions do not
make the comprehension of consumers choices easy. Indeed, different consumer
groups will focus on different quality features. Today, several qualification devices
have been set up by public authorities, industrialists and producers to help them
to identify quality products.
10
A consumer seeking to assess the quality of a food product can first of all refer
to a series of indicators, such as: an official quality label, the brand or even the
price, or the store. The consumer can also choose not to reason in terms of a
quality indicator and use people or organizations instead (advertiser, producer,
sales assistant, close relations who know about the product, etc.) (Sirieix et
Morrot, 2001). According to Karpik (1996), the exchange of goods or services
rarely depends on only one qualification device: a network may double the
impersonal mechanisms.
11
We have drawn a clear distinction between two categories of judgment device.
The impersonal devices: quality labels, brands, guide books, awards, diplomas and
medals - these have a marked impact on decreasing the difficulties consumers
have to face when making a choice, although they do not solve the problem
completely. Making a choice involves calling upon another set of criteria to assess
the offer: personal mechanisms. In this case, useful information will be actively
12
Trust: credibility, integrity and benevolence
When the producer and the consumer meet, the quality of food products is
conceptualized differently by the players.
sought from people who are close: friends, family, colleagues, acquaintances.
Personal devices tend to be all the more important if there is no public
information system. In this case, individuals cannot identify the true properties of
the product. The personal approach dissipates the consumers doubts and allows
players to become involved in the relationship with trust.
For Karpik (1996) trust is a practical operator that supports the delegation
relationship. Qualification devices systematically appear as trust devices.
13
Trust is a complex concept that has elicited the interest of many researchers
over the past years, to the extent that it is now often considered as one of the key
variables in the success and stability of trading partnerships. However, two
complementary approaches of trust seem to be recurrent : the first is related to
knowledge based on facts acquired over a period of time and the second is the
effect of a mysterious force that compensates for the fact that knowledge is and
always will be limited: belief. Trust will take root in a composite system combining
knowledge and beliefs. In other words No trust without belief
6
.
14
Hence, three major dimensions associated with trust can be distinguished:
competence, honesty and altruism according to Hess (1995). Gurviez (1999) still
refers to them as: credibility, integrity and benevolence.
15
The credibility that individuals grant their trading partners is based on the
belief that the latter has the know-how and the skills required to reach their goals
and carry out an assignment with efficiency and accountability (Ganesan, 1994;
Guibert, 1999). This aspect of trust has a cognitive orientation in the sense that it
is based on the reputation of a supplier, especially in terms of quality and price
(positive word of mouth, advertising, etc.) and is reinforced when positive
purchasing and consumption occur (satisfaction, familiarity, etc.). This belief in
the partners capabilities is built upon the basis of proof that has been gathered
directly or indirectly.
16
The partners integrity or honesty is mainly related to his goodwill to respect his
commitment. Integrity is attributing loyal motivations to the partner as
regards his commitment to fulfilling the pledge he has made to respect the terms
of trade
7
.
17
Benevolence is often qualified as the emotional component of trust in the sense
that it is based on a feeling or a vague impression founded on human emotions
rather than an evaluation based on different sets of information. For Mac Allister
(1996), emotional trust is not related to an economic transaction alone; it also
reveals an emotional link between two people. For Coleman (1990), this form of
trust is based on the partners identity. It contributes to the development of a
feeling of attachment, identification and ties between the partners (emotional
commitment).
18
Our main concern and motivation here is to understand how trust devices
emerging from direct relationships between a producer and a consumer
contribute to the conceptualization of quality food products. Is it possible to talk
about a new dimension of food quality, describing it as the quality of the product,
in the same way as the seven previously mentioned facets: nutritional, hygienic
quality, social, humanistic, symbolic, functional and organoleptic?
19
This research is mainly descriptive and as such is not based on constructing
testable hypotheses but on studying the relevance of three proposals:
20
The effect of the relationship on perceived quality is based on the
emergence of trust between the player.
The effect of the relationship differs depending on the specific features of
the product and the context.
Methodology of the study
direct sale of beef from the farm, in partnership with a farmers cooperative
that provides services (slaughterhouse and cutting up carcasses) to the
farmers who sell their products direct to the customer and also runs a home
delivery service to supply beef to private customers.
direct sale of wine in partnership with a wine producers professional
organization that covers the trade associations of the Anjou Saumur
watershed.
promotional events organized by red-label poultry farmers in a
hypermarket in cooperation with a farmers cooperative society that
supervises one of the most prominent French quality labels.
The relational dimension of quality
To examine this subject we chose to observe three cases of food products that
have created a direct link between producers and consumers. Each case was
observed through a partnership with a Pays de la Loire
8
company or institution:
21
Our investigation method was exclusively qualitative. Therefore, for each of
these areas of study, we carried out a case study, some participative observations
and interviews with the involved parties.
22
During the first phase of the case studies we met the key people
9
in each of the
partner companies. This allowed us to improve our understanding of how the
direct relationship had emerged and to collect information concerning the
managements point of view on how the two parties had become involved in
building this relationship.
23
During the second stage we used participative observations of the different
types of relationships we had defined to improve our understanding of the
underlying logic on which they were based, from both the consumers and
producers standpoint. Three days were devoted to observations in each case study
to identify how the relationship operated, the people involved, the type of
exchange and the rules applied.
24
The third and final phase of investigation was based on semi-directed
interviews carried out from November 2003 to March 2004 with 50 producers
and 80 consumers. The 50 producers (27 wine growers, 16 poultry farmers and 7
beef breeders) were interviewed on their farms. Each interview lasted one hour on
average, was recorded, transcribed and subjected to a contents analysis. This
method left considerable freedom for the participants to express themselves and
appeared to be the most suitable approach for understanding the meaning of these
relationships for consumers and producers. For the 49 consumers of beef and the
9 wine consumers, the investigation conditions were similar. Because of the
specificity of the context (promotional events in a hypermarket) the interviews of
the 22 red-label poultry consumers were shorter and more controlled. Indeed, it
was not possible to record their comments.
25
The description of the way the observed relationships had emerged, the current 26
Producer-consumer relationships: a variable
intensity
The components of the relationship
The trading dimension
market situation and especially the features of the product in question, suggest
that a relationship between producer and consumer cannot be defined in only one
way. To better understand their plurality, we have chosen to describe them from a
dual standpoint taking into consideration their intensity, to be characterized using
observable indicators, and their content that to be observed through participants
experiences.
The intensity of the relationship expresses in a way the consistency, or
density of the meeting. This is envisaged here through four indicators: the
number of meetings, their frequency, the duration of the meeting and lastly
whether or not the involved parties talked to each other.
27
It is possible to position the producer-consumer relationships observed on a
scale expressing the level of interactivity between them. The lowest intensity
describes one brief meeting during which neither party spoke. This situation was
observed mostly at promotional events organized by the red-label poultry farmers.
28
The strongest intensity, on the other hand, describes many, regular meetings,
giving rise to long discussions.
29
This first intensity factor suggests that relationships are highly variable,
extending beyond the segmentation we made through the three case studies
(farmer-to-consumer sale of beef, grower-to-consumer sale of wine and
supermarket promotional events organized by poultry farmers).
30
This very broad range leads us to wonder about the necessity of finding a more
precise definition of the relationship concept. Should we define a minimum
interaction needed in order to understand its contribution to food quality?
Instead, we felt that it was important both to take into account the intensity of the
relationship as an explanatory variable, considering that it may change in time,
and to consider these relationships beyond their intensity level, analyzing all the
components of the relationship from the standpoint of the parties involved.
31
In order to describe the observed relationships, we chose to analyze the way the
consumers and producers define them. Five components seem to interact in the
interviews we conducted.
32
When a consumer acquires goods or services for a sum of money fixed by the
market, an instantaneous bilateral trading operation takes place and the terms of
the operation are agreed beforehand, so we can consider that the relationship
between the players has a trading dimension. This dimension was expressed by
the consumers and producers we surveyed who mainly referred to the prior
agreement of the terms of the exchange when they described the contents of the
relationship; in their opinion, it is particularly advantageous in comparison to
other types of trade. First of all, the price is attractive: It costs less than in a
supermarket, the product has advantageous functional properties: In its
package its perfect. All you have to do is pop it in the freezer. For the producers,
there are also economic advantages, as they make a better profit margin. We sell
almost twice or three times more expensive than we do to the trade. Through the
trading dimension, the interests of the parties, or at least the feeling that they are
gaining something in this type of operation is the basis of the relationship.
33
The cognitive dimension
The emotional dimension
The humanistic dimension
The symbolic dimension
A direct producer-to-consumer relationship is also an opportunity to exchange
knowledge. For many consumers it is a way to learn more about products (breed,
grape variety, etc.) or to learn about production methods (how the animals are
fed, how they are reared, wine-making techniques, etc.): We get our information
concerning the breed of animal, the type of meat directly from the farmer, its
interesting to know. This fulfils their need for reassurance; the producer seems
to be the most competent person to give this information. Simultaneously, for the
producers a direct relationship with the consumer is an opportunity to
demonstrate the features of their products, to talk about their work, to explain
what they do and what their constraints are, and also glean interesting details on
what the consumers think of their products. The cognitive dimension of the
relationship can thus be illustrated as a reciprocal process of exchange of
information, knowledge and know-how.
34
Within the scope of the relationships we observed, the emotional dimension is
involved at different points. In some cases it is anterior to the producer-consumer
relationship, the involved parties are already friends, relations or neighbors:
Were friends, so its easy, friendly, pleasant. In other cases, the emotional
dimension appears during the relationship, repeated meetings and transactions
are gradually replaced by emotions and shared feelings: Theyre not just
customers. We have a more human relationship, a more friendly one. Within
the scope of this emotional dimension, the commitment and the trust placed in
the producer are sometimes described as being the variables that participate in
strengthening the consumers relationship. (Morgan et Hunt, 1994).
35
Although these three dimensions; the trading, cognitive and emotional
dimensions are used by both producers and consumers to describe the direct
relationships in which they participate, there are two other dimensions that refer
more specifically to the way the consumers envisage this relationship: the
humanistic dimension and the symbolic dimension.
36
Although what we describe as the humanistic dimension seems new it is not
marginal, but refers to the interdependence and solidarity mentioned by some of
the consumers who feel that by trading directly with the farmers they are
supporting them: At the same time its a way of helping the farmers. These
consumers are really seeking to establish an alternative relationship between the
producer and consumer. They would like the producers to be paid a fair price for
their products and make sure the profits are not shared between numerous
anonymous intermediaries.
37
Finally, the last dimension used by the consumers in the construction of a
relationship with the producer is the symbolic dimension. This dimension is more
or less sub-conscious and in the consumers mind it refers to the different ways in
which they imagine how the products are produced and transformed. In a context
of food crises, the producer who sells his goods himself is associated for many
consumers with traditional farming methods: smallholdings, livestock raised in
the open air, hand-picked grapes, etc. [direct sales always suggests] Quality,
small farming, small herds. In my mind that is what direct sales is about, its the
farmer selling direct to the consumer, it means small farming. If there is no
concrete information, the way the consumer imagines the producer or the direct
sales system will become part of the relationship.
38
These five dimensions: trading, cognitive, emotional, human and symbolic, are
not always used by the participants in the same way. Different types of
relationships can be distinguished, each of which uses different combinations of
39
Five types of producer-consumer relationships
Figure 2: Five types of producer-consumer relationships (As experienced by the
consumer)
these dimensions. Although some consumers set up a relationship with the
producer based on an emotional and/or symbolic foundation, others prefer to
adopt a trading approach.
Based on the interviews we recorded with consumers, we shall therefore
describe the multiplicity of relationships observed, pooling the results of all three
case studies. We will also give details about the background to the observation of
each type of relationship.
40
Taking into account the intensity and the dimensions of the relationship
expressed by the consumers, five typical relationships emerge:
41
Relationship A is intense and characterized by many meetings, these also take
place outside a trading environment. The producer is a friend, a member of the
family or a neighbor and belongs to the network of people the producer knows:
its an opportunity to see people I like and that I hold in esteem. Here, the
preexisting emotional dimension takes over. This is the type of relationship we
observed mainly among consumers of beef and some of the consumers of wine
who buy their products directly from the farm.
42
Relationship B also features the consumers emotional involvement. They want
information about the product, but beyond that they are seeking to become
acquainted with the producer and set up a link through more personal exchanges.
The main value is above all meeting the person, having a chat, especially with
the wine-growers. At a pinch you could even say that it contributes to the quality
of the wine-tasting session afterwards. These meetings take place regularly, but
not necessarily frequently. They can last quite a long time because the consumer is
taken round the farm, or has tasted the wine and sometimes they are just an
opportunity for a discussion. In time, the producer becomes a person you like,
with whom you like to have a chat. The symbolic dimension also plays a part in
this type of relationship and is quite strongly involved in this desire for customer
intimacy. This type of relationship was observed in all three cases studied (wine,
beef and red-label poultry).
43
Relationship C is very strongly influenced by the symbolic dimension. The
image of the small farmer selling his own products, whose archetype is the wine-
grower, is meaningful and represents values for the consumers. The small farmer
and his smallholding are supposed to transfer the properties they represent to
their products; conviviality, trust, good living, intangible assets that are
more and more frequently connected to products and consumed with them.
Identifying the producer and/or where he lives counts as much, if not more than
the official guarantee provided by a quality label. The consumer rarely meets the
producer and sometimes only through an intermediary.
44
Trusting relationships
For the consumer, it is the idea of this link with the producer that is more
important than the actual relationship itself, whether the link is a direct or not. I
dont know whether the one who comes along is the farmer or not. He is one of
the farmers, that I do know. And there is a link. The symbolic dimension is also
maintained by the producers who give out signals that signify that they are
accessible, can be contacted, are available and that the relationship can become
a personal and active one at any point in time. It is also in this type of relationship
that the human dimension is most clearly expressed. This type of relationship was
also observed in all three case studies (wine, beef and red-label poultry).
45
Relationship D is characterized by a strong trading dimension rather than by its
intensity, which may vary. This type of relationship is principally constructed
around the consumers interests; and the latter has a very rational approach to the
relationship he has with the producer, usually considering that the system
operates well and is less costly. In his eyes he has no special relationship with the
producer; their relationship is envisaged as a commercial one between a supplier
and a customer. You cant really say that there is any link. The cognitive
dimension is also present insofar as the consumers appreciate having information
on the products, its features, its origin, the production methods. Here again, the
same type of relationship was observed in all of the three case studies.
46
Finally, in relationship E, the intensity of the relationship between the producer
and the consumer is at its lowest level, the meeting between the two parties is
limited to eye contact and no words are spoken. However, even in this type of
relationship the consumers feel that it is possible to obtain information on the
production methods and say that they feel reassured when the farmer is there. So,
two dimensions seem to contribute to this singular type of relationship: 1) the
cognitive dimension although it is not really implemented in a concrete way, it is
perceived as being potentially active and 2) the symbolic dimension to the
extent that the mere presence of the farmer is meaningful and represents a set of
values. The relationships observed during the promotional events organized in
supermarkets and hypermarkets by red-label poultry farmers illustrate this type of
relationship best.
47
Thus, from the consumers standpoint, five distinct types of relationship seem
to emerge. Each of these features a varied degree of intensity and a different
combination of the various dimensions that contribute to the relationship
(trading, cognitive, emotional, human and symbolic). However, all have a
common component: trust.
48
All the consumers mention trust when they describe the relationship they have
with the producers. However, the consumers trust can be revealed through a
number of different entities: the product, the brand, the sales system, the
salesperson, the producer or even the organization and a number of components:
benevolence, credibility, integrity, accessibility, etc. According to these entities,
trust will not be expressed in the same way and may be shown in a different form
(Cf. Figure n3).
49
Figure 3: Components of trust associated to the different relationships - Les formes
de confiance associes la relation
In relationship A, trust is mainly interpersonal because it is based on the
partners identity. Thus, it is benevolence, through friendship between parties
which constitutes trust: Hes a friend. We trust him. Its important. It is
principally because these people know the producer that they buy his products.
50
The credibility given to a partner, based on the collection of direct or indirect
proof, is not often seen here. The consumers do not seem to seek any, or at any
rate, very little specific information on the products. This suggests that a part of
the knowledge acquired is given directly during informal discussions between
friends, outside the buying and selling periods: We know them very well. We
have already had opportunities to talk about all that in the past.
51
In relationship B, the consumers trust is expressed mainly with regard to the
producer. Although it is mainly based on the producers perceived benevolence,
the know-how and the commitment of the latter are also important components.
The trust observed here is therefore more complex because it is made up of several
components.
52
The consumers feel that the producers identity is very important but, contrary
to the previous relationship here the producer does not appear as a friend but
more as a familiar person, someone pleasant and nice that the consumer has
grown to know through his experiences of purchasing. We know them all and I
think that counts. There is a certain trust however. The producers perceived
benevolence can also be explained by the fact that he asks the consumer whether
the product has met his expectations: I go around the farms, Im in contact with
these people all the time. I see Laurent and he asks me What did you think of
it?. Benevolence becomes even stronger when the producer pays special
attention to his customers.
53
Beyond the trust that is based on the producers identity, the consumers trust
can also be expressed by the fact that he thinks the producer has a special
competence or know-how. This kind of trust is based on the credibility of the
producer. My trust is based on the fact that I think they are people who do their
job particularly well. It can also be measured by the fact that the consumers feel
that the producers reputation is important: If Id purchased it in the
54
Conclusion: the producer-to-
consumer relationship as a judgment
supermarket I wouldnt have trusted it. But here, they have a good reputation.
This perceived integrity and honesty of the producer is an additional factor:
My trust is based on the fact that I believe the farmers are involved () and
honestly; we feel that if they offer us their products its above all to satisfy the
customer.
55
In relationship C, trust is based on a system of beliefs rather than on what the
consumer really knows. Here again benevolence is predominant, but it is
expressed through the person who sells. In this case, it is not the producer: I trust
the system and the way its organized. Most of the people in this group were the
consumers whose goods were delivered to the doorstep.
56
Beyond the relationship component, the credibility with which people and more
broadly the sales system are credited also reinforces the consumers trust: I trust
them. I trust them more than the supermarket because I know where it comes
from.
57
We can also see that the consumers feel that the producers commitment is
important, although they are not in direct contact. Because he fulfils his promise,
the producers commitment is perceived by the consumers as a strong sign of their
partners integrity. Because the producer puts his name on his products, because
he takes the orders himself or through an intermediary or representative and
delivers the goods to the consumers doorstep, he is honest and the system can be
trusted: We know who sold it to us, so if it isnt good hes trapped, hell be held
responsible.
58
This commitment also allows the consumer to benefit from several means of
getting into contact with the producer. Even if the interactions between the
producer and consumer are quite weak in this type of relationship, the direct
relationship seems to be potentially active and that is especially important. The
accessibility of the producer reinforces the consumers trust in him and in this
sense can be seen as one of the main components of trust, different from
benevolence, credibility and integrity.
59
In relationship D, the consumers trust is not expressed with regard to the
producer, but is based more on the credibility of the sales system or the product.
Here consumers prefer the direct sales system because it is less risky: I think that
I dont need to worry about quality, hygiene and so on. It is cheaper and more
practical: It is true that when you work its practical, I know Ive got a piece of
meat in the freezer.
60
Lastly, in relationship E, the producers integrity and accessibility are the main
components of trust. The consumers feel that, because he dares to show himself,
to come and see them, above all in an environment like a supermarket which is
not familiar to him, the producer has respected his commitment, that is to say:
produced a quality product. By being there and spending time with the
consumers, in addition to doing his job as a farmer, he shows his integrity. He is
not a sales rep like the others, he is first and foremost a farmer and that is whats
reassuring.
61
Also, even if the consumers dont often take advantage of his presence to get
information, they know that they can do so if needed, either to get some rather
specific information or advice, or even to say that they are not satisfied. Here
again, the accessibility of the producer reinforces the consumers trust in him.
Even if the interaction is weak, each party knows that the relationship is easily
activated if necessary.
62
device
Bibliographie
Des DOI (Digital Object Identifier) sont automatiquement ajouts aux rfrences par Bilbo,
l'outil d'annotation bibliographique d'OpenEdition.
Les utilisateurs des institutions abonnes l'un des programmes freemium d'OpenEdition
peuvent tlcharger les rfrences bibliographiques pour lesquelles Bilbo a trouv un DOI.
Format
APA
MLA
Chicago
Le service d'export bibliographique est disponible pour les institutions qui ont souscrit un
des programmes freemium d'OpenEdition.
Si vous souhaitez que votre institution souscrive l'un des programmes freemium
As Karpik already suggests (in Mangematin and Thuderoz, 2003), this study
confirms the interest in considering trust as a concept which takes root in a
composite system combining knowledge and beliefs. The different forms of trust
we observed in producer-to-consumer relationships show us that knowledge of
the products, acquaintance with the producers and belief contribute to trust. For
some of the consumers (relation type A, B or C), this emotional attachment with
the producer reduces the part of uncertainty towards the choice of foodstuffs. For
other consumers (relations D and E) who did not know either the products, the
production place or the producer himself, the belief granted to the system, based
on their own representations and values, is the most important in the construction
of trust.
63
Moreover, beyond the three dimensions of trust: credibility, integrity and
benevolence, traditionally distinguished in a lot of studies (as Hess, 1995; Ganesan
et Hess, 1997; Sirieix et Dubois, 1999; Gurviez, 1999), this research shows that the
possibility for a consumer to contact the producer -what we call producers
accessibility- is also very important in the emergence of trust. If the concept of
trust has received a great deal of attention during the past few years, trust of
accessibility is not very developed in the literature. We therefore think that many
contributions could be made, especially in areas like this one, which is today less
studied.
64
The second major contribution of this study will concern the influence of direct
relationships on perceived quality. The direct producer-to-consumer relationship
can be viewed as a judgment device of food quality, sometimes based on
impersonal trust and other times based on personal trust. Although perceived
quality is traditionally based on the evaluation of nutritional, hygienic,
organoleptic, social, symbolic, functional and humanistic dimensions, this study
shows two kinds of qualification process:
65
On the one hand direct relationships modify the perception of the generic
quality as much as the specific quality of food products (sensory, symbolic,
humanistic qualities, etc.): It tastes really different, its clear, its not the same at
all; In beef, we found a taste that we had lost; The taste is stronger, it makes
things different.
66
On the other hand that direct relationships appears (when the emotional
components of the relationship is very strong) as a new dimension of food quality.
Indeed, some consumers buy those products only because they have an emotional
relationship with the producer (he is a friend, a member of the family): We buy
our meat there because the farmers are members of our family.
67
Therefore, might we suggest that, for some consumers, or some of their
purchases, an exchange of a more social than commercial nature is desired?
68
d'OpenEdition et bnficie de ses services, crivez : access@openedition.org.
Format
APA
MLA
Chicago
Format
APA
MLA
Chicago
Format
APA
MLA
Chicago
Format
AFNOR (Association Franaise de NORmalisation), 1982, Grer et assurer la qualit :
recueil de normes franaises.
BECKERT J., 2000, Economic action and embeddedness: the problem of the structure of
action, Workshop on New Economic Sociology in Europe, Stockholm, June 2
nd
.
CAZES-VALETTE G., 2001, Le comportement du consommateur dcod par
lanthropologie. Le cas des crises de la vache folle, Revue Franaise de Marketing,
183/184, 99-113.
COLEMAN J. S., 1990, Foundations of Social Theory, Press of Harvard University,
Cambridge, 993.
DOI : 10.1007/BF00997791
DUBUISSON-QUELLIER S., 2002, Qualits de produits et figures du consommateur,
Manires de produire et de vendre en conchyliculture, Sciences de la Socit, 56, mai, 79-
97.
GANESAN S., 1994, Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller
Relationships, Journal of Marketing, 58, avril, 1-19.
DOI : 10.2307/1252265
GANESAN S. et HESS R., 1997, Dimensions and Levels of Trust: Implications for
Commitment to a Relationship, Marketing Letters, 8, 4, 439-448.
GRANOVETTER M., 1985, Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of
embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 3, 481-510.
GUIBERT N., 1999, La confiance en marketing : fondements et applications, Recherches
et Applications en Marketing, 14, 1, 1-19.
DOI : 10.1177/076737019901400101
GURVIEZ P., 1999, Le rle de la confiance dans la perception des risques alimentaires par
les consommateurs, Revue Franaise de Marketing, 183/184, 87-98.
HESS J., 1995, Construction and assessment of a scale to measure consumer trust,
American Marketing Association, summer, 20-26
KARPIK L., 1996, Dispositifs de confiance et engagements crdibles, Sociologie du
travail, 4, 527-550.
LE VELLY R., 2002, Embeddedness, a sociological theory of market transactions,
Sociologie du travail, 44, 37-53.
MAC ALLISTER D.J., 1996, Affect and Cognition Based Trust As Foundations In
Interpersonal Cooperation In Organizations, Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1, 24-
59.
MANGEMATIN V., THUDEROZ C., 2003, La confiance en questions, les mondes de
confiance, CNRS Editions, Paris, 295.
APA
MLA
Chicago
Format
APA
MLA
Chicago
Notes
1 DubuissonQuellier, 2002
2 Community Supported Agriculture
3 Pradelle, 1996
4 See for example Granovetter 1985; De la Pradelle, 1996; Steiner, 1999; Beckert, 2000; Le
Velly, 2002
5 Sylvander, 2002
6 Simmel, 1987
7 Gurviez, 1999
8 Area located in the West of France
9 People involved in the process of building direct relationships, present in the structure
when those relationships emerged (managing directors, elected officials, board members,
heads of communication and marketing departments)
Table des illustrations
URL http://aof.revues.org/docannexe/image/204/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 16k
MORGAN R.M. et HUNT S.D., 1994, The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship
Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 58, juillet, 20-38.
DOI : 10.2307/1252308
PRADELLE M. (De La), 1996, Les Vendredis de Carpentras, faire son march en Provence
ou ailleurs, Fayard, Paris, 374.
SIMMEL G., 1987, Philosophie de largent, Paris, PUF (dition originale 1900)
SIRIEIX S. et DUBOIS P-L., 1999, Vers un modle qualit-satisfaction intgrant la
confiance, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 14, 3, 1-22.
DOI : 10.1177/076737019901400301
SIRIEIX S. et MORROT G., 2001, Orientations de la confiance et comportement dachat :
le cas de lachat de vin, Actes du Congrs de lAssociation Franaise de Marketing,
Deauville, 17.
STEINER P., 1999, La sociologie conomique, Coll. Repres, Ed La dcouverte, 122.
SYLVANDER B., PORIN F., MAINSANT P., 1998, Les facteurs de succs dans lagro
alimentaire, VII journes des Sciences du muscle et technologies de la viande, Rodez, 14.
SYLVANDER B., 2002, Avis sur la notion de qualit. Rapport du groupe de travail
constitu par le Conseil National de lAlimentation, 47.
Pour citer cet article
Rfrence lectronique
Anne-Hlne Prigent-Simonin et Catherine Hrault-Fournier, The role of trust in the
perception of the quality of local food products: with particular reference to direct
relationships between producer and consumer , Anthropology of food [En ligne], 4 | May
2005, mis en ligne le 01 mai 2005, consult le 25 septembre 2014. URL :
http://aof.revues.org/204
Auteurs
Anne-Hlne Prigent-Simonin
Ecole Suprieure dAgriculture dAngers, Laboratoire de Sciences Sociales
ah[point]prigent(at)groupe-esa[point]com
Catherine Hrault-Fournier
Ecole Suprieure dAgriculture dAngers, Laboratoire de Sciences Sociales
c[point]herault(at)groupe-esa[point]com
Droits dauteur
All rights reserved

The Role of Trust in The Perception of The Quality of Local Food Products - With Particular Reference To Direct Relationships Between Producer and Consumer

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Role of Trust in The Perception of The Quality of Local Food Products - With Particular Reference To Direct Relationships Between Producer and Consumer

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

25/9/2014 The role of trust in the perception of the quality of local food products: with particular reference to direct

relationships between producer and

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi