ReviewState of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Economics and Marketing-Finance
Highlights
► Benefit–risk approaches rooted in business economics, marketing-finance, and psychology rely on utility concept. ► Two established approaches in business economics: (a) the expected utility approach, and (b) the psychometric approach. ► The decoupling of individual market participants’ benefit–risk trade-offs may be a more robust predictive framework.
Introduction
The food industry as a whole is undergoing structural changes in terms of internalisation, concentration and network relationships (Zylbersztajn and Omta, 2009, Baourakis et al., 2011). The successive and intensive liberalisation of markets forces the food industry to respond to rapid and radical changes in the marketplace through globalisation and large-scale operations (King et al., 2010). Understanding economic behaviour (e.g., risk-returns and/or benefits-risks) at different stages (e.g., production, retailing, consumption) of the food supply chain is critical in formulating updated and well-informed public economic policies, corporate investment and marketing strategies (Meulenberg, 2000, Kalogeras, 2010).
Recent research in agribusiness economics, finance, and marketing has put the underlying decision-making process of market participants (e.g., investors, producers, consumers) in the spotlight (Kalogeras, 2010). For instance, to study the preferences and choices of end-users, consumers, in the food supply chain, it is important to understand how they evaluate derived benefits and potential risks associated with food consumption (Siergist, 2000, Costa-Font and Mossialos, 2007, Fischer and Frewer, 2009). Hence, attention is centred on the trade-offs between benefit and risk behaviour of market participants engaged in the food markets. The question that emerges is how one can evaluate the drivers of economic behaviour (e.g., preferences, decisions, choices) of market participants in light of benefit–risk analysis in the food domain. Failure to identify and evaluate the impact of benefits and risks on economic behaviour, as well as the impact of factors driving the benefit–risk trade-offs associated with investments in food production, processing, marketing, and consumption, may result in, for instance, a dramatic decrease in production and consumption of certain food products. This decrease, in turn, may have catastrophic economic consequences for the food industry and disrupt the economic relationships in the food markets and society as a whole (Pennings et al., 2002, Wansink, 2004, Cleeren et al., 2008, Van Heerde et al., 2007).
In this paper, we review the business economics and marketing-finance literature regarding the drivers of benefits and risks of market participants engaged in the food industry. To address the subject matter of this review (benefit–risk analysis for foods), we aim to provide a new perspective based on lessons that could be learnt from business economics analysis. Throughout our review, we address issues related either to economic risks and benefits and their impact on the profitability of agribusinesses and consumption of food products, or to consumer health risks and benefits caused by the impact of different market forces on food supply chains. Although these two perspectives (economic and health-related risks and benefits) may be considered somehow different, benefit in one may pose a risk in the other. For instance, there are certain benefits for farmers when commodity prices increase, however this may pose a risk to consumers. That is, consumers who have certain income constraint may alter their purchasing habits. They may shift from buying nutritious food to less nutritious food and, in turn, they may face the consequences resulting from their poor diet choices.
The paper is structured as follows. We first discuss the role of risks and benefits and the impact that both concepts have on economic behaviour in different decision contexts related to agribusiness and food domains. Next, we briefly review the most common risk and benefit measures. Third, we introduce a conceptual framework of benefit–risk behaviour with respect to the food choice. We argue that by decoupling the benefit–risk behaviour of market participants into the separate components of risk attitude and risk perception and utilitarian and hedonic benefits, respectively, we may develop the basis of a generic conceptualisation that may allow better prediction of market participants’ behaviour in food markets. This, in turn, may provide answers as to how public policy-makers, industry managers and marketers in the food industry can deal with different segments of market-participants in highly uncertain and risky market environments (e.g., globalised product-harm crises). Moreover, knowing the drivers of benefit–risk trade-offs may provide insights into whether the solutions to market situations entailing high risk and uncertainty may rely on more drastic measures (e.g., elimination of the risk content) or investing in more effective communication strategies (e.g., retrieval and/or storage strategies).
Section snippets
Benefit–risk behaviour of market participants
Risk is a key component of economic behaviour.1 All market participants accept a certain level of risk as necessary
Benefit–risk trade-offs: measurement issues
Extensive research has been done on how to measure benefit–risk trade-offs. In the literature, two major approaches towards risk attitude measurement can be distinguished: measures derived from the utility framework (von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1947, Schoemaker, 1982, Fishburn, 1988), and measures derived from psychometrics (e.g., Miller et al., 1982, MacCrimmon and Wehrung, 1986, Shapira, 1995). Since the way in which risk attitude is conceptualised and measured affects our understanding of
Proposed research framework
After reviewing the theoretical, methodological, and measurement advances in decision-making under risk, by making special references related to the context of this review paper (i.e., benefit–risk analysis in business economics and marketing-finance), we propose a conceptual model that is based on the decoupling of risks and benefits into different components. That is, our proposed conceptualisation is based on new risk management theory and avoids the methodological and measurement biases
Conclusions
The identification and evaluation of the factors that drive the benefit–risk trade-offs of market participants are important issues in business economics and marketing-finance. The dominant paradigm that economists, financial analysts and marketers mostly rely on their evaluations regarding the benefit–risk trade-offs of market participants (e.g., food producers, consumers) is the expected utility model. Yet, recognising that the decision-making process may have a dual facet (e.g., cognitive
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
The preparation of this manuscript was funded through the Safefoodera project BEPRARIBEAN (project ID 08192) by the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (VWA), the Research Council of Norway (RCN) and the Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM), and supported by MATIS, The National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) and Ulster University.
References (162)
- et al.
A flexible logistic growth model with applications in telecommunications
Int. J. Forecasting
(1988) - et al.
Confidence lost and partially – regained: consumer response to food scares
J. Econ. Behav. Organ.
(2000) Portfolio theory and the measurement of risk
- et al.
Are perceptions of risks and benefits of genetically modified food (in)dependent?
Food Qual. Prefer.
(2007) - et al.
Consumer familiarity with foods and the perception of risks and benefits
Food Qual. Prefer.
(2009) - et al.
Revealed versus hidden attributes as determinants of perceived product quality
J. Econ. Psychol.
(1983) - et al.
Stochastic specification of production functions and economic implications
J. Econ.
(1978) - et al.
Forecasting with growth curves: an empirical comparison
Int. J. Forecasting
(1995) Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions
Manage. Sci.
(2000)- et al.
Agricultural Decision Analysis
(1977)
Information integration in risky decision making
J. Exp. Psychol.
Evaluating the magnitudes of financial transactions costs on risk behaviour
Agric. Syst.
Aspects of the Theory of the Risk Bearing, Yrjö Jahnssonin Säätiö
Essays in the Theory of Risk Bearing
Introduction to the special issue on recent trends in the food industry and food chain
J. Food Products Market.
Measuring hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes
Market. Lett.
Judgment in Managerial Decision-Making
Risk, return and utility
Manage. Sci.
Multiattribute utility functions: decomposition using interpolation
Manage. Sci.
One switch utility functions and a measure of risk
Manage. Sci.
Marginal value and intrinsic risk attitude
Perceived risk and its components, a model and empirical test
J. Market. Res.
Constructive consumer choice processes
J. Cons. Res.
Attitudes toward risk: experimental measurement in rural India
Am. J. Agric. Econ.
New evidence on agricultural commodity return performance under time-varying risk
Am. J. Agric. Econ.
Risk attitudes amongst Australian farmers
Aust. J. Agric. Econ.
Representation of farmers behaviour under uncertainty with a focus-loss constraint
J. Farm Econ.
The trade-off between expected return and risk among corn-belt farmers
Am. J. Agric. Econ.
A class of utility functions containing all the common utility functions
Manage. Sci.
A decision theoretic approach to crop disease prediction and control
Am. J. Agric. Econ.
Economics of biological control of pests
Am. J. Altern. Agric.
Toward a strategic theory of risk premium: moving beyond CAMP
Acad. Manage. Rev.
Assessment of the psychometric properties of an opinion leadership scale
J. Market. Res.
Weathering product-harm crises
J. Acad. Market. Sci.
Towards a positive economic theory of hedging
Am. J. Agric. Econ.
Optimal strategic business units portfolio analysis
Communicating the consequences of early detection: the role of evidence and framing
J. Market.
Sensory and hedonic judgments of common foods by lean consumers and consumers with obesity
Obes. Res.
Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis for the field settings
Monitoring consumer confidence in food safety: an exploratory study
Brit. Food J.
Risk attitudes of subsistence farmers in northeast Brazil: a sampling approach
Aust. J. Agric. Econ.
Consumer preferences for extrinsic versus intrinsic quality cues for image products: the case of Greek quality wine
Perceived risk: the concept and its measurement
Psychol. Market.
A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity
J. Cons. Res.
Relative risk aversion
Manage. Sci.
Economic and Financial Decisions under Risk
Trust, perceived risk, and attitudes toward food technologies
J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.
A measurement approach for modelling consumer risk preference
Manage. Sci.
Classic and current notions of measurable utility
Econ. J.
Utility assessment methods
Manage. Sci.
Cited by (11)
Risk-benefit in food safety and nutrition – Outcome of the 2019 Parma Summer School
2021, Food Research InternationalCitation Excerpt :Health authorities decided to encourage (again) pregnant women and women who want to become pregnant to take folic acid supplements. In Europe, in the last decade several major projects were concluded to explore the area of risk–benefit analysis for food and nutrition: BRAFO (Boobis et al., 2013; Hoekstra, Hart, et al., 2012; Verhagen, Andersen, et al., 2012; Vidry et al., 2013), Qalibra (Hart et al., 2013), Beneris (Karjalainen et al., 2013), Bepraribean (Kalogeras et al., 2012; Luteijn et al., 2012; Magnusson et al., 2012; Pohjola et al., 2012; Tijhuis, de Jong, et al., 2012; Tijhuis, Pohjola, et al., 2012; Ueland et al., 2012; Verhagen, Tijhuis, et al., 2012), and more recently the RiskBenefit4EU project (Alvito et al., 2019; Assunção, Alvito, et al., 2019). All these projects were developing methodology and approaches to qualitatively and quantitatively compare risks and benefits, including the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2010); an overview of these projects is provided in (Verhagen, Tijhuis, et al., 2012).
Critical appraisal of the assessment of benefits and risks for foods, 'BRAFO Consensus Working Group'
2013, Food and Chemical ToxicologyCitation Excerpt :The project started in 2009. A set of 6 ‘state of the art’ papers covering the above areas, an introductory paper and the final integration paper were published in early 2012 (Kalogeras et al., 2012; Luteijn et al., 2012; Magnússon et al., 2012; Pohjola et al., 2012; Tijhuis et al., 2012a; Ueland et al., 2012; Verhagen et al., 2012b; Tijhuis et al., 2012b). More information can be obtained at: http://en.opasnet.org/w/Bepraribean.
Benefit-risk assessment of plant sterols in margarine: A QALIBRA case study
2013, Food and Chemical ToxicologyCitation Excerpt :Benefit–risk assessment is a highly interesting and developing area in which many papers are now being produced. They originate from QALIBRA and other EU projects on benefit–risk assessment: BRAFO (Hoekstra et al., 2010; Watzl et al., 2011; Verhagen et al., 2011); BENERIS (this issue) and BEPRARIBEAN (Tijhuis et al., 2012a; Tijhuis et al., 2012b; Verhagen et al., 2012; Luteijn et al., 2012; Magnusson et al., 2012; Pohjola et al., 2012; Kalogeras et al., 2012; Ueland et al., 2012). This case study illustrates how the QALIBRA tool is used in a quantitative assessment.
Looking beyond borders: Integrating best practices in benefit-risk analysis into the field of Food and Nutrition
2012, Food and Chemical ToxicologyCitation Excerpt :In Section 5, we sum up the main points of this paper, and the whole BEPRARIBEAN project, and indicate some implications that these points will or may have for Food and Nutrition benefit–risk analysis in the future. In 2.1–2.6 we summarize the key issues from the 6 state of the art reviews: Food and Nutrition (Tijhuis et al., 2011), Medicines (Luteijn et al., 2011), Food Microbiology (Magnússon et al., 2011), Environmental Health (Pohjola et al., 2011a), Economics and Marketing–Finance (Kalogeras et al., 2011) and Consumer Perception (Ueland et al., 2011). They are complemented in 2.7 with a short overview of the contemporary regulatory context for Food and Nutrition management and assessment in the European Union.
Will you choose a low-rating hotel that offers promotions?–Insights from the prospect theory
2024, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing