Purchase Intention of Customers towards Handloom Textiles with Geographical Indications

Rekha Menon; P Vasanthakumari

doi:10.48001/jbmis.2024.si1001

Rekha Menon Vimala College (Autonomous) Thrissur, Department of Commerce, N.S.S College Ottapalam https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1062-6758
P Vasanthakumari Centre Head, Department of Management Studies, Dr. John Matthai Centre, Thrissur https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0473-9682

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48001/jbmis.2024.si1001

Keywords: Geographical indications, Handloom, textiles, factor analysis

Abstract

Geographical indications refer to a collective Intellectual property right conferred upon products that draw unique quality on account of the environmental or human skills unique to that place. In Kerala, there are 38 registered Geographical indications. Geographical indications are often viewed as a marketing tool that supports producers and consumers. The producers can use GIs as a product differentiation tool that helps them gain a competitive advantage. Whereas for consumers GIs act as a tool that helps them overcome information asymmetry and therefore choose genuine products. The present study is done to identify the factors determining the purchase intention of customers towards handloom textiles having geographical indications. The sample for the present study is drawn from the customers of Kuthampully Textiles, a geographical indication registered in Kerala. The data collected were analyzed using factor analysis and logistic regression. The factor analysis was done to identify the main factors affecting the purchase intention of GI-tagged textiles and the logistic regression was applied to determine factor interactions.

References

Akhter, S.H. (2003) Digital divide and purchase intention: why demographic psychology matters. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 321–327.

Alcalde, M.J., Ripoll, G., & Panea, B. (2013) Consumer attitudes towards meat consumption in Spain with special reference to quality marks and kid meat. In Consumer Attitudes to Food Quality Products: Emphasis on Southern Europe (ed. by M. Klopcˇicˇ, A. Kuipers & J.-F. Hocquette), pp. 97–107. EAAP publication No. 133, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.

Aprile, M.C., Caputo, V. & Gallina, G. (2009) Attitude and awareness of EU quality labels: an analysis of Italian consumers. Rivista di Economia Agraria, LXIV, 269–289, (Luglio-Dicembre).

Aprile, M.C., Caputo, V. & Nayga, R.M. Jr. (2012) Consumers’ valuation of food quality labels: the case of the European geographic indication and organic farming labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36, 158–165.

Borg, E.A. & Gratzer, K. (2013) Collective brand strategy, entrepreneurship, and regional growth: the role of a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO). Journal of World Economic Research, 2, 26–38.

Botonaki, A. & Tsakiridou, E. (2004) Consumer response evaluation of a Greek quality wine. Food Economics - Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, 1, 91–98.

Bower, J.A., Saadat, M.A. & Whitten, C. (2003) Effect of liking, information and consumer characteristics on purchase intention and willingness to pay more for a fat spread with a proven health benefit. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 65–74.

Bredahl, L. (2001) Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions about genetically modified foods: results of a cross-national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24, 23–61.

Calvo, D. (2001) Analysis of Quality and Perceived Risk in the Buying Decision-Making Process of Food Products. Doctoral Thesis, Universidade da Coru~na, Coru~na, Spain.

Caporale, G. & Monteleone, E. (2001) Effect of expectations induced by information on origin and its guarantee on the acceptability of a traditional food: olive oil. Sciences Des Aliments, 21, 243–254.

Gangjee, D.E.V.S. (2017), “Proving provenance? Geographical indications certification and its ambiguities”, World Development, Vol. 98, pp. 12-24, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.04.009.

Kher, S.V., Lynn, J.F., Janneke, D.J., Meike, W., Olivia, H.D., Niels, B.L.L. and Hilde, J.C. (2010), “Experts’ perspectives on the implementation of traceability in Europe”, British Food Journal, Vol. 112 No. 3, pp. 261-274, doi: 10.1108/00070701011029138.

Maskin, E. and Tirole, J. (1990), “The principal-agent relationship with an informed principal: the case of private values”, Econometrica, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 379-409.

Menozzi, D. (2006), “Economic aspects of labelling regulations for consumer protection”, Progress in Nutrition, Vol. 8, pp. 157-166.

Menozzi, D., Halawany-Darson, R., Mora, C. and Giraud, G. (2015), “Motives towards traceable food choice: a comparison between French and Italian consumers”, Food Control, Vol. 49, pp. 40-48, doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.09.006.

Nazlida, M., Shiem, L.V. and Normalisa, M.I. (2017), “Does the country of origin of a halal logo matter? The case of packaged food purchases”, Review of International Business and Strategy, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 484-500, doi: 10.1108/RIBS-06-2017-0049.

Pavlou, P.A. and Gefen, D. (2004), “Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based trust”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 37-59, doi: 10.1287/isre.1040.0015.

Pavlou, P.A., Liang, H. and Xue, Y. (2007), “Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: a principal-agent perspective”, Mis Q, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 105-136.

Piemkhoontham, T. and Ruenrom, G. (2010), “Perception and acceptance towards traceability system in selling meat products”, Chulalongkorn Business Review, Vol. 32 No. 123, pp. 73-107.

Poth, S. and Selck, T.J. (2009), “Principal-agent theory and artificial information asymmetry: research and analysis”, Politics, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 137-144, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9256.2009.01349.x.

Rahmah, M. (2017), “The protection of agricultural products under geographical indication: an alternative tool for agricultural development in Indonesia”, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 90-103.