Consumer evaluations of food riskmanagement in Russia

Ksenia PopovaINBI Institute, A.N. Bach Institute of Biochemistry, Moscow, Russia, and

Lynne J. Frewer, Janneke De Jonge, Arnout Fischer andEllen Van Kleef

Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Department of Social Sciences,Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Abstract

Purpose – Consumer perceptions regarding what constitutes best food risk management (FRM)practice may vary as a consequence of cross-cultural differences in consumer perceptions, culturalcontexts, and historical differences in governance practices and occurrence of food safety incidents.The purpose of this paper is to compare the views of Russian consumers with those of consumers inEuropean Union member states.

Design/methodology/approach – A survey previously conducted in five EU member stateswas replicated using a Russian consumer sample (n ¼ 460, SEM analysis). Psychological factorsunderpinning consumer evaluations of food risk management quality (FRMQ) were identified.A qualitative study (consumer focus group, n ¼ 9) allowed for in-depth interpretation of the quantitativeresults.

Findings – Russian consumers hold similar views to consumers in EU member states regarding theirperceptions of what constitutes effective FRM practices. However, the perceived honesty of food chainactors was an important determinant of perceived FRMQ only for Russian consumers, who alsoperceived that they were primarily responsible for their own food-related health protection. EUconsumers attributed more responsibility to food chain actors and the authorities.

Research limitations/implications – The analysis compared Russian consumers with consumersin five different EU member states. The results cannot be extended to compare Russian consumerswith the entire EU.

Practical implications – An international risk communication policy is likely to be impractical, andshould be developed at a national or regional level. Given that Russian consumers take personalresponsibility for their own health protection, information needs to be provided to enable them to do so.

Originality/value – To the authors knowledge, this is the first comparative analysis of thedeterminants of perceptions of effective FRM held by Russian consumers with consumers from withinthe EU regulatory area.

Keywords Food safety, Russia, European Union, Consumer behaviour, Risk management,Risk intelligence

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionEmerging and established food risks are internationally recognized by governmentsand industry as a major concern in food production systems, and an important threat

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

This research was supported by the EU Framework VI Programme Project SAFE FOODS –promoting food safety through a new integrated risk analysis approach for foods (EU ContractFood-CT-2004-506446 SAFE FOODS).

BFJ112,9

934

British Food JournalVol. 112 No. 9, 2010pp. 934-948q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0007-070XDOI 10.1108/00070701011074327

to public health (Houghton et al., 2006; Marvin et al., 2009). As part of the process of riskanalysis, food risk management (FRM) aims to optimise consumer protection bycontrolling risks as effectively as possible through the selection and implementation ofappropriate measures (FAO/WHO, 1998). The need to implement open and transparentcommunication with consumers about food safety procedures and decision-makingpractices has been prioritised in many policy agendas (Byrne, 2002; van Zwanenbergand Millstone, 2000). It is increasingly unlikely that the development andimplementation of FRM practices and the associated regulatory activities can beconfined to national legislative activities and decision-making bodies, as recent foodsafety incidents have shown that food safety problems are not limited to certaincountries and/or geographical areas, but represent transboundary risk issues (Kleteret al., 2009). As a consequence of the increasing globalization of the food supply, foodsafety problems have the potential to rapidly spread internationally, and it is at thisglobal level that risk management practices, and societal confidence in these practices,must be discussed.

Substantial resources in terms of research and regulation have been invested innational and regional initiatives to improve food safety standards, with the aim ofidentifying emerging and existing food safety risks and facilitate pro-active interventionand rapid risk mitigation (Kleter et al., 2009; Lindberg et al., 2005). International foodsafety standards can be improved through international harmonisation of regulatoryactivities, which requires that national food regulations should conform to internationalnorms approved by (for example), the International Codex Alimentarius(www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp, 19th May 2008). To some extent,international harmonisation of risk management practices will be dependent on societalapproval of how they are determined, managed, and implemented. As a first step ingaining societal acceptance of FRM activities, is important to understand whether or notconsumer perceptions of efficacious risk management practices align with expert viewsand risk management activities, and whether relevant cross-cultural differences in suchconsumer perceptions can be identified.

Research has indeed demonstrated that cross-cultural variation exists regarding thepotential determinants of positive consumer perceptions of food risk managementquality (FRMQ) (van Kleef et al., 2007) even under circumstances where regulatory andrisk mitigation activities associated with food safety matters have been harmonised andcentralised within a single cross-national institution, as has been the case within Europefollowing the creation of the European Food Safety Agency in 2002 (The EuropeanParliament and The Council of the European Union, 2002, referred to in Marvin et al.(2009)). The research reported here aims to extend the analysis of consumer preferencesfor optimal FRM to a cultural context beyond the European Union (EU), where differenthistorical contexts and governance structures have potential to influence consumerevaluations of the regulatory framework applied to food safety matters. Specifically,research was conducted using Russian consumer participants. Russia is rapidlybecoming an essential trading partner of the EU, which requires that import and exportpolicies, as well as food safety standards, need, to some extent, to be harmonised.Nevertheless, the Russian government and institutes have a different history andorganisation compared to those in the EU, which makes it a relevant country in which toinvestigate consumer evaluations of FRM.

Food riskmanagement

in Russia

935

Consumer perceptions of risk and risk managementAn extensive literature exists regarding differences between expert and layperceptions of risk in general (inter alia Cvetkovich and Lofstedt, 1999; Fischhoff et al.,1978, 1993; Poortinga and Pidgeon, 2003; Renn and Rohrman, 2000; Slovic, 1987, 1993;Walls et al., 2004), and food risk in particular (inter alia Berg, 2004; Berg et al., 2005;Bocker and Hanf, 2000; Dosman et al., 2001; Fife-Schaw and Rowe, 1996; Frewer et al., 1998;Hansen et al., 2003; Miles and Frewer, 2001; Poppe and Kjærnes, 2003; Wandeland Fagerli, 2001; Siegrist, 2000; Verbeke et al., 2005, 2008). Less is known about howconsumers perceive the effectiveness of FRM practices (Houghton et al., 2006; van Kleefet al., 2007; Krystallis et al., 2007). Indeed, to our knowledge, these studies represent thefirst empirical study that addresses consumer perceptions of FRM. Consumer confidencein risk management practices is likely to be influenced by what the public perceive asbest practice, as well as their perceptions of hazard characteristics (van Dijk et al., 2008).

Qualitative research has explored perceptions of the effectiveness of FRM practicesheld by both consumers and food risk professionals (Houghton et al., 2006; van Kleefet al., 2006; Krystallis et al., 2007). Consumers prefer that regulatory authorities withresponsibility for consumer protection direct their efforts towards preventing theoccurrence of food safety incidents, as opposed to managing risks through adoption of areactive approach applied once the hazard has been identified. There is also evidence tosuggest that consumers perceive food risks to be well managed if they simultaneouslyperceive that:

. control measures have been put into place to contain the risks;

. these measures are rigorously enforced; and

. consumers are aware of the measures taken by regulatory institutions to promoteconsumer protection (van Dijk et al., 2008).

Furthermore, perceptions of effective risk management activities are determined bycitizen perceptions that risk analysis practices are transparent. Effective communicationbetween institutions and the public also represents an important determinant of consumerperceptions of the effectiveness of risk management practices. In particular, consumerpreferences regarding risk communication include the provision of information aboutemerging food risks, as well as information about what is being done to mitigate them.

van Kleef et al. (2007) developed a model of the underlying psychological factorsinfluencing consumer evaluations of FRM practices and examined the extent to whichthese factors are subject to cross-cultural variation in different European member states.The EU member states included in the original study were Denmark, Germany, Greece,Slovenia, and the UK. The cross-cultural validity of the model was tested quantitativelyusing multi-group structural equation modelling (SEM). The results indicated that somefactors drive perceptions of effective FRM in all the countries studied. These included theextent to which the authorities were proactive in promoting consumer protection(positively related to consumers’ evaluation of FRMQ), whereas perceived lack oftransparency in risk management practices (termed “opaque risk management” in theoriginal study) was negatively related to perceived FRMQ. Other factors appeared topredict consumer evaluations of FRMQ in specific cultural contexts. For example,scepticism regarding risk assessment and communication practices was negativelyrelated to FRMQ in the UK, but not in the other EU member states included in the study.The expertise attributed to food risk managers by consumers appeared to be a key factor

BFJ112,9

936

in consumers’ evaluation of FRMQ in some, but not all, EU member states. However,trust in the honesty of food risk managers did not have a significant effect on FRMQ,which was contrary to what might be expected from previous research (Frewer et al.,1996; Peters et al., 1997), possibly because of the lack of variability associated with thisassessment within EU member states. The research reported here aimed to test whethersimilar determinants of risk management quality could be identified in Russia.

MethodsStudy 1 comprised a survey among 600 Russian consumers to investigate theirperceptions of FRMQ. The model developed by van Kleef et al. (2007) was tested on theRussian data. Study 2 was subsequently used to interpret the results of the survey morein-depth through application of the focus group methodology with Russian consumers(Agar and MacDonald, 1995; Reed and Roskell, 1997). The design of the focus groupstudy followed the procedure as described in van Kleef et al. (2006).

Study 1: quantitative study of the determinants of perceived FRMQIn spring 2007, a questionnaire study was conducted in the city of Moscow and the townof Tver in Russia. In total, 600 respondents were included in the survey study. Of these,300 were from Moscow and 300 from Tver. Nationally representative sampling wasapplied, based on gender, age, education, and socio-economic status. Of the total sample,54.2 percent were female and 45.3 percent were male, 20.3 percent were younger than24 years, 11.5 percent aged between 25 and 34 years, 21.2 percent between 35 and44 years, 18.3 percent between 45 and 54 years and 28.5 percent were older than 55 yearsof age.

Materials. Perceived FRMQ and its antecedents were assessed by the items developedby van Kleef et al. (2007). The 33 items that measured the five underlying factors ofperceived FRMQ, as well as the concept of FRMQ itself, were translated into Russian andback translated by the sociological department of Moscow State University. Participantsin the study rated all items on seven-point Likert scales ranging from “strongly disagree”to “strongly agree.” There was also an option to score “I don’t know” for each item. All theitems are included in the Appendix, Table AI.

Data analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and SEM were conducted toinvestigate Russian consumers’ perceptions of FRM (using LISREL 8.72, see Joreskogand Sorbom, 1999). This is similar to the procedure used in the original analysis(van Kleef et al., 2007).

Maximum likelihood estimation was employed to estimate the measurement and thestructural models. Most responses contained usable data; nevertheless several questionswere answered with “don’t know” by many respondents. A covariance matrix wascomputed as input for the structural equation model on the basis of pairwise deletion of“don’t know” answers and missing values. That is, each covariance was based on allavailable observations for that particular pair of items, giving the best possible estimatefor each value. Taking the representative average of the pairwise sample size introducesan artificially high power. To compensate for this the effective sample size was loweredto 460 (Byrne, 1998, p. 46).

The factor structure as reported by van Kleef et al. (2007) was imposed on the data,and the fit of this model to the Russian data was tested using CFA. Overall model fitwas assessed on the basis of x 2, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA),

Food riskmanagement

in Russia

937

comparative fit index (CFI), and adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI). Further, thevalidity of the measurement model was assessed by an investigation of the significanceof the factor loadings, and the composite reliability of the constructs (Baumgartner andHomburg, 1996; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). After the measurement model had beenestablished, the structural model was estimated, with FRMQ as the dependent variable,and the other factors as independent variables.

Study 2: consumer focus groupConsumers were recruited for the focus group interview through local advertising.Consumers with a range of different backgrounds were included in the focus groupstudy (Table I). It was important to ensure that the focus group facilitator utilized thesame methods to explore salient themes in the focus group discussions. For this reasonhe focus group discussion was run using a previously developed protocol (van Kleefet al., 2006) to facilitate comparable semi-structured data collection.

At the start of the discussion, the moderator requested that participants introducethemselves to other group members. In the next two minutes, respondents were asked towrite down words and expressions they associated with the theme: “How the consumeris protected against food risks.” The answers were discussed within the group.Following completion of this task, participants had to rank seven food hazards accordingto the degree to which they perceived the state authorities could control consumerexposure to the risks, and give their reasons for their choices in these rankings.Consumers were asked to rank the different hazards according to the level of trust theyperceived to be associated with the food chain actors responsible for FRM and consumerprotection. The focus group discussion lasted about one and a half hours. At the end of

Age (years)Mean (range) 43 (21-70)GenderMale 2Female 7Number of persons in household1 32 or more 6Children (younger than 12 years old) in householdNo 6Yes 3Living situationCity 8Countryside/rural district 1Highest level of educationMiddle 2Unfinished higher 4Higher 3Personal situationIn paid work 3Students/in education 3Retired 3

Note: n ¼ 9

Table I.Consumer focus groupdemographics

BFJ112,9

938

the focus group session, each participant filled in a form containing some personalinformation and received a small gift as a compensation for their time.

The focus group discussion was recorded and transcribed in Russian. The transcriptswere subsequently translated into English by a qualified researcher, who was fluentin English. The English transcript was qualitatively analysed by means ofstructured content analysis using Atlas, a software package for textual contentanalysis. The methodological approach to the analysis was similar to that applied by vanKleef et al. (2006).

ResultsStudy 1: consumer surveyMeasurement model: check of internal validity. The measurement model, in which allconstructs were allowed to correlate freely, yielded an acceptable overall fit(x 2 (480 df) ¼ 1508, p , 0.01; RMSEA ¼ 0.07; CFI ¼ 0.94, and AGFI ¼ 0.80). Fiveitems had limited variance in common with the construct, which was reflected in lowfactor loadings and high error terms. These items were one by one omitted from themodel, resulting in the overall model fit of the final model improving slightly;x 2 (335 df) ¼ 1,077, p , 0.01; RMSEA ¼ 0.07; CFI ¼ 0.95, and AGFI ¼ 0.82. Thecomposite reliability of the latent constructs was higher than 0.72 for every construct andconsidered satisfactory.

Main findings for Russia. To establish the extent to which the five psychologicalfactors influence Russian consumer evaluations of FRMQ, a structural model wasestimated. The unstandardised regression coefficients from the structural model areshown in Table II.

The results indicate that perceptions of pro-active consumer protection weresignificantly related to positive perceptions of FRMQ. When consumers perceived thatthe food safety authorities took measures to pro-actively protect the public, theyevaluated FRMQ more positively. Scepticism regarding risk assessment andcommunication practices was negatively related to FRMQ, indicating that a higherlevel of scepticism was related to a lower perceived quality of FRM. The expertiseconsumers perceived to be associated with food risk managers was positively related tothe perceived quality of FRM, such that a high level of expertise perceived by consumersto be possessed by the food risk managers was associated with a more positiveevaluation of FRMQ. The perceived honesty of food risk managers was significantlyrelated to the perceived quality of FRM. That is, the more consumers perceived riskmanagers to be dishonest, the less they believed that FRMQ was adequate. The degree of

Path B t-valuea

Pro-active consumer protection ! FRMQ 0.55 7.66Scepticism in risk assessment and communication practices ! FRMQ 2 0.29 2 4.46Expertise of food risk managers ! FRMQ 0.19 4.13Honesty of food risk managers ! FRMQ 2 0.22 2 5.96Transparent ! FRMQ (opaque and reactive risk management in theoriginal scale) 20.06 21.18

Notes: aBased on two-tailed tests: for t-values . 1.96, p , 0.05; for t-values . 2.58, p , 0.01,respectively. Coefficients that are significant (at least at the 5 percent level) are in italics

Table II.Unstandardised

regression coefficients forrisk management model

Food riskmanagement

in Russia

939

transparency perceived to be associated with risk management was not significantlyrelated to the perceived quality of FRM. Together the five factors explained 58 percent ofthe variance in perceived FRMQ.

Results study 2: consumer focus groupIn the warm-up task, consumers were requested to describe the associations theyhad regarding the way consumers are protected from food risks. These associationsprimarily centred on nutritional aspects of food products, and was expressed inassociations such as “label,” “product life time,” and “product composition.” To a lesserextent, the participants associated formal institutions and the state with consumerprotection associated with food risks. Negative associations related to the lack ofconsumer awareness of food risks (“consumers think little about food risks”) andproducers’ lack of honesty in providing information (“producers often hide informationabout food risks”). Many consumers perceived existing protection to be inadequate asfood safety certificates can be forget, product “best before” indicators altered and goodsof poor quality sold on the supermarket shelves. Most consumers believed that saferproducts were more expensive, and that consumer safety was directly dependent on theability to pay for safe, high quality foods. They preferred to purchase branded goodswith proven “trade marks” (“brands”), and trusted their own consumer experience.Consumers agreed that Russians pay greater attention than has been the case in the pastto their health and health-related food choices. The list of ingredients was found tobe important because consumers were concerned about food content of a product, andperceived that the label information facilitates avoidance or reduction of thoserisks associated with food consumption. Consumers were concerned about foodadditives, and required that all labels provide information about all additives includedin food products. In particular, “artificial” and “additives” were strongly associated withperceived “risk.”

Personal responsibility for food safety. Participants argued that the primaryresponsibility for food safety lies with the consumer as official authorities are notconsidered to be managing food risks at all. For example, when discussing food poisoningincidents, one participant argued:

Mass food poisoning risks are not managed in any way.

In particular, consumers reported that they personally needed to pay attention to foodsafety issues in the retail environment, through, for example, paying attention to the foodpacking and food content. However, participants recognised that there was a need forconsumers to have a greater awareness of food safety issues. Almost all participantsagreed that other actors in the food chain are less likely to effectively protect the consumercompare to consumers themselves. Participants indicated that Russian producers maybe good or as bad as the foreign producers in terms of food quality. The price of a product,personal experience of a product, and the trustworthiness of a particular brand, wereindicators of product quality for foods produced both domestically and internationally:

Some salesmen are long known and thus trusted. I prefer to visit shops where salesmen workwhom I know.

Several participants argued that in order to promote self-protection in food safety, anindividual consumer requires sufficient knowledge about food composition, sanitary

BFJ112,9

940

norms and other relevant aspects of food safety. Participants described a number ofstrategies which they personally utilized in order to promote personal food safety, suchas avoiding foods from unknown producers, and foods which contained manypreservatives and additives. In addition, personal food safety practices included a strategyof purchasing foods from local shops and markets. Brand names and names of trustedmanufacturers provided a strong basis for trust judgements (“I do not buy products fromunknown producers”). Again several participants argued that price is a quality indicator(“if prices are low, then the quality is low too”).

Four participants indicated that they always inspected the label to learn more aboutfood composition before purchasing the product. Participants indicated that theconsumer is poorly informed about possible food risks, despite increased consumerinterest in health and food safety issues. At the time of data collection, it was reportedthat information about food safety is primarily obtained from friends andacquaintances and personal experience, although Russian television carries severalprogrammes devoted to food quality problems and food safety questions (for example,“control purchase” and “in advance”). Moreover, participants stated that it was notalways possible to obtain proper information about food safety issues, as many freshproducts were not labelled at the point of retail. Participants required more informationto be provided on the food product labels to help them judge the safety of the product.For example, participants expressed the view that it is often not clear what kinds ofadditives are included as ingredients and this hindered judgment formation. Moreover,it was unclear to participants what some of the terminologies on the food label meant,implying a need for more formalised education on these topics. One participant felt theneed for more information about long-term negative consequences of consumption ofcertain foods to be provided, as the information that was available focused on thebenefits of consumption:

The public should be more informed [. . .] The product should carry the information about adisease it may cause in case of excessive use. And if people do not read this information thatis their responsibility.

Food risk management qualityConsumers perceived that the best-controlled risks in Russia are those associatedwith Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (“mad cow disease”), in part because theinternational impact of the hazard resulted in harmonised efforts internationally tocontrol the associated risks. Large-scale food poisoning incidents were also perceived tobe well controlled, as risk management and mitigation activities associated with suchincidents received wide coverage in mass media and television. Participants alsoindicated that they perceived that professionals responsible for protecting the publicfrom food poisoning risks were not sufficiently paid, but, at the same time, hadresponsibility for too large a remit. Consumers agreed that allergenic foods andingredients were the least well-controlled hazards, due to poor traceability and detectionin the food chain. Consumers also recognised that the risks associated with inappropriatedietary choices (e.g. too much sugar, fat, or alcohol).

Trustworthiness of food safety actorsParticipants expressed the view that food chain actors were not motivated to protectconsumers because there was no financial incentive to do so. Consumer associations

Food riskmanagement

in Russia

941

were perceived to be motivated to protect consumers, but were perceived to bepowerless to change food safety issues, as such organisations do not have thenecessary resources to influence the current situation in Russia. Participants alsoindicated that they perceived farmers to be incompetent, and indifferent to food qualitystandards. A prevailing argument in the group was that farmers prioritise quantityabove quality in production of agricultural food products. Food processing plants wereregarded as being more trustworthy because the level of quality control was perceivedto be higher than at the farm. Furthermore, consumers expressed the view that ifquality standards were not maintained, retailers and markets would return products tothe producer, which would cause the farmer financial problems and potentially resultin bankruptcy. Producers were trusted if they had “positioned themselves” in themarket and were known to the public through advertising on TV and in the press.

International organisations were reported to be highly trusted, in particularcontrolling bodies in Europe. Focus group participants were also inclined to trustRussian regulatory institutions, as these have responsibility for all certification processesof Russian food products. However, at the same time same participants expressed the viewthat the existence of a very high level of corruption in all spheres of Russian societycompromised perceived honesty in food chain actors, and indicated that any qualitycertificate could be bought or forget and thus could not be guaranteed to support foodsafety or quality standards.

Comparison of Russian survey with EU-survey and focus group resultsIn the original quantitative study conducted in the EU, it was reported that only twofactors were related to perceived FRMQ in the same way in all of the EU member statesincluded. These factors were transparent risk management (where a high score indicatedhigh transparency), which had a negative relationship (b ¼ 20.11) on perceptions ofFRMQ, and trust in the honesty of risk managers, which was not significantly related toperceived FRMQ in the included EU countries, perhaps because of lack of variabilityregarding this measure in the populations sampled. The other three determinants(i.e. proactive consumer protection, scepticism, and trust in the expertise of food riskmanagers) had a differential impact on perceptions of the effectiveness of riskmanagement quality in the different EU member states.

The extent to which consumers perceived food risk managers to be honest wasfound to predict consumers’ evaluation of FRMQ. The finding that Russian consumersrelate perceptions of FRMQ to the perceived honesty of risk managers might be aconsequence of the variation in the extent to which Russian consumers perceive thatwidespread bribery of officials is problematic. Moreover, consumer participants in thefocus group study argued that food labels and even brands cannot always be trusted toprovide assurance of safety because of falsification of certificates and expiry dates byproducers and other food chain actors.

The factors that differed in terms of their predictive capacity for good quality FRMbetween EU member states were also compared to the results for the Russian sample.Initiating pro-active consumer protection, scepticism about food risk assessment andcommunication practices, and the role of expertise of food risk managers weresignificantly related to FRMQ in both studies. In the original EU study, the size of theeffects differed between countries (van Kleef et al., 2007). With respect to the significantrelationship between pro-active consumer protection and FRMQ, the results indicate

BFJ112,9

942

that the effect found in Russia (b ¼ 0.55) resembled the size of the effects found inDenmark (b ¼ 0.51) and Slovenia (b ¼ 0.57), and was located between the extremesfound in Germany (b ¼ 0.27) and Greece (b ¼ 1.97). Regarding consumer scepticism inrisk assessment practices, the effect found in Russia (b ¼ 20.29) most closelyresembles the results obtained previously in Germany (b ¼ 20.34) and Greece(b ¼ 20.30), again located between the extremes (the smallest effect was found inSlovenia, b ¼ 20.16, and largest in the UK, b ¼ 20.71).

Relative to the other countries, the impact of risk manager’s expertise on perceivedrisk management quality is smallest in Russia (b ¼ 0.19), and most resembles theGreek results Greece (b ¼ 0.30). In the previous study, this factor was found to be mostimportant in Germany (b ¼ 0.99). The focus group study revealed that Russianconsumers perceive that consumers themselves should be most knowledgeable aboutfood risks as they are responsible for managing their own risks associated with food,and do not depend on other food chain actors to optimise consumer protection.

In summary, although differences between Russia and specific EU membercountries were identified, the Russian situation is, in many aspects comparable to thatin Europe overall. Russian consumers have a similar profile to the European memberstates in their preference for proactive risk management. Similarly, increased levels ofscepticism reduce perceptions of efficacious FRMQ, although perceptions of expertiseare not such a strong predictor as for the European participants. In contrast to the EUmember states, the role of perceived honesty in determining perceptions of efficaciousFRM is an important determinant of FRMQ in Russia. Russian consumers perceivegreater personal responsibility for protecting their own health.

DiscussionThe dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to profound changes across variousfundamental dimensions in the Russian Federation, and the country has subsequentlybeen through several crises (Stillman, 2006), which have the potential to influenceconsumer perceptions and behaviours. For example, in 1998, a series of economic crisesand high rates of inflation lead to people to develop consumption patterns primarilymotivated by price and availability (Honkanen and Frewer, 2009). At the same time,health issues have become increasingly important in Russia, perhaps reflecting thedecline in life expectancy of Russian citizens between 1989 and 1994 (6.7 years for menand 3.4 years for women) (Bobak et al., 1998), a trend which is still continuing (Stillman,2006). Economic concerns are still prioritised by many Russian consumers because oflow levels of household income. Given that Russian consumers perceive both foodsafety and optimal nutrition to be associated with higher priced and potentiallyunaffordable products, this may further increase consumer concerns about food safetyin the Russian context, as safe products are perceived to be “out of reach” in financialterms. This represents a contrast with consumers with the EU, who expect thatfood products are safe independent of cost. Consumers were also concerned aboutpreservatives or chemicals used in food products. The perceived “purity” of foodproducts as being of great importance to Russian consumers, which can be attributedto negative experiences consumers had with contaminated imported products in thepast (Thelen et al., 2006). In this respect, Russian and consumers from EU memberstates do not differ in opinions (van Kleef et al., 2009).

Food riskmanagement

in Russia

943

The results for the Russian data showed no significant relationship betweentransparency and positive evaluation of FRMQ. This may be cultural, since a significantpart of the population has lived in the Soviet time before Glasnost (“openness”), the Sovietpolicy of increased freedom in cultural and social policy in late 1980s, may mean that allgovernance systems are perceived to be relatively transparent compared to thoseoperating in the past. This question merits further analysis and is likely to be mosteffectively explored using qualitative methods applied to exploring potential temporalchanges in attitude, although larger samples than those I used Study 2 would be neededto pick up potential age-related differences in attitude.

Consumer health protection was perceived to be the responsibility of, andcontrollable by, consumers themselves. For example, consumers emphasized theimportance of packaging information regarding product characteristics (for example,ingredients, shelf-life, appearance, and information relating to producer and region oforigin, and characteristics of the retail environment). In modern Russia there is noinstitution with overall responsibility for consumer education regarding food safetyissues, although it had been a policy priority in the Soviet Union in the past.

Russian consumers were not confident that laws and regulations related to foodsafety were being enforced, leading to some lack of consumer confidence regarding foodsafety. This was compounded by the perception that the competent authorities were notable, or willing to take responsibility for all of the problems related to food safety, at leastat the time when the data were collected. Consumers perceived that absolute preventionof food risks is not possible, and that institutions only had the capacity to mitigate therisks once they have occurred. In the opinion of consumers, institutions acted to concealor neglect emerging information regarding food risks rather than act in the interests ofconsumer protection.

ConclusionsThe psychological determinants of effective FRM were not dissimilar to those foundwithin the EU, despite difference between the EU and Russia regarding governancestructures and historical contexts. Consumers expressed concern about the quality ofFRM in Russia, in part because of perceived concerns about the extent to which theauthorities are able to protect consumers from food risks. As a consequence, manyconsumers assumed responsibility for their own health protection. Many respondentsperceived there to be high level of corruption among governmental officials (whichreflects the general tendency of Russian society as perceived by its members). As aconsequence, consumer trust in institutions and organisations with responsibility forcertification, as well as relevant governmental bodies, was low.

References

Agar, M. and MacDonald, J. (1995), “Focus groups and ethnography”, Human Organization,Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 78-86.

Baumgartner, H. and Homburg, C. (1996), “Applications of structural equation modelling inmarketing and consumer research: a review”, International Journal of Research inMarketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 139-61.

Berg, L. (2004), “Trust in food in the age of mad cow disease: a comparative study of consumers’evaluation of food safety in Belgium, Britain and Norway”, Appetite, Vol. 42 No. 1,pp. 21-32.

BFJ112,9

944

Berg, L., Kjaernes, U., Ganskau, E., Minina, V., Voltchkova, L., Halkier, B. and Holm, L. (2005),“Trust in food safety in Russia, Denmark and Norway”, European Societies, Vol. 7 No. 1,pp. 103-28.

Bobak, M., Pikhart, H., Hertzmann, C., Rose, R. and Marmot, M. (1998), “Socioeconomic factors,perceived control and self-reported health in Russia: a cross-sectional survey”, SocialScience & Medicine, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 269-79.

Bocker, A. and Hanf, C.H. (2000), “Confidence lost and – partially – regained: consumer responsesto food scares”, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 471-85.

Byrne, B. (1998), Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS, LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, p. 46.

Byrne, D. (2002), “EFSA: excellence, integrity and openness”, paper presented at InauguralMeeting of the Management Board of the European Food Safety Authority, ManagementBoard of the European Food Safety Authority, Brussels, 18 September.

Cvetkovich, G. and Lofstedt, R. (1999),Social Trust and theManagement ofRisk, Earthscan, London.

Dosman, D.M., Adamowicz, W.L. and Hrndey, S.E. (2001), “Socio-economic determinants ofhealth and food safety related risk perceptions”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 307-18.

FAO/WHO (1998), “The application of risk communication to food standards and safetymatters”, FAO Food & Nutrition Paper 70, FAO, Rome.

Fife-Schaw, C. and Rowe, G. (1996), “Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a psychometricstudy”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 487-500.

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P. and Lichtenstein, S. (1978), “How safe is safe enough? A psychometricstudy of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits”, Policy Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 2,pp. 127-52.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Frewer, L.J., Howard, C. and Shepherd, R. (1996), “What determines trust in information aboutfood-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 16 No. 4,pp. 473-85.

Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D. and Shepherd, R. (1998), “Methodological approaches toassessing risk perceptions associated with food related hazards”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 18No. 1, pp. 95-102.

Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L. and Sandøe, P. (2003), “Beyond the knowledge deficit:recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks”, Appetite, Vol. 41 No. 2,pp. 111-21.

Honkanen, P. and Frewer, L.J. (2009), “Russian consumers’ motives for food choice”, Appetite,Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 363-71.

Houghton, J.R., van Kleef, E., Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2006), “Consumer perceptions of theeffectiveness of food risk management practices: a cross-cultural study”, Health, Risk andSociety, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 165-83.

Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (1999), LISREL 8 User’s Reference Guide, Scientific SoftwareInternational, Chicago, IL.

Kleter, G.A., Prandini, A., Filippi, L. and Marvin, H.J.P. (2009), “Identification of potentiallyemerging food safety issues by analysis of reports published by the EuropeanCommunity’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) during a four-year period”,Food and Chemical Toxicology, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 932-50.

Food riskmanagement

in Russia

945

Krystallis, A., Frewer, L.J., Rowe, G. and Houghton, J. (2007), “Cross-country comparisons inconsumers’ and experts’ perception of food risk management: Denmark, Germany, Greeceand the UK, Health”, Risk and Society, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 407-24.

Lindberg, D.V., Grimes, C.A. and Giles, C.L. (2005), “Farm-to-table: a situation awareness modelfor food safety assurance for porous borders”, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science andFood Safety, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 31-3.

Marvin, H.J.P., Kleter, G.A., Frewer, L.J., Cope, S., Wentholt, M. and Rowe, G. (2009), “A workingprocedure for identifying emerging risk at an early stage”, Food Control, Vol. 20,pp. 345-56.

Miles, S. and Frewer, L.J. (2001), “Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards –higher and lower order attributes”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 47-61.

Peters, R.G., Covello, V.T. and McCallum, D.E. (1997), “The determinants of trust and credibilityin environmental risk communication: an empirical study”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 17 No. 1,pp. 43-54.

Poortinga, W.A. and Pidgeon, N. (2003), “Exploring the dimensionality of trust in riskregulation”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 961-72.

Poppe, C. and Kjærnes, U. (2003), Trust in Food in Europe: a Comparative Analysis (Rep. No. 5),National Institute for Consumer Research, Oslo.

Reed, J. and Roskell, V. (1997), “Focus groups: issues of analysis and interpretation”, Journal ofAdvanced Nursing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 765-77.

Siegrist, M. (2000), “The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptanceof gene technology”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-204.

Slovic, P. (1987), “Perception of risk”, Science, Vol. 236 No. 4799, pp. 280-5.

Slovic, P. (1993), “Perceived risk, trust, and democracy”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 675-82.

Stillman, S. (2006), “Health and nutrition in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union duringthe decade of transition: a review of the literature”, Economics and Human Biology, Vol. 4No. 1, pp. 104-46.

Thelen, S., Ford, J.B. and Honeycutt, E.D. Jr (2006), “Assessing Russian consumers’ importedversus domestic product bias”, Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 48 No. 5,pp. 687-704.

van Dijk, H., Houghton, J., van Kleef, E., van der Lans, I., Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. (2008),“Consumer responses to communication about food risk management”, Appetite, Vol. 50,pp. 340-52.

van Kleef, E., Houghton, J.R., Krystallis, A., Pfenning, U., Rowe, G., van Dijk, H. and Frewer, L.J.(2007), “Consumers evaluations of food risk management quality in Europe”, RiskAnalysis, Vol. 27, pp. 1565-80.

van Kleef, E., Frewer, L.J., Chryssochoidis, G., Houghton, J.R., Korzen-Bohr, S., Krystallis, T.,Lassen, J., Pfenning, U. and Rowe, G. (2006), “Perceptions of food risk management amongkey stakeholders: results from a cross-European study”, Appetite, Vol. 47, pp. 46-63.

van Kleef, E., Ueland, Ø., Theodoridis, G., Rowe, G., Pfenning, U., Houghton, J., van Dijk, H.,Chryssochoidis, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2009), “Food risk management quality: consumerevaluations of past and emerging food safety incidents”, Health, Risk and Society, Vol. 11No. 2, pp. 1-27.

van Zwanenberg, P. and Millstone, E. (2000), “Beyond skeptical relativism: evaluating the socialconstructions of expert risk assessments”, Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol. 25No. 3, pp. 259-82.

BFJ112,9

946

Verbeke, W., Sioen, I., Pieniak, Z., van Camp, J. and De Henauw, S. (2005), “Consumer perceptionversus scientific evidence about health benefits and safety risks from fish consumption”,Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 422-9.

Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Frewer, L.J., Sioen, I., De Henauw, S. and van Camp, J. (2008),“Effects of message content and information source: risk-benefit information on consumerattitudes and behaviour towards fish”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 951-61.

Walls, J., Pidgeon, N., Weyman, A. and Horlick-Jones, T. (2004), “Critical trust: understanding layperceptions of health and safety risk regulation”, Health, Risk and Society, Vol. 6 No. 2,pp. 133-50.

Wandel, M. and Fagerli, R.A. (2001), “Consumer concerns about food-related risks and their trustin experts”, Ecology of Food & Nutrition, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 253-83.

Further reading

Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A. and Quadrel, M.J. (1993), “Risk perception and communication”,Annual Reviews in Public Health, Vol. 14, pp. 183-203.

Pozdnyakovskiy, V.M. (2007), Food Sanitary Base, Quality and Safety of Food Products, SiberianUniversity, Novosibirsk, pp. 10-15, 316-345.

Renn, O. and Rohrmann, B. (Eds) (2000), Cross-cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of EmpiricalStudies, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.

(The Appendix follows overleaf.)

Food riskmanagement

in Russia

947

Appendix

Corresponding authorLynne J. Frewer can be contacted at: lynn.frewer@wur.nl

Construct/statementFood risk management quality (FRMQ)

1. Food risks are very well managed in our country2. When I buy food, I am certain that it is safe to eat3. I trust the regulatory system to protect me from food risks

Proactive consumer protection4. There is an established system for controlling food risks5. The authorities will respond quickly if a food safety problem appears6. The authorities put a lot of effort into preventing food risks7. Food safety laws are stringently enforced by the authorities

Skepticism in risk assessment and communication practices8. The more research that is conducted, the more food safety problems are uncovered9. Scientists should be open with consumers if they are uncertain about a food hazard

10. The authorities need to learn more about food safety in order to manage food hazards11. The authorities should tell us what they do not know when they give advice about food safetyExpertise of food risk managers12. Food risk managers are accountable to others (e.g. regulatory bodies) if mistakes are made13. Food risk managers are experts in FRM14. Food risk managers have the freedom to provide information to the public about food hazards15. Food risk managers are knowledgeable about food safety16. Food risk mangers are responsible when it comes to managing food risksHonesty of food risk managers17. Food risk managers are biased when making decisions about food risk management18. Food risk managers distort information about food risk management19. Food risk managers do not provide factual information about food risk management20. Food risk managers do not have good track record in protecting the public21. Food risk managers have been proven wrong in the past in their handling of food safety matters22. Food risk managers are not concerned about public welfare23. Food risk managers protect themselves and their own interests rather than consumers24. Food risk managers provide sensationalized information about food hazards25. Food risk managers are not trustworthy26. Food risk managers have a vested interest in promoting a particular view about food hazards27. Food risk managers are withholding information about food safety from the publicTransparency of FRM28. There is no proper management of food hazards by the responsible authorities29. The authorities do nothing to protect consumers from food risks until a food safety crisis occurs30. The BSE crisis has shown that the FRM system is inadequate31. The authorities do not listen to consumer concerns about food safety32. The food safety controls that do exist are frequently ignored by food producers33. The authorities are hiding information about food hazards from consumers

Note: All items were rated on seven-point Likert scales ranging from “strongly disagree” to “stronglyagree”

Table AI.Measurement scales

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

BFJ112,9

948