Journal List > J Nutr Health > v.48(2) > 1081387

Ahn and Seo: The influences of sustainability management at institutional foodservice on store image and behavioral intention

Abstract

Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of sustainability management in institutional foodservice on store image and behavioral intention (revisit intention, word of mouth, willingness to pay a premium).

Methods:

Based on a total of 371 samples obtained from the empirical research, this study reviewed the reliability and fitness of the model.

Results:

According to results of exploratory factor analysis, sustainability management derived three factors, economic value, socially responsible, and environmentally sound. The structural equation modeling showed that social responsibility in sustainability management had a significant positive effect on store image and behavioral intention. In addition, customer's perceived store image in foodservice had a significant positive effect on behavioral intention. The relationship between sustainability management and behavioral intention was found to be a partially significant effect.

Conclusion:

The results of this study revealed the importance of sustainability management of foodservice to improve store image and behavioral intention.

REFERENCES

1.Park JC., Oh MJ., Hong SJ. The effects of corporate efforts for the sustainable management on the product evaluation: the mediating role of trust and reciprocity perception. J Mark Manage Res. 2010. 15(3):45–69.
2.Harlem Brundtland G. World Commission on environment and development. Environ Policy Law. 1985. 14(1):26–30.
3.Elkington J. Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing;1999.
4.Dyllick T., Hockerts K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strategy Environ. 2002. 11(2):130–141.
crossref
5.Liou YW., Namkung Y. The effects of restaurant green practices on perceived quality, image and behavioral intention. Korean J Hosp Adm. 2012. 21(2):113–130.
6.Chen YS., Chang CH. Enhance green purchase intentions: the roles of green perceived value, green perceived risk, and green trust. Manag Decis. 2012. 50(3):502–520.
7.Sustainable Restaurant Association (GB). SRA [Internet]. London: Sustainable Restaurant Association;2009. [cited 2011 Feb 5]. Available from:. http://www.thesra.org.
8.Kunkel JH., Berry LL. A behavioral conception of retail image. J Mark. 1968. 32(4):21–27.
crossref
9.Pan Y., Zinkhan GM. Determinants of retail patronage: a meta-analytical perspective. J Retail. 2006. 82(3):229–243.
crossref
10.Ryu K., Han H., Kim TH. The relationships among overall quick-casual restaurant image, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Int J Hosp Manag. 2008. 27(3):459–469.
crossref
11.Fishbein M., Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley;1975.
12.Cronin JJ Jr., Taylor SA. Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension. J Mark. 1992. 56(3):55–68.
crossref
13.Lee HM., Han JS. A study on the impacts of educational service quality on student satisfaction, intention to recommend and word-of-mouth: focusing on international student in universities of Seoul region. Korea J Tourism Hosp Res. 2013. 27(3):55–76.
14.Cameron TA., James MD. Estimating willingness to pay from survey data: an alternative pre-test-market evaluation procedure. J Mark Res. 1987. 24(4):389–395.
crossref
15.Hanemann WM. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ? Am Econ Rev. 1991. 81(3):635–647.
16.Shin J., Kim S., Yoon J. Effect of sustainability management at coffee houses on customers' store image and behavioral intention. Korean J Community Nutr. 2012. 17(4):494–503.
crossref
17.Lee JS., Hsu LT., Han H., Kim Y. Understanding how consumers view green hotels: how a hotel's green image can influence behavioral intentions. J Sustain Tour. 2010. 18(7):901–914.
18.Namkung Y., Jang S. Effects of restaurant green practices on brand equity formation: do green practices really matter? Int J Hosp Manag. 2013. 33:85–95.
crossref
19.Na D., Lee J., Na Y. Relationship of TBL component in corporate sustainable management of fashion company with company evaluation and brand image. J Korean Soc Clothing Ind. 2014. 16(2):293–300.
crossref
20.Hong I., Kim Y. LOHAS marketing strategy of fashion company for sustainable image positioning-focus on domestic and foreign case analysis. J Korean Soc Clothing Text. 2011. 35(9):);. 1069–1084.
21.Penny WY. The use of environmental management as a facilities management tool in the Macao hotel sector. Facilities. 2007. 25(7-8):286–295.
crossref
22.Fornell C., Wernerfelt B. Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaint management: a theoretical analysis. J Mark Res. 1987. 24(4):337–346.
crossref
23.Reichheld FF., Sasser WE Jr. Zero defections: quality comes to services. Harv Bus Rev. 1990. 68(5):105–111.
24.Baker J., Grewal D., Parasuraman A. The influence of store environment on quality inferences and store image. J Acad Mark Sci. 1994. 22(4):328–339.
crossref
25.Ryu K., Lee HR., Kim WG. The influence of the quality of the physical environment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag. 2012. 24(2):200–223.
crossref
26.Zeithaml VA., Berry LL., Parasuraman A. The behavioral consequences of service quality. J Mark. 1996. 60(2):31–46.
crossref
27.Maloni MJ., Brown ME. Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain: an application in the food industry. J Bus Ethics. 2006. 68(1):35–52.
crossref
28.National Restaurant Association (US). NRA [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: National Restaurant Association;1919. [cited 2011 Aug 13]. Available from:. http://restaurant.org.
29.Thomas L Jr., Mills JE. Consumer knowledge and expectations of restaurant menus and their governing legislation: a qualitative assessment. J Foodserv. 2006. 17(1):6–22.
crossref
30.Gupta S., Pirsch J. The influence of a retailer's corporate social responsibility program on re-conceptualizing store image. J Retail Consum Serv. 2008. 15(6):516–526.
crossref
31.Lantos GP. The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. J Consum Mark. 2001. 18(7):595–632.
crossref
32.Salzmann O., Ionescu-Somers A., Steger U. The business case for corporate sustainability: literature review and research options. Eur Manag J. 2005. 23(1):27–36.
33.Lee HY., Ahn SJ., Yang IS. Case study of menu satisfaction index in business & industry food service. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 2008. 37(11):1443–1451.
34.Cho SY., Park EA. Positioning analysis of franchise coffee brand based on coffee shop selection attributes: focused on Busan area. Korean J Tourism Res. 2014. 28(6):113–135.
35.Khil J. Influence of coffee education on importance and satisfaction of coffee house selection attributes in Gwangju and Jeonnam area. Korean J Food Cult. 2012. 27(2):184–192.
crossref
36.Kim DJ., Chung YH. Effects of coffee shop selection attributes on customer satisfaction and royalty: focused on Daejeon province. Korean J Hosp Adm. 2013. 22(1):131–149.
37.Kwon KJ., Han YH. The effect of perception of service scape on hotel restaurant image and royalty, revisit intention in hotel restaurant. J Foodserv Manage. 2013. 16(1):199–218.
38.Jung HS., Yoon HH. The influence of corporate social responsibility of family restaurants on image, preference and revisit intention: based on the university students in Seoul. Korean J Culinary Res. 2008. 14(2):138–152.
39.Cho YH., Lee GT., Chung KY. The influence of hotel organization's eco-friendly marketing on customer revisit intention. Korean J Hosp Adm. 2014. 23(4):163–179.
40.Hu HH., Parsa HG., Self J. The dynamics of green restaurant patronage. Cornell Hosp Q. 2010. 51(3):344–362.
crossref
41.Namkung Y., Jang S. Are consumers willing to pay more for green practices at restaurants? J Hosp Tourism Res. Forthcoming. 2014.
42.Lee K., Conklin M., Cranage DA., Lee S. The role of perceived corporate social responsibility on providing healthful foods and nutrition information with health-consciousness as a moderator. Int J Hosp Manag. 2014. 37:29–37.
crossref
43.Kozup JC., Creyer EH., Burton S. Making healthful food choices: the influence of health claims and nutrition information on consumers' evaluations of packaged food products and restaurant menu items. J Mark. 2003. 67(2):19–34.
crossref
44.Schubert F., Kandampully J., Solnet D., Kralj A. Exploring consumer perceptions of green restaurants in the US. Tour Hosp Res. 2010. 10(4):286–300.
crossref

Fig. 1.
Research model
jnh-48-199f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Structural equation model with parameter estimate. Chi-square (χ2) = 806.619, CFI = 0.921, NFI = 0.892, RMSEA = 0.081 1) EV → BI(RVI, WOM, WPP) 2) SR → BI(RVI, WOM, WPP) 3) ES → BI(RVI, WOM, WPP) p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001
jnh-48-199f2.tif
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of respondents
Demographic characteristics N %
Gender Male 243 65.5
Female 128 34.5
Age(yrs) 20~29 153 41.2
30~39 151 40.7
40~49 67 18.1
Marriage status Single 206 55.5
Married 165 44.5
Education level High school diploma a 16 4.3
Undergraduate 7 1.9
Bachelor's degree 324 87.3
Graduate degree 24 6.5
Occupation Office worker 199 53.6
Professional worker 49 13.2
Technician/enginee r 45 12.1
Sales worker 17 4.6
Self employee 5 1.3
Production worker 9 2.4
Service worker 23 6.2
Students 24 6.5
Income (won/month) < 1,000,000 24 6.5
1,000,000 ~ 1,999,999 9 54 14.6
2,000,000 ~ 2,999,999 9 110 29.6
3,000,000 ~ 3,999,999 9 94 25.3
4,000,000 ~ 4,999,999 9 41 11.1
≥ 5,000,000 48 12.9
Number of foodservic use in a week Once 42 11.3
Twice 62 16.7
Three times 57 15.4
Four times 22 5.9
Five times 107 28.8
Over six times 81 21.8
Total   371 100
Table 2.
Descriptive analysis of items (N = 371)
  Sustainability management in foodservice Mean ± S.D
Socially responsible The institutional foodservice makes an effort to raise social fund. 3.15 ± 0.80
The institutional foodservice offers health-conscious menu. 3.75 ± 0.89
The institutional foodservice offers healthful foods and information. 3.71 ± 0.91
The institutional foodservice offers nutrition information about menu. 3.78 ± 0.94
The institutional foodservice manages customer-oriented business. 3.51 ± 0.89
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to improve quality of menu and service. 3.67 ± 0.90
The institutional foodservice provides the customer needs promptly. 3.63 ± 0.91
The institutional foodservice gives part of the community development. 3.17 ± 0.84
Environmentally sound The institutional foodservice use energy and resource efficiently. 3.38 ± 0.80
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to reduce food wastes. 3.65 ± 0.82
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to reduce wastes. 3.61 ± 0.81
The institutional foodservice makes an effort in recycling. 3.68 ± 0.79
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to use recyclable containers. 3.52 ± 0.90
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to participate in environment campaign. 3.43 ± 0.84
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to use environment-friendly products. 3.35 ± 0.87
Economically value The institutional foodservice makes an effort to compete fairly with other stores. 3.46 ± 0.91
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to contribute to economy by generating profits. 3.44 ± 0.81
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to avoid discriminating applicants by gender, age, or religion in the employment process. 3.31 ± 0.80
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to improve quality of menu and services. 3.67 ± 0.90
Store image
The institutional foodservice is clean. 3.89 ± 0.86
The institutional foodservice is attractive. 3.43 ± 0.92
It has a cheerful and enchanting atmosphere. 3.81 ± 0.86
The institutional foodservice would be a pleasant place to eat. 3.84 ± 0.83
The institutional foodservice is differentiated than others. 3.39 ± 0.98
The institutional foodservice gives me a positive image. 3.67 ± 0.92
The institutional foodservice gives me a feeling of trust. 3.62 ± 0.94
Behavioral intention
Revisit intention I intend to revisit this foodservice in the near future. 3.75 ± 0.93
I would like to visit this foodservice more often. 3.65 ± 0.98
Word of mouth I would say positive things about this foodservice. 3.64 ± 1.01
Willingness to pay a premium I am willing to pay more to visit this foodservice. 3.19 ± 1.09

Likert 5-point scale from 1-Strongly disagree to 5-Strongly agree

Table 3.
Differences in sustainability management, store image, and behavior intention by demographics
Demographics N Sustainability management Store image Behavioral intention
Socially responsible Environmentally sound Economically value
Mean ± S.D1) F Mean ± S.D1) F Mean ± S.D1) F Mean ± S.D1) F Mean ± S.D1) F
Gender Male 243 3.57 ± 0.68 1.012 3.58 ± 0.62 2.32∗2 3.46 ± 0.68 0.802) 3.70 ± 0.71 1.172) 3.60 ± 0.82 1.132
Female 128 3.49 ± 0.79 3.41 ± 0.68 3.40 ± 0.67 3.60 ± 0.89 3.48 ± 1.02
Age 20~29 153 3.55 ± 0.78 2.83 3.41 ± 0.68 5.90∗∗ 3.42 ± 0.70 3.62 3.65 ± 0.87 0.97 3.51 ± 1.00 0.51
30~39 151 3.47 ± 0.72 5 3.54 ± 0.63 3.37 ± 0.64 3.63 ± 0.71 3.56 ± 0.85
40~49 67 3.72 ± 0.55 3.73 ± 0.57 3.63 ± 0.65 3.78 ± 0.68 3.65 ± 0.73
Occupation Office worker 199 3.57 ± 0.69 1.38 3.56 ± 0.64 1.66 3.48 ± 0.64 1.62 3.68 ± 0.77 1.65 3.58 ± 0.89 1.70
Professional worker 49 3.65 ± 0.67 3.55 ± 0.73 3.47 ± 0.75 3.74 ± 0.72 3.61 ± 0.82
Technician/engineer 45 3.62 ± 0.65 3.54 ± 0.50 3.44 ± 0.63 3.70 ± 0.69 3.66 ± 0.82
Sales worker 17 3.57 ± 0.92 3.50 ± 0.88 3.50 ± 0.80 3.85 ± 0.80 3.69 ± 1.01
Self employee 5 3.38 ± 0.61 3.46 ± 0.44 3.15 ± 0.82 3.23 ± 0.44 3.15 ± 0.72
Production worker 9 3.10 ± 1.25 3.62 ± 0.62 2.94 ± 1.05 3.30 ± 1.04 3.33 ± 1.21
Service worker 23 3.53 ± 0.46 3.37 ± 0.58 3.48 ± 0.57 3.82 ± 0.68 3.73 ± 0.71
Students 24 3.18 ± 0.95 3.09 ± 0.71 3.07 ± 0.63 3.24 ± 0.96 3.01 ± 1.10
Income (1,000 won) < 1,000 24 3.35 ± 0.70 4.22 3.29 ± 0.68 3.02 3.44 ± 0.47 2.71 3.29 ± 1.38 2.33 2.88 ± 1.16 2.58
1,000 ~ 1,999 54 3.25 ± 0.96 3.42 ± 0.59 3.07 ± 0.63 3.24 ± 0.96 3.01 ± 1.10
2,000 ~ 2,999 110 4 3.48 ± 0.72 3.42 ± 0.66 3.25 ± 0.59 3.58 ± 0.83 3.30 ± 0.94
3,000 ~ 3,999 94 3.68 ± 0.69 3.58 ± 0.65 3.23 ± 0.83 3.42 ± 1.06 3.30 ± 1.11
4,000 ~ 4,999 41 3.68 ± 0.45 3.68 ± 0.53 3.42 ± 0.64 3.60 ± 0.79 3.50 ± 0.91
≥ 5,000 48 3.76 ± 0.55 3.71 ± 0.68 3.47 ± 0.68 3.80 ± 0.67 3.74 ± 0.84

1) Likert 5-point scale from 1-Strongly disagree to 5-Strongly agree

2) t-value ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01

Table 4.
Exploratory factor analysis of sustainability management
  Sustainability management Factor loading1 Cronbach's α
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Socially responsible The institutional foodservice offers healthful foods and information. 0.847     0.928
The institutional foodservice offers health-conscious menu. 0.819    
The institutional foodservice nutrition information about menu. 0.795    
The institutional foodservice provides the customer needs promptly. 0.755    
The institutional foodservice manages customer-oriented business. 0.748    
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to improve quality of menu and service. 0.655    
Environmentally sound The institutional foodservice makes an effort to reduce food wastes.   0.867   0.845
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to reduce wastes.   0.865  
The institutional foodservice makes an effort in recycling.   0.742  
The institutional foodservice use energy and resource efficiently.   0.565  
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to use recyclable containers.   0.552  
Economically value The institutional foodservice makes an effort to contribute to economy by generating profits.     0.798 0.824
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to compete fairly with other stores.     0.718
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to increase employment.     0.710
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to avoid discriminating applicants by gender, age, or religion in the employment process.     0.673
Eigen valu   4.162 3.138 3.048  
Variance of (%)   27.745 20.920 20.317  
KMO = 0.930, Total Variance of % = 68.982
Table 5.
Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis of items
    Variables Estimate t-value C.R C.R
Economically value The institutional foodservice makes an effort to compete fairly with other stores. 0.707 - 0.631 0.872
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to contribute to economy by generating profits. 0.757 13.126
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to increase employment. 0.774 13.384
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to avoid discriminating applicants by gender, age, or religion in the employment process. 0.712 12.422
Sustainability management Socially responsible The institutional foodservice offers health-conscious menu. 0.831 - 0.724 0.940
The institutional foodservice offers healthful foods and information. 0.848 20.213
The institutional foodservice offers nutrition information about menu. 0.743 16.566
The institutional foodservice manages customer-oriented business. 0.866 20.935
The institutional foodservice provides the customer needs promptly. 0.853 20.416
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to improve quality of menu and service. 0.815 18.985
Environmentally sound The institutional foodservice use energy and resource efficiently. 0.651 - 0.634 0.893
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to reduce food wastes. 0.875 14.037
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to reduce wastes. 0.916 14.380
The institutional foodservice makes an effort in recycling. 0.651 11.096
The institutional foodservice makes an effort to use recyclable containers. 0.528 9.228
Store image The institutional foodservice is clean. 0.853 - 0.780 0.946
The institutional foodservice is attractive. 0.835 20.604
It has a cheerful and enchanting atmosphere. 0.896 23.376
The institutional foodservice would be a pleasant place to eat. 0.856 21.515
The institutional foodservice gives me a positive image. 0.838 20.737
Revisit intention I intend to revisit this foodservice in the near future. 0.923 - 0.878 0.935
I would like to visit this foodservice more often. 0.940 31.348
Behaviora intention Word of mouth I would say positive things about this foodservice. 1.000 - 0.779 0.779
  Willingness to pay a premium I am willing to pay more to visit this foodservice. 1.000 - 0.612 0.612
Chi-square (χ2) = 667.544, df = 233, GFI = 0.862, NFI = 0.911, CFI = 0.940, RMSEA = 0.071

∗was measured by using a single item.

Table 6.
Correlation analysis (N = 371)
  EV SR ES SI RVI WOM WPP AVE
EV 1             0.631
SR 0.688 (0.473) 1           0.724
ES 0.581 (0.337) 0.573 (0.328) 1         0.634
SI 0.622 (0.386) 0.781 (0.609) 0.547 (0.299) 1       0.780
RVI 0.534 (0.285) 0.713 (0.508) 0.519 (0.269) 0.768 (0.589) 1     0.878
WOM 0.607 (0.368) 0.739 (0.546) 0.497 (0.247) 0.779 (0.606) 0.828 (0.685) 1   0.779
WPP 0.454 (0.206) 0.544 (0.295) 0.501 (0.251) 0.612 (0.374) 0.676 (0.456) 0.640 (0.409) 1 0.612

EV: Economically value, SR: Socially responsible, ES: Environmentally sound, SI: Store image, RVI: Revisit intention, WOM: Word-of-mouth, WPP: Willingness to pay a premium

Table 7.
Results of the structural equation model
Hypothesized relationship Standardized estimate t-value P Result
H1a EV → SI 0.132 1.445 0.148 Not supported
H1b SR → SI 0.707 9.730 ∗∗∗ Supported
H1c ES → SI 0.086 1.349 0.177 Not supported
H2a SI → RVI 0.855 9.306 ∗∗∗ Supported
H2b SI → WOM 0.888 9.121 ∗∗∗ Supported
H2c SI → WPP 0.912 6.630 ∗∗∗ Supported
H3a EV → RVI 0.247 2.277 0.023∗ Supported
H3b EV → WOM 0.033 0.290 0.771 Not supported
H3c EV → WPP -0.145 -0.876 0.381 Not supported
H3d SR → RVI 0.329 3.247 0.001∗∗ Supported
H3e SR → WOM 0.330 3.034 0.002∗∗ Supported
H3f SR → WPP 0.062 0.398 0.691 Not supported
H3g ES → RVI 0.141 1.879 0.060 Not supported
H3h ES → WOM -0.011 -0.136 0.891 Not supported
H3i ES → WPP 0.356 3.007 0.003∗∗ Supported
Chi-square (χ2) = 806.619 (p < 0.001), df = 236, GFI = 0.830, NFI = 0.892, CFI = 0.921, RMSEA = 0.081

EV: Economically value, SR: Socially responsible, ES: Environmentally sound, SI: Store image, RVI: Revisit intention, WOM: Word-of-mouth WPP: Willingness to pay a premium

∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001

TOOLS
Similar articles