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

Jiyoon Ahn; Sunhee Seo

doi:10.4163/jnh.2015.48.2.199

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

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

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

Research Article

J Nutr Health 2015;48(2):199-210.

Published online: 19 January 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4163/jnh.2015.48.2.199

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

Jiyoon Ahn, Sunhee Seo^†

Department of Nutritional Science and Food Management, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 120-750, Korea

^†To whom correspondence should be addressed. tel: +82-2-3277-4484, e-mail: seo@ewha.ac.kr

Received 15 December 2014 Revised 11 January 2015 Accepted 9 March 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

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.

Go to :

Keywords: institutional foodservice, sustainability management, store image, 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.

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.

9.Pan Y., Zinkhan GM. Determinants of retail patronage: a meta-analytical perspective. J Retail. 2006. 82(3):229–243.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

22.Fornell C., Wernerfelt B. Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaint management: a theoretical analysis. J Mark Res. 1987. 24(4):337–346.

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.

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.

26.Zeithaml VA., Berry LL., Parasuraman A. The behavioral consequences of service quality. J Mark. 1996. 60(2):31–46.

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.

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.

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.

31.Lantos GP. The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. J Consum Mark. 2001. 18(7):595–632.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Go to :

Fig. 1.

Research model

undefined

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

undefined

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of respondents

Demographic	characteristics	N	%
Gender	Male	243	65.5
Gender	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
Marriage status	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
Revisit intention	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		Store image		Behavioral intention
			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
Gender	Female	128	3.49 ± 0.79	1.01²	3.41 ± 0.68	2.32^∗2	3.40 ± 0.67	0.80²⁾	3.60 ± 0.89	1.17²⁾	3.48 ± 1.02	1.13²
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
	Sustainability management	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Cronbach's α
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
Revisit intention		I would like to visit this foodservice more often.	0.940	31.348	0.878	0.935
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