sustainability

Article
Sustainable Consumer Behavior: The Driving Force of
Innovation in Retail
Daniela Šálková 1 , Aleš Hes 1, * and Petr Kučera 2

1 Department of Trade and Finance, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences
Prague, 165 21 Prague, Czech Republic; [email protected]
2 Department of System Engineering, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life
Sciences Prague, 165 21 Prague, Czech Republic; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +420-224-382-366

Abstract: The coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented shock to the world economy.
Consumer purchase of a country’s brand and the products manufactured in their own country plays
a vital role in that country’s GDP, and helps revive the country’s economy. This study focuses on
understanding the factors that influence consumers’ buying behavior, and on modeling these factors
to understand the causal relationship, using partial least squares structural equation modeling. The
data analysis is based on the online survey carried out between 30 March 2020 and 18 April 2020.
A total of 367 responses were collected during this period. The study’s findings indicate that there
are changes in consumer buying behavior, and the factors that are decisive for purchasing decisions
in times of social crisis are changing. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to understand the
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on consumers’ lives and the changes in their behavior during and
after the crisis. Consumers’ attitudes towards traditionalism and retail innovation are essential for
the sustainable development of consumer behavior. Under the influence of change and shopping
constraints, unplanned- and impulse-shopping behavior has changed into a deliberate search for
more sustainable options, with women shopping for sustainable food more often than men. Women
are more health-conscious, and consider sustainable food healthier than conventional food. On
the retail side, trusted certification of origin supports the rate of sustainable-food purchases, and,
from the viewpoint of innovation, the use of digital communication with consumers across different
Citation: Šálková, D.; Hes, A.; communication channels and platforms is essential.
Kučera, P. Sustainable Consumer
Behavior: The Driving Force of Keywords: consumer; COVID-19 pandemic; ethical products; innovation; purchasing behavior;
Innovation in Retail. Sustainability retail; sustainability
2023, 15, 16648. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su152416648

Academic Editors: Erika Loučanová

and Katarina Repkova Stofkova
1. Introduction
The change in socio-economic conditions and constraints associated with the pandemic
Received: 25 October 2023
have had a significant impact on the daily routine of individuals [1]. Especially in the retail
Revised: 1 December 2023
sector, it is necessary to understand current consumer behavior in a dynamically changing
Accepted: 4 December 2023
socio-economic environment where the social and economic security of the majority of the
Published: 7 December 2023
population is under threat [2]. The present economic climate, marked by soaring inflation,
diminishing or vanished employment prospects, an escalating energy crisis, and steep
fuel prices, significantly affects consumers’ daily lives [2,3]. Therefore, it is necessary to
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. address the key areas that determine consumers’ purchasing decision-making processes
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. and the innovative factors influencing sustainability and retail development. Society must
This article is an open access article delve into the ‘black box’ of consumer behavior, employing empathetic understanding and
distributed under the terms and thorough research to grasp the key attributes shaping consumers’ evolving lifestyles and
conditions of the Creative Commons preferences in relation to retail purchases [4]. Connected to these shifts are transformations
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// in the retail landscape, driven by innovative sales tactics, digital engagement incorporating
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
artificial intelligence, and advanced e-commerce platforms. These changes are in response
4.0/).

Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416648 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 2 of 26

to the evolving patterns of shopping behavior and consumption [5]. Understanding con-
sumer behavior is a prerequisite for corporate success in retail, and can be examined on two
levels [6]. The first level is to explore which factors influence purchasing decision-making
processes, to indicate patterns of consumer behavior and their responses to turbulent social
change. The second level is to explore the retail industry’s readiness for dispositional
buying behavior and to identify practical tools and practices that work in the modern retail
industry, based on business process innovation, particularly in marketing communications.
The COVID-19 pandemic has not only raised the problem of how to address the necessary
physical isolation (by moving activities to the online environment) but, on a much larger
scale, has emphasized sustainability and the preservation of the standard of living of society
for the next generation [7]. Consumers have changed; they have discovered the benefits of
many activities in the online environment; they can do the shopping more conveniently
from the comfort of their homes and save the time needed for shopping [8]. They are more
interested in spending time with families and friends; they are interested in their mental,
physical, or artistic development; and they are interested in ethical shopping. The virtual
world, in the form of various digital platforms, provides them with more shopping conve-
nience, which makes consumers’ ethical approach to shopping even more important [9].
All the issues identified represent challenges for the retail industry, which must respond to
these changes with innovative practices that define the basis for sales success. The shift
in socio-economic conditions, coupled with the challenges posed by the pandemic, has
profoundly influenced consumers’ everyday lives [9].

1.1. The Impact of the COVID 19 Pandemic on Purchasing Behaviour

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the lives of people all over
the world, and has significantly influenced their purchasing behavior. A new coronavirus
disease spread rapidly worldwide, resulting in a global pandemic. The starting point can
be traced back to 11 March 2020, the date when the World Health Organization (WHO)
officially declared COVID-19 a global pandemic [10]. Lockdowns and world-wide restric-
tions have severely damaged the global economy. In the second quarter of 2020, GDP
in the European Union (EU) fell by 11.9% [11], and in the United States by 32.9% [12],
compared to the previous quarter. The anxiety and uncertainty accompanying the pan-
demic inevitably impacted life and consumer behavior. Preventive measures enacted by
numerous countries restricted people’s movement, fostered uncertainty, and disrupted
habitual consumer patterns and decision-making processes [13]. During the first phase
of the coronavirus lockdown, people experienced unexpected situations that led to a sig-
nificant shift in consumer preferences. Goods were classified as essential and expendable,
with only necessities available to shoppers during this period. There was no demand for
lifestyle products, even without these restrictions. Like the swine flu epidemic, increased
purchases of food, face masks, and disinfectants were noted during this period [14]. A
considerable proportion of consumers increased their food consumption, due to higher
levels of anxiety [15–17]. A study [18] revealed that in ten European countries there was
an increase in food consumption, attributed to the rise in remote-work arrangements.
Research on this topic points to changes in consumer behavior due to stressful causes,
where these behavioral changes aim to cope, at least partially, with intense pressure, and
to alleviate existential difficulties [19–21]. It is a person’s reaction to a stressful situation
or condition of a more permanent nature that may affect his or her decision-making and
behavior [22]. Some studies have pointed out that fear may be the cause of irrational and
non-standard purchasing behavior [20,23,24]. Research into the immediate impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on consumer consumption and purchasing behavior has confirmed
several significant changes in purchasing patterns. During the pandemic, impulse buying
in the form of pan-shopping [25] was observed to a significant extent, leading to stockpiling
of goods, including food [26], cleaning and hygiene products, and medicines [27]. Across
all countries in the world, panic buying [28], stockpiling, and consequently empty shelves
in stores were quite common, even in developed countries [29]. Therefore, panic buying
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 3 of 26

as a social phenomenon has had an impact, especially in the retail sector [30]. Panic arises
because of stressful and upsetting events, where the goal is to regain a sense of balance and
regulate the effects of stressful situations [31]. Panic-buying behavior has gained attention
as a social phenomenon, and is typically manifested during any pandemic when people
feel a sudden need to stockpile for fear of future shortages or price increases [32].
Psychology plays a major role in impulse panic-buying behavior. Some research
considers psychological and situational factors to be critical [33]. Psychological conditions
significantly affect human cognition, decision-making, and behavior [34]. Another research
study [35] found that the psychology of shopping in a crisis is driven primarily by rec-
ognizing material value and regulating negative emotions, through purchasing material
goods. One of the most common psychological explanations is that hoarding storable
items provides individuals with a sense of control over a high-risk situation resulting
from a disaster [36]. The onset and persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic left the public
fearful and uncertain. Therefore, many consumers have turned to panic buying as a means
to manage their feelings of insecurity and regain control of the situation [29,36,37]. The
perceived scarcity effect is also largely linked to this, and hoarding is intensified when there
is a shortage of primary staples [38,39]. It also leads to individuals experiencing insecurity,
which gradually triggers further efforts to frantically stockpile products. Survival psychol-
ogy recognizes that individuals may undergo specific behavioral changes. Understanding
consumers’ decision-making processes is essential when analyzing instances of individuals
changing their behavior in response to health crises [40–42].
To reduce the risk of infection, some people have purchased large volumes of goods
with low-frequency of purchase [43]. However, it is usually panic buying that causes
situations to worsen when backstock is scarce, often leading to increased prices of food
products [36]. According to [44], 64% of consumers have experienced product shortages
in stores, and 50% of consumers have stocked up on products to avoid future shortages.
In a survey conducted to study the stockpiling behavior of Danish and British shoppers
in the early phase of a pandemic, it was found that only four of ten shoppers made no
extra purchases [45]. It was even found that consumers who panic shop for food because of
COVID-19 could gradually acquire a long-term addiction in the form of compulsive buying
behavior [45]. In addition, prominent levels of improvisation, procrastination regarding
leftover purchases, and an increased use of digital technology and home delivery, blurring
the distinction between work and private life, and virtual meetings with friends and family,
have been reported [46–49]. Unlimited or contactless shopping has gained new importance,
due to strictly set standards of social distance. Changes have also been observed in the
choice of shopping location, the type of goods purchased, and the acceptance of digital
payments. People reacted both psychologically and behaviorally to the ubiquitous news
about the severity of the disease throughout the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, with
the information presented in the form of multiple messages through mainstream media
and social networks [27,28]. News of lockdowns, border closures, and problems with retail
supply and stock-outs of certain products led to significant uncertainty, and induced fear in
people [50–52]. Everybody perceived future uncertainty [36], particularly concerning food
security [53,54]. The phenomenon of COVID-19 caused anxiety among consumers, largely
because of the many uncertainties associated with the disease and its consequences [55].
This situation also affected those consumers who had no schooling for coping with panic
anxiety and disorders.
Thus, government information management and transparent communication will
be crucial during any future pandemic or crisis. At the same time, it is the responsibility
of retailers to quickly inform consumers of product availability, and this will also play a
leading role in protecting them from the risk of panic buying [13].

1.2. Sustainable Consumption and Changes Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic

In recent years, sustainability has become an increasingly major decision factor re-
garding most consumer goods. The impact of sustainable consumption is reflected in the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 4 of 26

economy, society, and the environment [56,57]. Responsible (sustainable) consumption is

defined as consumers’ efforts to reduce environmental impacts. It assumes that consumers
tend to have a deeper perception and interest in moderation in consumption [58]. In this
context, sustainability includes caring for the environment, for quality of life, and for future
generations [59]. In addition, consumers’ shift towards more sustainable behaviors can
significantly reduce their carbon impact, contributing to sustainable development [60]. A
study on global sustainability found that 73% of consumers declare their willingness to
change their purchasing decisions and consumption habits, to reduce their environmental
impact [61]. Therefore, it is important for local authorities, including retailers, to address
whether and how they could potentially intervene in consumption patterns in order to
influence consumer behavior and their quality of life, and to improve the quality of life
and the impact of their consumption behavior not only on themselves, but also on other
consumers, the community, society, and the environment [62]. More communication and a
greater media presence are factors that can positively influence the acceptance of any new
and important idea [63].
During the pandemic, consumers have become aware of the importance of hygienic
products, environmentally friendly products, and regional (local) products [49]. Consumers
have started buying more organic food and food directly from their producers—farmers [64].
Some studies show the positive impact of the pandemic on more-sustainable purchasing
behavior. Globally, Nielsen conducted research [65] on consumer attitudes and behaviors
during pandemics, and found that, in March 2021, there was a 33% increase in sales of
certified organic food, compared to the same period a year before. Similarly, there was a
71% and 41% increase in sales of lactose-free milk and ROS gluten-free beverage products,
respectively, which may indicate a growing concern for one’s health. The pandemic has
highlighted the need to switch to more-sustainable food production methods and ways of
consuming food. Therefore, analyses that address changes in consumer purchasing behavior
in the context of COVID-19 in relation to sustainability are particularly important [27]. Many
studies address consumers’ attitudes, purchasing patterns, and consumption behavior
when purchasing products with sustainable characteristics (e.g., organic food, animal-
welfare food, fair-trade food, environmentally friendly food, local food, etc.), prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic [66–68]. Until now, few studies have examined how COVID-19 has
affected Czech consumers and their attitudes towards purchasing sustainable products.
This research encompasses more complex post-truth determinants of Czech consumers’
rates of making sustainable purchases in general, as well as their consumption. In this
context, the main objective of this study is to analyze trends in consumer preferences for
sustainable behavior before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

1.3. Innovation in Retail and Consumer Behavior

Progress in retail is based on two main pillars: innovation and sustainability. There is
empirical evidence that both innovation and sustainability contribute to customer satisfac-
tion. The path to achieving satisfaction in retail requires the promotion of both innovative
(product, marketing, and relationship innovation) and sustainable (environmental, social
and economic) practices [69]. With the development of behavioral economics, the theory
of social preferences is often used. These social preferences are distinct from economic
motivation, and influence the behavior of all actors along the supply chain [70].
Before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the annual growth in retail turnover was
steady, at an average of 2–3%. As a result of the pandemic, the world economy contracted by
1.5–4.0% in 2020, marking the worst economic recession since the 1930s [71]. The pandemic
has changed not only global economic outcomes. but also the entire retail competitive
landscape [72]. Small retail stores are among the first to suffer significant financial losses
in an economic downturn, something that happens usually every time [73]. Therefore,
innovation in the context of sustainability can play a significant role in supporting retail
businesses. Another typical feature of consumer behavior in the presence of any health
risk caused by the spread of a disease affecting health is the reduction in physical store
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 5 of 26

visits and a shift in interest towards electronic forms of shopping. Consumers reduced
their spending on food in stores and away from home, while increasing their spending on
food purchased online, suggesting that changes in shopping location influenced changes
in consumer food consumption and post-food expenditures [74]. A study [18] showed
that 45% of consumers in 10 European countries shopped for food online more during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Consumers tended to shop online more than in supermarkets, to
reduce the potential risk of infection. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced
another problem that has hit consumer behavior hard. In addition to the physical isolation
that has caused a change in consumer behavior and the need to shop online, it has also
highlighted the importance of the topic of health and its value, to a much greater extent.
The notions of sustainability and conservation have become more prominent. It was a
big challenge for the retail industry not to lose consumers and to remain viable during a
pandemic crisis. Retail focused on the following aspects, which formed the backbone of the
change in consumer behavior:
1. Consumer health.
2. Sustainability of values.
3. Change in consumer lifestyles.
4. Online retail world.
5. Convenience of purchase.
These aspects are part of a partial ethical and sustainable approach to shopping. The
heightened interest in producing and processing raw materials, along with advancements
in production technologies, has played a pivotal role in supporting consumer health.
Sustainability of values can be characterized by consumer concern for the quality of the
goods purchased and the stability of retail sales. Consumer lifestyles have become more
intertwined with responsibility in purchasing decisions, and the online world of retail
has created a new parallel of shopping that has offered consumers a contactless form of
commerce. User-generated content is increasingly important in all fields and sectors [75].
All these aspects contributed to considerable shopping convenience. The retail response
had to take the initiative and accommodate these aspects. In a pandemic crisis, retailers
who did not understand the situation did not stand up to the competition. Retail activity
gradually developed into innovation, which positively influenced consumer purchasing
decisions. In the case of food, the retail industry transformed itself into an importing service,
as it found that consumers became more trusting of food imports, which contributed to
their convenience shopping. It was convenience shopping that saw significant weight
attached to the introduction of innovations that pushed the retailer’s opportunities for
attracting consumers toward innovative forms of communication.

1.4. Ethical and Innovative Approach to Food Waste

Consumer attitudes towards food waste played a significant role in relation to the
ethical approach to food purchasing. During the pandemic period, consumers’ interest
in minimizing food waste was clear. Reducing food waste is a significant issue affecting
the environment, the economy, and society. Food waste occurs throughout vertical food-
processing and marketing, and consumers play a significant role. The modern food retail
industry strives to significantly reduce food waste, which generates toxic gases and poses a
severe risk to human health and the environment [76]. In addition, food waste leads to the loss
of scarce land, water, and energy resources [77] In their study, Principato et al. [78] formulated
various aspects of the food waste phenomenon at the consumer level, which includes high
consumer-consumption behavior. One of the principal factors in the innovation of this process
to mitigate food waste is the prevention and implementation of the 3R (reduce, reuse, recycle)
principle [79]. The 3R principle is one of the ways to reduce resource consumption, food
consumption, and food residue management across the entire production, processing, and
marketing vertical. Food reduction affects the entire food supply chain, from agriculture to
food service [80]. The pandemic crisis prompted a notable shift in attitudes towards food
shopping. This change was manifested not only in a move towards online shopping, but
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 6 of 26

also in a more thoughtful approach by consumers regarding their purchases, with them
aiming to minimize post-consumption food waste. Food waste can be significantly reduced
through simple steps such as meal planning, creating shopping lists, using leftovers, and
storing food properly [81] According to professional estimates, one third of the food
produced globally for human consumption is wasted [82,83]. Thus, organizations and
governments can strengthen individual consumer responsibility by increasing awareness
of waste prevention behavior, leading to increased accountability for food waste. Programs
can be developed to reduce food waste and its environmental impacts. Through these
activities, people can learn about the impacts of food waste and be inspired to prevent it.
Therefore, consumers’ concern for the environment can increase, consequently influencing
their attitudes toward food waste. Techniques supporting the subjective norm and attitude
that food waste is unacceptable should be developed. Attitudes, perceived behavioral
control, and waste prevention are the principal factors that can directly influence food-
waste reduction. These factors should be the focus of interventions and policies aimed at
reducing food waste. For example, campaigns and education programs aimed at changing
individuals’ attitudes towards food waste could effectively promote behaviors that reduce
waste. In addition, programs aimed at increasing perceived control of individual behavior,
such as providing information on food waste, could also be effective. From the retail side
of sustainability and business viability comes one form of innovative solutions leading to
a more efficient use of resources to reduce food waste. This is a form of business called
bricolage (EB). Entrepreneurial bricolage (EB) has become part of modern management in
retail as well, contributing to the creation of sustainable competitive advantage in retail
and consumer firms, influencing the benefits of differentiation and risk management, and
co-creating service innovation in resource-constrained environments [18] Entrepreneurial
bricolage works with change processes that are welcomed by consumers in retail. At the
same time, post-food waste can be controlled and prevented.

1.5. Innovation and Consumer Behavior

In the days before the pandemic, consumers’ main goal was to maximize comfort,
which meant the desire to use any service or to purchase any product at any time. Con-
sumers’ priority was the speed of delivery of products and services, including their availabil-
ity. The pandemic introduced many obstacles that severely limited consumer convenience.
Purchasing behavior was no longer as spontaneous as before; every visit to the mall had to
be carefully planned. Therefore, during the COVID-19 constraints, many retail companies
moved their business activities online, and started using innovative sales elements in
their offer. Innovative technologies that use shared communication between consumers
and retailers have emerged as one of the effective innovative elements. These are intelli-
gent cloud-based applications, such as ERP and CRM. Currently, these platforms work
with artificial intelligence that can develop a prominent level of accuracy with predictive
analytics. The retail communication process will typically see the consumer interacting
with an increasing number of deployed robots, virtual assistants, and virtual reality. The
consumer will be more involved, and will actively participate in the process. Other in-
novative elements will be digital communication in the form of unique and individual
offers tailored to the consumer’s personality. The prerequisite for this innovation is knowl-
edge of the consumer’s characteristics, which will be communicated to the retailer via a
virtual/digital platform. Innovation is usually based on an idea that breaks away from
conventional/standard phenomena. In digital marketing communication, the retailer’s
communication with the consumer becomes a dialogue, where the priority is the consensus
of both areas of opinion, based on information sharing. As a result, the market offerings
have become more personalized, fully catering to consumer satisfaction. Take sub-selling
as an example, where innovation hinges on four key pillars of successful sales strategies:
(1) The ability to attract attention.
(2) The ability to convey an essential message.
(3) The ability to persuade.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 7 of 26

(4) The ability to initiate a purchasing decision.

The core objective of these sales promotions and communication strategies is to engage
consumers actively in the sales process. Nowadays, consumers can tailor their purchases
precisely to their needs, using modern media and applications. From a retail standpoint,
this mode of communication stands as one of the most rapidly expanding platforms. Inno-
vations in this area are anticipated to be key drivers of meeting social needs sustainably and
enhancing the competitiveness of retail businesses, ultimately determining their success.
Currently, these tools are predominantly utilized in the online environment, encompassing
various formats, such as podcasts, video conferences (Zoom, Google Meet, Hangouts,
Skype, Webex, Whereby, Jitsi), group communication platforms (Slack, Discord, Google
Chat, Microsoft Teams, Google Groups), shared information resources (Google Docs, Sheets,
Keep), and communication applications (WhatsApp, Viber, Facebook Messenger).
As a result, there is a need to understand new consumer behavior regarding new
theories, marketing strategies in the post-COVID-19 situation, and factors influencing
consumers when purchasing goods or services after the market is closed. It turned out
that there needs to be more empirical data on sustainability and changes in purchasing
behavior, comparing the situation before and after the pandemic in the Czech Republic [83].
Therefore, the research focused on the differences in consumer purchases of sustainable
products by consumers, comparing the situation before the COVID-19 pandemic and
after the pandemic subsided. The aim of this research was to investigate the degree of
willingness to purchase sustainable products after an exceptional experience in life, in
conditions of significant restrictions in many areas of everyday life during the pandemic,
and at the same time, to point to consumers as the driving force behind innovation in retail.
Our research builds on the previous research conducted in this area, and tries to solve the
identified gap in the existing knowledge.

Consumer Behavior Patterns in Food Purchasing

Understanding consumer behavior in food purchasing necessitates an exploration of
the distinct approaches adopted by men and women. According to [84], male consumers
can be categorized into four distinct groups:
1. Busy customers—they are men in managerial positions with high incomes. Their
grocery shopping is fast; they are not influenced by price and discount events. They
do not want to waste time shopping. They are aged between 28 and 36 years old.
2. Fair customers—they are men with low income, but higher education level. They often
live alone, buy food with pleasure, and consider shopping as a social process. They
are between 25 and 30 years old. They plan their purchases; they are not influenced
much by flyer offers.
3. Apathetic customers—highly educated men with the highest incomes, showing reluc-
tance to buy food and ignoring marketing promotions for food sales.
4. Economy customers—men with low incomes and lower education level. They are
very sensitive to price changes and price relationships. They welcome price benefits
and regularly follow marketing events.
According to [84], women are divided into three groups:
1. Fair customers—women who consider grocery shopping necessary; these women are
young, with a higher level of education.
2. Apathetic customers—women with high incomes aged between 28 and 32. Food
shopping is neutral; they do not enjoy it. They shop slowly, and think about what
food to buy for a long time.
3. Economic customers—women affected by the household budget. They buy food at
lower prices and consider food alternatives. They like shopping. They are women of
and older age and lower education level.
Generally, men share more responsibility for buying food; they want to support their
partners and thus control household expenses, becoming more sustainable. On the other
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 8 of 26

hand, women primarily enjoy shopping for food more than men; sustainability is more
important here than expected.
According to the purchased food and the sustainability, customers can be divided into
five groups [85]:
(1) Customers preferring fresh food.
(2) Customers preferring a healthy lifestyle.
(3) Customers who enjoy grocery shopping.
(4) Customers in a hurry.
(5) Customers focusing on sweets.
Knowing the types of consumers buying food is essential for investigating their
sustainability, i.e., their approach to ethical shopping.

2. Materials and Methods

The data were obtained in 2021 from research conducted by the Department of Busi-
ness and Finance of the Faculty of Economics and Management of the Czech University
of Life Sciences in Prague. One thousand one hundred and ten respondents voluntarily
answered the questionnaire, with the following characteristics: (aged 15–93; 60.00% women;
38.3% with a university education; 37.4% families with children; N = 1110). Respondents
were assured that the results would be presented in anonymized statistical form, and that
the data would not be passed on to a third party. The snowball method was used to select
the sample. The snowball technique in data collection assumes that respondents who have
already filled out the questionnaire will suggest other respondents who could also fill out
the questionnaire. The research results from 2021 were compared with the research in the
same topic conducted within the Department of Business and Finance in 2018. One thou-
sand and six respondents (aged 17–91; 54.2% women; 30.8% with a university education;
42.5% of families with children; N = 1006) participated in this research. We have identified
the changes in customers’ purchasing behavior concerning purchasing ethical products, in
a comparison between the period before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
The data used in the research were collected using an online questionnaire through
Google Forms. According to [86], Internet surveys give researchers access to a unique
population, and offer the possibility of collecting data in a shorter period. The questionnaire
consisted of three sections: the first section contained questions regarding the demographic
profile of the respondent (the demographic profiles of the respondents are shown in Table 1);
the second section related to the intensity and reasons for making purchases of products
that can be described as ethical before and after the COVID-19 situation; the third section
contained questions regarding the approach to waste management and ways to minimize
it. This part of the questionnaire was not the subject of this article. The questionnaire
contained a combination of closed questions, with the option of choosing a multi-item
measurement of four constructs on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree). Respecting Ajzen’s recommendations [87], all items that measured
intentions and perceived behavioral control were formulated in relation to the specific
context in which the behavior was manifested.
The odds ratio (OR) was used to analyze the frequency of occurrence of a specific
behavior of the respondents. Specifically, the level of resistance to selected types of behavior
or, conversely, the tendency towards them (e.g., a certain degree of buying “responsible”
products, reading, or, on the contrary, ignoring product labels, and boycotting unethical
products) was among between different groups of respondents (between men and women,
between groups of respondents with a different economic status or a different education
level, and between childless respondents and those who had children).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 9 of 26

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents.

Frequency % Frequency %
Gender
(2018) (2018) (2021) (2021)
woman 545 54.2 444 40.0
man 468 46.5 666 60.0
Age Frequency % Frequency %
18–24 390 38.8 517 46.5
25–34 192 19.1 168 15.1
35–44 129 12.8 68 6.1
45–54 167 16.6 191 17.2
55–64 65 6.5 68 6.1
65–80 63 6.3 99 8.9
Education Frequency % Frequency %
primary education 63 6.3 52 4.7
lower secondary education 143 14.2 26 2.3
secondary education 515 51.2 607 54.7
higher education 310 30.8 425 38.3
Economic Status Frequency % Frequency %
very bad 18 1.8 103 9.3
rather bad 92 9.1 344 31.0
rather good 695 69.1 379 34.1
very good 201 20.0 284 25.6
Children Frequency % Frequency %
yes 428 42.5 415 37.4
no 578 57.5 695 62.6
Source: own research.

The odds ratio [88] assesses a chance to resist. It is calculated as follows:

ad
OR = (1)
bc
If OR = 1, there is no dependency between the observed variables. OR > 1 means that
affiliation with the second group is a risk factor (members of the second group more often
behave in the observed manner), and vice versa; OR < 1 means that the affiliation with the
second group is a protective factor (members of the second group behave in the observed
manner less often).
Strictly speaking, our goal was to use the OR application to focus on cases where
there were different types of behavior between individual groups of respondents, and on
whether and how these differences have changed during the pandemic, using a comparison
of survey results from 2018 and 2021.
The survey results were presented by relative frequencies of responses to selected
questions, and visualized using graphs of interactions between frequencies. Pearson’s
χ2 -test (chi-squared) test was used to verify Czech consumers’ willingness to purchase
sustainable products, and their opinions and attitudes.

2
n( ad − bc)2 r s nij − noj
2
χ = , resp. χ2 = ∑ ∑ (2)
( a + b)( a + c)(b + d)(c + d) i =1 j =1
noj

The following hypotheses were tested:

H1. The frequency of purchasing ethical products depends on the presence of children in a family.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 10 of 26

H2. The change in perception of ethical products during COVID-19 depends on the presence of
children in a family.

H3. The frequency of purchasing ethical products depends on the income per family member.

H4. The change in perception of ethical products during COVID-19 depends on the income per
family member.

Assuming that the data are ordinal and the number of observations is large, we can
run a t-test. For the test of statistical hypotheses and the following analysis, the significance
level α = 0.05 was used. We employed a one-factor ANOVA test to examine the relationship
between income groups and shifts in attitude and to compare the mean frequencies of
ethical-product purchases. Additionally, LSD post hoc tests were utilized to analyze the
differences between pairs of these groups. These analyses were performed using SPSS
statistical software, version 24.

3. Results
The following analysis aims to determine whether, and to what extent, the attributes
of ethical shopping differ among different groups of respondents (e.g., between gender,
economic status, education, and the presence of children in the family). Based on the
respondents’ answers, the intensity of the preference for ethical aspects when purchasing
was evaluated by the intention to read additional information on product packaging
and the degree of boycott of products that did not meet ethical principles. For all these
phenomena, the attributive risk and the odds ratio were calculated within individual pairs
of respondent groups:
• Male and female respondents.
• Respondents who described their economic situation as very bad and rather bad.
• Respondents who described their economic situation as rather bad and rather good.
• Respondents who described their economic situation as rather good and very good.
• Respondents with completed primary and secondary education.
• Respondents with secondary school and university education.
• Respondents with children and those living without children.

3.1. Comparison of the Impact of Ethical Shopping Attributes on Different Groups of Respondents
in 2018 and in 2021
In the following summary of results, we will report and demonstrate only such cases
of group comparisons where an OR greater than 2 occurred in tables and graphs. Among
the differences before and after the pandemic (between the survey from 2018 and that from
2021), the increase in the number of women who shop regularly is the most interesting.
While in 2018 the share of regular shoppers was the same for men and women, in 2021 it
was 2.4 times higher for women than for men, taking into account occasional shoppers.
The number of those who did not shop at all was the same in both surveys. Differences
in behavior between men and women before and after the pandemic were also reflected
in how often, and how carefully, they read labels. Men did not read labels more often
than women, something which did not change between 2018 and 2021 (men read labels
2.22 times less often in 2018 and 2.11 times less often than women in 2021). When assessing
respondents reading both attentively and superficially before the pandemic in 2018, their
share was approximately the same for men and women. In 2021, however, the proportion
of women who read carefully increased, so women read labels carefully 2.16 times more
often than men. The situation is shown in Tables 2 and 3 and Figures 1 and 2.
 Table 2. Comparison of men vs. women, 2018.

Not Reading Boycott of Boycott of

Buying Reading Reading
Buying Buying at Labels: Unethical Unethical
Frequently Labels: Labels:
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 Exceptionally All Not at Products: Products:
11 of 26
(Regularly) Carefully Randomly
(Never) All Yes No
women—not affected 431 151 494 381 199 496 201 337
women—affected 107 387 44 157 339 42 337 201
Table 2. Comparison of men vs. women, 2018.
women—% not affected 80% 28% 92% 71% 37% 92% 37% 63%
men—not affected 371 164 387 344 190 388 221 240
Buying Not Buying Reading Reading Reading Boycott of Boycott of
men—affected Buying90
Frequently at All 297 Labels: 74 117
Labels: 271 Not
Labels: 73Unethical240 221
Unethical
Exceptionally
men—% not affected (Regularly) 80% (Never) 36% Carefully84% Randomly
75% at All
41% Products: Yes
84% 48% Products:
52%No
women—notOR affected
for women 431 1510.98 494 0.71 381 2.15 199
0.83 496
0.84 2.22 201 0.65 337
1.54
women—affected 107 387 44 157 339 42 337 201
OR
women—% not affectedfor men 80% 28%1.02 92% 1.42 71% 0.47 1.21
37% 1.19
92% 0.45 37% 1.54 0.65
63%
men—not affected 371 164
Source: own research. 387 344 190 388 221 240
men—affected 90 297 74 117 271 73 240 221
men—% not affected 80% 36% 84% 75% 41% 84% 48% 52%
OR for women 0.98 Table 3. 0.71
Comparison of2.15
men vs. 0.83
women, 2021. 0.84 2.22 0.65 1.54
OR for men 1.02 1.42 0.47 1.21 1.19 0.45 1.54 0.65
Source: own research. Not Boycott of Boycott of
Buying Reading Reading Reading
Buying Buying at Unethical Unethical
Frequently Labels: Labels: Labels:
Table 3. Comparison of men vs. women,
Exceptionally All 2021. Products: Products:
(Regularly) Carefully Randomly Not at All
(Never) Yes No
Buying Not Buying Reading Reading Reading Boycott of Boycott of
women—not affected Frequently
401Buying 313at All
618
Labels:
445 Labels:
277 610
Labels: Not
214
Unethical
452
Unethical
Exceptionally
women—affected (Regularly) 265 353
(Never) 48
Carefully 221Randomly 389 at All 56 Products: 452
Yes 214 No
Products:
women—%
women—not not affected
affected 401 60% 313 47%618 93%445 67% 277 42% 610 92% 21432% 68%
452
women—affected
men—not affected 265 348 353 160 48 380221 361 389 155 56 372 452212 214
232
women—% not affected 60% 47% 93% 67% 42% 92% 32% 68%
men—notmen—affected
affected 348 96 160 284380 64 361 83 155 289 372 72 212232 212
232
men—affected
men—% not affected 96 78% 284 36%64 86%83 81% 289 35% 72 84% 23248% 212
52%
men—% not affected 78% 36% 86% 81% 35% 84% 48% 52%
OR forOR for women 0.42
women 0.42 1.57 1.572.17 2.170.46 0.46 1.33 1.33 2.11 2.11 0.52
0.52 1.93
1.93
OR forOR
menfor men 2.40 2.40 0.64 0.640.46 0.462.16 2.16 0.75 0.75 0.47 0.47 1.93
1.93 0.52
0.52
Source:
Source:own
ownresearch.
research.

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
2018 2021 2018 label 2021 label 2018 2021
buying buying reading reading unethical unethical
products products

frequently exceptionally never carefully

randomly not at all yes no

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 27

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Comparison of women’s behavior, 2018
2018 vs.
vs. 2021.
2021.Source:
Source:own
ownresearch.
research.

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2018 2021 2018 label 2021 label 2018 2021
buying buying reading reading unethical unethical
products products

frequently exceptionally never carefully

randomly not at all yes no

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Comparison
Comparison of
of men’s
men’s behavior,
behavior, 2018
2018 vs.
vs. 2021.
2021. Source:
Source:own
ownresearch.
research.

The evaluation according to economic status can be distorted, due to the different
wording of the questions in both questionnaire surveys. Overall, frequent purchases
increased, especially among respondents with a worse economic status. In the 2021
survey, respondents with an average income per household member of less than CZK
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 12 of 26

The evaluation according to economic status can be distorted, due to the different
wording of the questions in both questionnaire surveys. Overall, frequent purchases
increased, especially among respondents with a worse economic status. In the 2021 survey,
respondents with an average income per household member of less than CZK 10,000
buy “responsible” products 1.77 times more often than those with an average income per
household member of CZK 10,000 to 20,000.
If we compare the situation regarding label reading in 2018 according to the respon-
dents’ economic status, then those with a very poor status who did not read labels at all
were seen 5.14 times more often than those with a rather poor status, and those with a
rather poor status who did not read labels at all were seen 2.44 times more often than those
with a rather good status. On the other hand, respondents with a very bad status randomly
read labels 3.53 times less often than those with a rather bad status. However, respondents
with a rather good status read labels randomly 2.14 times more often than respondents
with a very good status. However, if we compare these two groups for the careful reading
of labels, we encounter this more than twice more often in respondents with a very good
status. In other cases, the difference was not so significant; the OR was always less than 1.5.
In 2021, the frequency of label reading between individual groups according to economic
status equalized; the OR was smaller than 1.5 everywhere. Furthermore, the analysis
focused on monitoring the boycott of unethical products by customers—the respondents.
In 2018, the most significant difference was between respondents with very bad and rather
bad economic status; the former boycotted unethical products almost six times less often
than the latter. In 2021, the differences equalized; the OR was even, at most around 1.2. All
these results are presented in Tables 4–6 and Figures 3–6.

Table 4. Comparison of economic status: very bad vs. rather bad, 2018.

Buying Not Buying Reading Reading Reading Boycott of Boycott of

Buying
Frequently at All Labels: Labels: Labels: Unethical Unethical
Exceptionally
(Regularly) (Never) Carefully Randomly Not at All Products: Yes Products: No
very bad—not affected 16 13 7 15 13 8 15 3
very bad—affected 2 5 11 3 5 10 3 15
very bad—% not affected 89% 72% 39% 83% 72% 44% 83% 17%
rather bad—not affected 82 33 69 71 39 74 42 50
rather bad—affected 10 59 23 21 53 18 50 42
rather bad—% not affected 89% 36% 75% 77% 42% 80% 46% 54%
OR for very bad 0.98 4.65 0.21 1.48 3.53 0.19 5.95 0.17
OR for rather bad 1.03 0.22 4.71 0.68 0.28 5.14 0.17 5.95
Source: own research.

Table 5. Comparison of Economic status: rather bad vs. rather good, 2018.

Reading
Buying Not Buying Reading Reading Boycott of Boycott of
Buying Labels:
Frequently at All Labels: Labels: Unethical Unethical
Exceptionally Not At
(Regularly) (Never) Carefully Randomly Products: Yes Products: No
All
rather bad—not affected 82 33 69 71 39 74 42 50
rather bad—affected 10 59 23 21 53 18 50 42
rather bad—% not affected 89% 36% 75% 77% 42% 80% 46% 54%
rather good—not affected 570 184 636 523 235 632 284 411
rather good—affected 125 511 59 172 460 63 411 284
rather good—% not affected 82% 26% 92% 75% 34% 91% 41% 59%
OR for rather bad 1.80 1.55 0.28 1.11 1.44 0.41 1.22 0.82
OR for rather good 0.56 0.64 3.59 0.90 0.69 2.44 0.82 1.22
Source: own research.
 OR for rather good 0.56 0.64 3.59 0.90 0.69 2.44 0.82 1.22
Source: own research.

Table 6. Comparison of Economic status: rather good vs. very good, 2018.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 13 of 26
Boycott of Boycott of
Buying Not Reading Reading Reading
Buying Unethical Unethical
Frequently Buying at Labels: Labels: Labels:
Exceptionally Products: Products:
(Regularly)
Table 6. Comparison of Economic All (Never) Carefully
status: rather good vs.Randomly
very good,Not 2018.at All Yes No
rather good—not affectedBuying 570 184
Not Buying
636
Reading
523Reading
235
Reading
632
Boycott of
284 Boycott of 411
Buying
rather good—affectedFrequently 125 Exceptionally 511 at All 59Labels: 172Labels: 460
Labels: 63
Unethical 411 Unethical 284
(Regularly) (Never) Carefully Randomly Not at All Products: Yes Products: No
rather good—% not affected 82% 26% 92% 75% 34% 91% 41% 59%
rather good—not affected 570 184 636 523 235 632 284 411
very good—not
rather good—affected affected 125 139 511 87 59 176 172 121 460 105 63 176 411 82 284 119
rathervery
good—% not affected
good—affected 82% 62 26% 114 92% 25 75% 80 34% 96 91% 25 41% 119 59% 82
very good—not affected 139 87 176 121 105 176 82 119
very
verygood—%
good—affectednot affected 62 69% 114 43% 25 88% 80 60% 96 52%25 88% 119 41% 82 59%
very good—% not affected 69%
OR for rather good
OR for rather good 2.03
2.03 43%
0.47
0.47 88%
1.53
1.5360%
2.01
2.0152%
0.47
0.4788%
1.42
1.4241%
1.00
1.00 59%
1.00
1.00
OR
OR for for
veryvery
good good 0.49 0.49 2.12 2.12 0.65 0.650.50 0.502.14 2.140.70 0.701.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Source:
Source: own
own research.
research.

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
2018 2021 2018 label 2021 label 2018 2021
buying buying reading reading unethical unethical
products products

frequently exceptionally never carefully

randomly not at all yes no

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 27

Figure3.3.Comparison
Figure Comparisonofofbehavior
behavior
of of respondents
respondents with
with veryvery
badbad economic
economic status:
status: 2018 2018 vs. 2021.
vs. 2021.
Source: own research.
Source: own research.

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2018 2021 2018 label 2021 label 2018 2021
buying buying reading reading unethical unethical
products products

frequently exceptionally never carefully

randomly not at all yes no

Figure4.4.Comparison
Figure Comparisonofof behavior
behavior of of respondents
respondents with
with rather
rather bad bad economic
economic status:
status: 2018 2018 vs. 2021.
vs. 2021.
Source: own research.
Source: own research.

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
2018 2021 2018 label 2021 label 2018 2021
 products products
frequently exceptionally never carefully
frequently exceptionally never carefully
randomly not at all yes no
randomly not at all yes no

Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 14 of 26

Figure 4. Comparison of behavior of respondents with rather bad economic status: 2018 vs. 2021.
Figure 4. Comparison of behavior of respondents with rather bad economic status: 2018 vs. 2021.
Source: own research.
Source: own research.

80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
0%
0%
2018
2018 2021
2021 2018label
2018 label 2021
2021label
label 2018
2018 2021
2021
buying
buying buying
buying reading reading
reading reading unethical
unethical unethical
unethical
products products
products products

frequently exceptionally never

exceptionally never carefully
carefully
randomly not at
not at all
all yes
yes no
no

Figure5.5.Comparison
Figure Comparison
Comparison of
ofof behavior
behavior
behavior of respondents
of respondents
of respondents with
with
with rather
rather
rather good good
good economic
economic
economic status:
status:
status: 2018
2018 2018
vs. vs.2021.
vs.
2021. 2021.
Source:own
Source: ownresearch.
research.
research.

80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2018 2021
2021 2018
2018 label
label 2021
2021label
label 2018
2018 2021
2021
buying buying
buying reading
reading reading
reading unethical
unethical unethical
unethical
products
products products
products

frequently
frequently exceptionally
exceptionally never
never carefully
carefully
randomly
randomly not
not at
at all
all yes
yes no
no

Figure6.6.
Figure
Figure 6.Comparison
Comparison
Comparisonofof
of behavior
behavior
behavior of
of respondents
respondents
of respondents with
with veryvery
with very
goodgood
good economic
economic
economic status:
2018 2018
status:
status: 2018
vs. vs.
vs.2021.
2021. 2021.
Source: own
Source:own research.
ownresearch.
research.
Source:

Whencomparing
When
When comparing
comparing the
the
the frequency
frequency of of
frequency of purchases
purchases according
according
purchases totorespondents’
to respondents’
according education,
education,
respondents’ education,
those with primary education most often do not buy “responsible” products atall;
those
those with
with primary
primary education
education most
most often
often do do
notnot
buybuy “responsible”
“responsible” products
products at at
all; all;before
before before
the pandemic in 2018, this happened more than four times more often than thosewith
the
the pandemic
pandemic inin 2018,
2018, this
this happened
happened more
more than
than fourfour times
times moremore often
often than than
those those
with with
secondary education, while after the pandemic, in 2021, their share decreased, so that it
was only 2.13 times more frequent. This difference is compensated for by respondents
who buy “responsible” products on an exceptional basis: those with secondary education
made such purchases 2.67 times more often in 2018, and 2.24 times more often in 2021, than
respondents with primary education. For regular shoppers, there are no such significant
differences depending on education. Overall, however, their share in 2021 increased by
20% for respondents with primary education, 10% for secondary school students, and 15%
for university students, compared to 2018.
Respondents with primary education did not read labels at all in 2018, almost five times
more often than in those with secondary education, but they read them carefully twice less
often. In 2021, the differences evened out, with the only OR which was just greater than
2 remaining for respondents with a secondary education, compared to those with primary
education, who did not read labels at all; i.e., respondents with primary education did not
read labels at all twice more often than those with secondary education.
 Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 15 of 26

Furthermore, respondents with primary education boycotted unethical products

2.32 times less often than those with secondary education. In 2021, the differences in
this case also evened out.
The analysis of respondents’ behavior depending on education which is mentioned
above is summarized in Tables 7 and 8 and Figures 7 and 8.
There were no significant differences between respondents with secondary education
and university degrees (OR approx. up to 1.7).
Childless respondents were also compared with those who had children, but in no
case did we find a significant difference; the OR was always less than 1.35.

Table 7. Comparison of primary- vs. secondary-school education, 2018.

Not
Buying Reading Reading Reading Boycott of Boycott of
Buying Buying
Frequently Labels: Labels: Labels: Unethical Unethical
Exceptionally at All
(Regularly) Carefully Randomly Not at All Products: Yes Products: No
(Never)
primary school—not affected 42 27 33 43 27 32 30 19
primary school—affected 9 24 18 8 24 19 19 30
primary school—% not affected 82% 53% 65% 84% 53% 63% 61% 39%
secondary school—not affected 531 191 568 470 244 576 261 384
secondary school—affected 114 454 77 175 401 69 384 261
secondary school—% not affected 82% 30% 88% 73% 38% 89% 40% 60%
OR for primary school 1.00 2.67 0.25 2.00 1.85 0.20 2.32 0.43
OR for secondary school 1.00 0.37 4.02 0.50 0.54 4.96 0.43 2.32
Source: own research.

Table 8. Comparison of primary- vs. secondary-school education, 2021.

Not
Buying Reading Reading Reading Boycott of Boycott of
Buying Buying
Frequently Labels: Labels: Labels: Unethical Unethical
Exceptionally at All
(Regularly) Carefully Randomly Not at All Products: Yes Products: No
(Never)
primary school—not affected 32 30 42 39 24 41 22 30
primary school—affected 20 22 10 13 28 11 30 22
primary school—% not affected 62% 58% 81% 75% 46% 79% 42% 58%
secondary school—not affected 438 230 546 462 216 536 238 369
secondary school—affected 169 377 61 145 391 71 369 238
secondary school—% not affected 72% 38% 90% 76% 36% 88% 39% 61%
OR for 2023,
Sustainability primary school
15, 0.62
x FOR PEER REVIEW 2.24 0.47 0.94 1.55 0.49 1.14 0.88 16 of 27
OR for secondary school 1.62 0.45 2.13 1.06 0.64 2.03 0.88 1.14
Source: own research.

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2018 buying2021 buying 2018 label 2021 label 2018 2021
reading reading unethical unethical
products products

frequently exceptionally never carefully

randomly not at all yes no

Figure7.7.Comparison
Figure Comparisonofofbehavior
behavior
of of respondents
respondents with
with primary
primary school
school education:
education: 2018 2018 vs. 2021.
vs. 2021.
Source: own research.
Source: own research.

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
 products products

frequently exceptionally never carefully

randomly not at all yes no

Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 16 of 26

Figure 7. Comparison of behavior of respondents with primary school education: 2018 vs. 2021.
Source: own research.

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2018 buying2021 buying 2018 label 2021 label 2018 2021
reading reading unethical unethical
products products

frequently exceptionally never carefully

randomly not at all yes no

Figure8.8.Comparison
Figure Comparisonofof behavior
behavior of of respondents
respondents with
with secondary
secondary school
school education:
education: 20182018 vs. 2021.
vs. 2021.
Source: own research.
Source: own research.

3.2. Hypothesis
There wereVerification
no significant differences between respondents with secondary education
and In order todegrees
university enhance(OR theapprox.
findingsupoftothe
1.7).research, four hypotheses were tested
(Tables 9–11). The presence of children in
Childless respondents were also compared the family canthose
with significantly
who hadinfluence ethical
children, but in no
shopping in general [77] and, in this context, its intensity (H1). This
case did we find a significant difference; the OR was always less than 1.35. influence may also
be manifested in the change in attitudes (perceptions) towards ethical purchasing in the
context of the COVID-19
3.2. Hypothesis pandemic (H2).
Verification
InTesting
Table 9. order hypotheses
to enhanceH1
the findings
and H2. of the research, four hypotheses were tested (Tables
9–11). The presence of children in the family can significantly influence ethical shopping
in general [77] and, in this context, its intensitySignificance
(H1). This influence may also be
manifested in the change in attitudes (perceptions) towards ethical purchasing
Std. Error in the
Two-Sided p Mean Difference
context of the COVID-19 pandemic (H2). Difference
Ethical products
0.419 −0.044 0.054
(products/services) you buy
In the context of the COVID-19
pandemic, your approach to
0.083 −0.091 0.053
(perception of) buying ethical
products has changed
Source: own research.

Table 10. Testing hypothesis H3.

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 2.452 3 0.817 1.076 0.358
Within Groups 840.288 1106 0.760
Total 842.740 1109
Source: own research.

Table 11. Testing hypothesis H4.

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 6.798 3 2.266 3.155 0.024
Within Groups 794.226 1106 0.718
Total 801.023 1109
Source: own research.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 17 of 26

The p-values are above 0.05; thus, we cannot reject H0, since there is no difference
between the means. The H1 and H2 were not supported by the evidence. Pearson’s chi-
squared test provided similar results, with levels of significance equal to a chi-squared test
of 0.621 in the case of H1 and 0.250 in the case of H2.
The p-value is equal to 0.358, which is above 0.05; thus, we did not find evidence that
the purchasing of ethical products is associated with income.
The results suggest that the attitude to purchasing ethical products depends on the
income group. Specifically, there is a notable disparity in this regard between the people
earning less than CZK 10,000 per month per person (group 1) on one side, and people
earning CZK 10,000–20,000 per person (group 2) and 20,000–30,000 per person (group 3),
on the other. Surprisingly, the attitudes of the less-affluent respondents (group 1), on
average, changed more than those of groups 2 and 3. Group 4 did not show any significant
differences from the other three groups.

4. Discussion
Many studies show a trend in consumer purchasing behavior towards more sus-
tainable food attributes, even before the COVID-19 pandemic. These include consumers
seeking more local, animal-welfare, fair-trade, organic, seasonal, and carbon-footprint
foods [89]. There is no doubt that the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has changed
consumer behavior to buying even more of these foods with sustainable attributes [90].
References [91,92] find that the COVID-19 pandemic has driven consumers to purchase
sustainable products and that consumers now pay more attention to the environment
and society, while [93,94] also report an increase in environmental concern because of the
COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, individuals focused more on sustainable
products, because maintaining health was their top priority [95]. Previous studies have
shown that maintaining and improving health are the main reasons for consuming sus-
tainable products [96]. Thus, prevailing attitudes towards health determine consumer
behavior in purchasing more responsible and healthier products [97]. As [52] points out,
the pandemic had a global and profound impact, and is likely to have a lasting effect on
consumer behavior.
Many studies prove that there is a discrepancy between people’s attitudes towards
sustainable products and their actual purchasing behavior [98–100]. The research found
that between 2018 and 2021, there was a significant shift in the intensity of the purchase of
ethical products by women; namely, 20% of women and 2% of men bought more ethical
products in 2021 than in the previous period. It can be said that, under the influence of
changes and shopping restrictions, consumers’ unplanned and spontaneous shopping
behavior changed to a search for more sustainable options [101]. This represents a notable
rise, particularly among women, which could partly be attributed to heightened interest
in health and sustainability spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many other studies
also suggest that women buy sustainable food more often [102,103]. The study [90] result
shows that during the lockdown, women were 1.517 times more likely to buy food with
sustainable characteristics than men, compared to the situation before the lockdown. This
finding is in line with previous research that suggested that women are more active in
purchasing and consuming organic food than men, due to their lifestyle [104,105]. The
reason may be that women pay more attention to their health, and consider sustainable
food (e.g., organic food) to be healthier than conventional food [106]. On the other hand,
women are often responsible for purchasing food in the household, and, therefore, have
a greater awareness of sustainable food [103]. Indirectly related to this finding may be
the fact that women are more concerned about climate change than men [107]. One of
the factors that can significantly support the rate of purchasing sustainable food is a
credible certification of sustainable origin [108]. Thus, a study [90] analyzing the impact
of COVID-19 on consumers’ purchase and consumption behavior from the viewpoint of
sustainability showed that gender and age are relevant factors influencing sustainable
behavior. On the other hand, research [109] into the impact of COVID-19 on shopping
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 18 of 26

behavior did not show any statistically significant differences between the genders. It
also showed that consumers aged 40–59 were more likely to buy food with sustainable
attributes during COVID-19 than those aged 18–39 [90].
Income and age are common indicators of food spending behavior. An interesting
finding from the conducted research is the increase in regular purchases of products
belonging to the group of ethical products among respondents evaluating their economic
situation as very bad. Here, the increase in this value reached 33% more in 2021 than in
2018. For the group of respondents in a bad economic situation, the increase was also
significant: it was 20%. On the other hand, respondents with the best economic position
recorded the smallest increase out of all the categories, only 1%, in comparison to the
monitored years. At the same time, in some previous empirical studies conducted in
Europe, income was identified as a principal factor influencing the purchase of organic
food. Consumers with higher incomes are more likely to purchase larger amounts of
organic food [68,110]. Compared to other products, sustainable products are usually more
expensive. Attitudes towards risk in terms of financial impact have had a negative and
significant impact on sustainable purchasing behavior. Compared to the situation before
the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers who are more sensitive in this respect behaved less
sustainably as a result of the lockdown [90]. On the contrary, a study conducted in the
United States of America did not find a connection between income, food consumption,
and organic food purchasing behavior [111]. In addition, another study indicated that
income has no effect on the regularity of organic food consumption, but that it influences
individual expenditure on organic food [112].
One of the monitored parameters that influenced the level of purchase of ethical
products was the household structure, specifically the presence of children in the family.
Families with children regularly buy sustainable products in 21% of cases, and families
without children in 19% of cases. Between 2018 and 2021, the intensity of repeated reg-
ular purchases increased by 12 or 13%. Previous research also corroborates this finding,
demonstrating that consumers with children are more inclined to purchase sustainable
products [113]. Research [82] also indicated that the presence of children in the household is
positively associated with the likelihood of higher organic-food consumption. Research [18]
showed that households with five members were 2.551 times more likely to purchase more
food with sustainable elements than those with one member, compared to the situation
before the COVID-19 pandemic. Income, household size and family composition (with
children) positively affect food expenditure [114]. The study also found that household
size significantly affects sustainable consumption, suggesting that households with four
members consume healthier food and waste less food than people living alone, compared
to the situation before the COVID-19 [90].
In summary, during the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers were more likely to buy, and
pay higher prices for, sustainable products, to pay more attention to environmental issues,
and to behave more sustainably [115]. The magnitude of change was strongly influenced
by socio-demographic variables such as gender, age, income, and presence of children in
the family.
As a prerequisite for introducing innovations in retail, it is also necessary to focus
on the effects of online shopping in the digital environment. The development of the
digitization of retail sales was supported precisely by the pandemic situation, which meant
a complete lockdown, i.e., the restriction on visiting brick-and-mortar stores for consumers.
Online shopping has significantly impacted the consumers’ purchasing decision-making
process in four ways: substitution, complementarity, modification, and neutrality [116–124].
Each approach has profoundly shaped consumer buying behavior, demonstrating rapid
adaptation to emerging retail concepts in the online landscape.
For example, Weltevreden and Rietbergen (2007) hypothesize that favorable percep-
tions of downtown grocery shopping weaken consumers’ desire to shop online [118]. In
contrast, an empirical study in the city of Nanjing reveals that in-store shopping positively
affects online shopping [125]. While these empirical studies yield varying outcomes, a
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 19 of 26

consensus has yet to be established. Thus, it is evident that consumers have altered their
approach to grocery shopping in brick-and-mortar stores, and have begun to embrace
online grocery shopping via new digital platforms.
Another illustration of the shift in consumer food-shopping behavior can be seen in
the findings from Guangzhou. Following the pandemic outbreak, there was a modest rise
in online shopping frequency among residents, accompanied by an increase in individual
spending during COVID-19. Notably, the expenditure index for the online shopping
population climbed to 687.88, marking a 12.85% increase from the typical level of 609.53.
Compared to normal times, the COVID-19 pandemic has widened the gap in online-
shopping frequency between central-urban and suburban areas, while slightly narrowing
the gap in online-shopping spending between the two areas. In general, the frequency of
online shopping and spending in central urban areas was higher than in suburban areas
during normal times. Residents’ spending on online shopping has increased significantly.
This result can be partially attributed to MICT’s well-equipped infrastructure and logistics
distribution systems in central urban areas. However, the difference in the online-shopping
frequency index of individuals in the city during the pandemic reached 0.28, which is about
three times more than in normal times (0.09). Suburban areas with poorly equipped MICT
infrastructure and logistics distribution system forced residents to purchase more items
for each online purchase, resulting in a much lower online-shopping frequency than in
central urban areas. However, the difference in the online-shopping expenditure index for
residents in the central-urban compared with the suburban areas reached 22.82, which is
18.88% less than in the normal time (28.13). COVID-19 and the subsequent self-quarantine
and lockdown policies have forced individuals to purchase items online at a higher rate, nar-
rowing the gap in online-shopping spending between inner-city and suburban areas. This
result highlights the fact that the Internet played the role of a geographic balancer, which
contradicted the path-dependence theories, from the Internet industry perspective [126].
The 2019 pandemic so significantly affected consumer behavior, that the consumers
had to find parallel ways to satisfy their needs through purchases. Retailers also had to
respond swiftly to this scenario, to avoid jeopardizing their business stability. As part of the
solution to this turbulent phenomenon, innovative procedures were implemented, which
the retail industry used in response to the pandemic purchasing restrictions. The retail
industry adopted innovative procedures to respond to this turbulent phenomenon. One
of the first innovative approaches was introducing a hybrid-store concept. This concept
involved establishing an online store on a digital platform for ordering and importing goods,
representing a blend of traditional- and digital-retail strategies. The restrictions and hygiene
regulations of the global coronavirus crisis set new rules for interpersonal relationships.
They changed the way of shopping, via e-shops, with the support of functional logistics
for delivering ordered food. The innovation lay in introducing the ‘cargo on-site’ product,
which entailed the retailer’s cooperation with the distribution collection system. In the
Czech Republic, retail platforms like košík.cz, rohlík.cz, and damejídlo.cz have established
their reliability.
New trends described by McKinsey determine innovative businesses in retail. Accord-
ing to a McKinsey study, seven new trends are emerging in grocery retail:
1. New innovative providers of online-grocery solutions are constantly entering the
market. The business model needs to be segmented and streamlined to make a profit;
for example, through home deliveries, click-and-collect, or collection points. Thinking
that online food sales will remain a niche market forever is a mistake.
2. Some brick-and-mortar retailers are becoming creative, and offering more online-
shopping options. As a result, the line between online and offline sales is blurring.
The customer wants to have fun in the future. For example, customers can order
online and pick up the item in the store. Virtual stores are integrated physically
into the supermarket. In addition, more and more “micro-stores” are emerging as
outlets for a given business, allowing customers to physically try out products before
purchasing them online.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 20 of 26

3. The importance of digital marketing, social media, and local services is also growing.
This approach allows better customer communication, and can incorporate customer
ideas into the whole process.
4. For the customer approach, adaption to customer requirements and customer-relationship
management is constantly improving. The reasons are extensive big data analysis
and applications, sophisticated customer-loyalty programs, “social shopping,” and
local services.
5. Advances in supermarket self-service checkouts and the “digital wallet.” Communication
at the point of sale enables the use of smartphones for payment (the Scan & Go application).
6. The use of tablets for employee knowledge and training, product information, and
product customization is increasing.
7. Through dynamic price management, brick-and-mortar grocery retailers are forced to
adjust their prices to match online prices and to remain competitive.
Today, online and offline customers are often served from two different logistics
systems. How to achieve synergy here has yet to be satisfactorily resolved and requires
innovation in the logistics organization. The challenge of efficient “last minute” processing
also arises at the technological level. Innovative concepts for “last-minute” delivery of
goods are still emerging, but they could help to streamline the last leg of the delivery of
goods to the customer, in the opinion of the study’s authors. “Click and collect” concepts
already work as an alternative to cost-intensive distribution in the last delivery stage to the
customer. With click-and-collect, the customer orders online and selects a pick-up location
and time. In general, this industry approach is the most cost-effective solution, especially
for traditional retailers entering food retail, for example, in rural areas.
The so-called “dark stores” are used to process purely e-commerce transactions. They
resemble a supermarket, but serve as an online picking center or enable “click-and-collect”
concepts. According to the study, logistics service providers will play a significant role in
food delivery, mainly to alleviate pressure on urban areas at the “last-minute” food returns,
and in the pooling of regional food deliveries. Deliveries using drones and containers have
been a reality, at least in America, since 2016. In San Francisco, the grocery chain 7-Eleven
is already delivering their purchases to selected customers by drone. In San Diego, Uber
wants to deliver McDonald’s Burgers by drone in the future. However, the drones must
land in a secure zone, and then the deliveries will be delivered to the customer by a courier.
The above-mentioned innovative formats of retail sales can be considered as effective
challenges for retail; within the framework of their sustainability, competitiveness, and
efficiency, they will be forced to adopt innovative solutions for their sales formats, with
the aim of creating a comfortable and interactive environment for consumers, which will
simplify and improve the purchase even more. The reality of the current digitization of
retail is inexorable, with the younger generation being significantly influenced by social
media. They adapt rapidly to digital communication, and it is evident that innovations will
predominantly occur within hybrid-business platforms. These platforms merge modern
brick-and-mortar retail with digital consumer engagement, underpinned by highly efficient
logistics that ensure the delivery of goods to the designated place.
In terms of innovation and sustainability from a retail perspective, digital communi-
cation platforms with consumers are beginning to dominate. Among the current modern
trends in the field of communication innovations in the field of retail sales is the use of
cloud systems with a relevant product offer. Relevance can be understood as helping
consumers with everyday problems. Well-communicated differentiation is the cornerstone
of innovative strategy and business success. For the purchase of sustainable products,
another innovative trend is Connected CPG and personalization. Research has shown that
female consumers and households with children tend to buy sustainable products more
than households without children. This situation can be changed by an innovative element
in the form of a proposal for a mix of dietary supplements based on the completion of a
diagnostic online questionnaire. This approach creates a tailor-made product delivered
to consumers, with perfectly functioning logistics; this sales approach can lead many con-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 21 of 26

sumers to sustainable products. In order to strengthen the retail business, it is important

to merge the digital and physical worlds by creating an innovative environment that can
connect both worlds; e.g., technology working in augmented reality [114].

5. Conclusions
The research reflects the behavior of consumers around purchasing sustainable prod-
ucts in 2018, and these findings are compared to 2021; i.e., differences and changes in
consumption behavior before and after the COVID-19 pandemic in the conditions of the
Czech Republic. The study showed that the purchasing behavior of consumers has changed;
consumers have discovered the benefits of many online activities, and they approach pur-
chasing more responsibly. The online environment provides them with greater shopping
comfort, and the ethical approach of consumers to shopping, including access to food
waste, grows even more. Retail reacts to this with innovative procedures, going beyond tra-
ditionalism, and focusing fully on the digital-marketing communication area. The essence
of this communication is the active involvement of the consumer in the sales process.
Consumers have also changed their preferential approach to purchases. Women buy
sustainable food more often; they are more interested in labels. The study showed that,
among respondents who rate their economic situation poorly, they regularly buy products
belonging to the group of ethical products. Also, families with children are more interested
in buying sustainable products, and consumers with higher incomes buy more organic food.
These research findings contradict a study in the United States that found no association
between income, consumption, and organic-food purchasing behavior.
The obtained results can contribute to the expansion of the literature on the issue of
sustainable consumer behavior. A better understanding of consumer behavior is especially
important for changing the approach of retail companies, marketing specialists, and, for
example, policymakers, in raising awareness of products that have a lower negative impact
on the environment. Thus, it is crucial for retailers, both large and small, to comprehend
how their consumers will respond and act, to identify the factors significantly influencing
their purchasing decisions, and to adapt to these trends through an innovative approach
to consumers.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the contribution of this study, this study has some limitations. Firstly, the
data rely on self-reported information instead of observed behavior. Self-reported items
may be a limitation with respect to data quality, e.g., social desirability bias and lack of
memory. One of the limitations of this research may be that the population sample was
made up mainly of students and, therefore, needs to cover other demographic groups
more broadly. For this reason, caution should be exercised when generalizing the results,
given that a higher level of education is usually associated with higher consumption of
sustainable products. Although the study offers valuable insights, its generalizability
may be limited, due to its geographical focus on the Czech Republic only. Transferability
to a global context may be limited, for this reason. A limitation is that the comparative
research between 2018 and 2021 did not take place among an identical group of people,
and other unknown factors may also influence the results found. In the realm of social
distancing, prompted not only by the COVID-19 pandemic, but also by potential future
pandemics, considerable scope remains for researching the short- and long-term changes
in individual-purchasing and consumption behaviors. Therefore, further research could
investigate whether this change in consumption and purchasing behavior is long-term
in this global crisis, and explore other factors influencing consumption and purchasing
behavior. Qualitative research could also complement and continue the investigation of
this issue, showing the deeper context of the influence of ethical aspects on consumer
purchasing decisions. The retail industry is presently at a juncture where it must ready
itself for the advancements in artificial intelligence, which will undoubtedly soon influence
consumer purchasing decisions. Consequently, there is additional potential for research
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 22 of 26

into how the sustainability of retail sales, particularly within ethical food shopping, will be
impacted by the innovative use of artificial intelligence. This research should also explore
the effects of such technology on the interpersonal interactions between consumers and
retailers during food purchases.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.Š. and A.H.; methodology, D.Š. and P.K.; validation, P.K.;
formal analysis, D.Š. and A.H.; investigation, D.Š.; resources, D.Š.; data curation, D.Š.; writing—original
draft preparation, D.Š.; writing—review and editing, A.H.; visualization, A.H.; supervision, D.Š.; project
administration, D.Š. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data available on request from the authors.
Acknowledgments: The authors are thankful to the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their
valuable comments, which helped to considerably improve the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Mishra, N.P.; Das, S.S.; Yadav, S.; Khan, W.; Afzal, M.; Alarifi, A.; Kenawy, E.-R.; Ansari, M.T.; Hasnain, S.; Nayak, A.K. Global
impacts of pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic: Focus on socio-economic consequences. Sens. Int. 2020, 1, 100042. [CrossRef]
2. Espinoza, M.C.; Ganatra, V.; Prasanth, K.; Sinha, R.; Montañez, C.E.O.; Sunil, K.M.; Kaakandikar, R. Consumer Behavior Analysis
on Online and Offline Shopping During Pandemic Situation. Int. J. Account. Financ. Asia Pac. 2021, 4, 75–87. [CrossRef]
3. Guan, Y.; Yan, J.; Shan, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Hang, Y.; Li, R.; Liu, Y.; Liu, B.; Nie, Q.; Bruckner, B.; et al. Burden of the global energy price
crisis on households. Nat. Energy 2023, 8, 304–316. [CrossRef]
4. White, K.; Habib, R.; Hardisty, D.J. How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding
framework. J. Mark. 2019, 83, 22–49. [CrossRef]
5. Reinartz, W.; Wiegand, N.; Imschloss, M. The impact of digital transformation on the retailing value chain. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2019,
36, 350–366. [CrossRef]
6. What Is Consumer Behavior and Why Is It Important?—Clootrack. 2023. Available online: https://clootrack.webc.in/knowledge_
base/what-is-consumer-behavior/ (accessed on 24 October 2023).
7. Aday, S.; Aday, M.S. Impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain. Food Qual. Saf. 2020, 4, 167–180. [CrossRef]
8. Daroch, B.; Nagrath, G.; Gupta, A. A study on factors limiting online shopping behaviour of consumers. Rajagiri Manag. J. 2021,
15, 39–52. [CrossRef]
9. Zhang, T.; Wang, W.Y.C.; Cao, L.; Wang, Y. The role of virtual try-on technology in online purchase decision from consumers’
aspect. Internet Res. 2019, 29, 529–551. [CrossRef]
10. WHO—World Health Organization. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report—61; WHO: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2021;
Volume 2019.
11. Ebrahim, S.H.; Ahmed, Q.A.; Gozzer, E.; Schlagenhauf, P.; Memish, Z.A. COVID-19 and community mitigation strategies in a
pandemic. BMJ 2020, 368, m1066. [CrossRef]
12. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Gross Domestic Product, Fourth Quarter and Year 2021 (Advance Estimate); U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA): Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
13. Phang, I.G.; Balakrishnan, B.K.; Ting, H. Does sustainable consumption matter? Consumer grocery shopping behaviour andthe
pandemic. J. Soc. Mark. 2021, 11, 507–522. [CrossRef]
14. Goodwin, R.; Haque, S.; Neto, F.; Myers, L.B. Initial psychological responses to Influenza A, H1N1 (“Swine flu”). BMC Infect. Dis.
2009, 9, 166. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Scarmozzino, F.; Visioli, F. COVID-19 and the subsequent lockdown modified dietary habits of almost half the population in an
Italian sample. Foods 2020, 9, 675. [CrossRef]
16. Baker, S.R.; Farrokhnia, R.A.; Meyer, S.; Pagel, M.; Yannelis, C. How does household spending respond to an epidemic?
Consumption during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Rev. Asset Pricing Stud. 2020, 10, 834–862. [CrossRef]
17. Cha, W.M.; Chintagunta, P.K.; Dhar, S.K. Food Purchases During the Great Recession. SSRN Electron. J. 2015. [CrossRef]
18. Min, S.; Xiang, C.; Zhang, X.-H. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on consumers’ food safety knowledge and behavior in China.
J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 2926–2936. [CrossRef]
19. Sheth, J. Impact of COVID-19 on consumer behavior: Will the old habits return or die? J. Bus. Res. 2020, 117, 280–283. [CrossRef]
20. Larson, L.R.L.; Shin, H. Fear During Natural Disaster: Its Impact on Perceptions of Shopping Convenience and Shopping Behavior.
Serv. Mark. Q. 2018, 39, 293–309. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 23 of 26

21. Maheswaran, D.; Agrawal, N. Motivational and cultural variations in mortality salience effects: Contemplations on terror
management theory and consumer behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 2004, 14, 213–218. [CrossRef]
22. Strutton, D.; Lewin, J. Investigating consumers’ responses to the Great Recession. J. Consum. Mark. 2012, 29, 378–388. [CrossRef]
23. Kaur, K.; Kunasegaran, M.; Singh, J.; Gnasigamoney, S.S. Impact of the First Phase of Movement Control Order during the
COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia on purchasing behavior of Malaysian Consumers. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Res. 2020, 2, 131–144.
24. Ben-Hassen, T.; El-Bilali, H.; Allahyari, M.S. Impact of COVID-19 on Food Behavior and Consumption in Qatar. Sustainability
2020, 12, 6973. [CrossRef]
25. Lins, S.; Aquino, S. Development and initial psychometric properties of a panic buying scale during COVID-19 pandemic. Heliyon
2020, 6, e04746. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Wang, H.H.; Hao, N. Panic buying? Food hoarding during the pandemic period with city lockdown. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19,
2916–2925. [CrossRef]
27. Islam, T.; Pitafi, A.H.; Aryaa, V.; Wang, Y.; Akhtar, N.; Mubarik, S.; Xiaobei, L. Panic buying in the COVID-19 pandemic: A
multi-country examination. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 59, 102357. [CrossRef]
28. Hassen, T.B.; El Bilali, H.; Allahyari, M.S. Do social media platforms develop consumer panic buying during the fear of COVID-19
pandemic. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 58, 102226.
29. Arafat, S.Y.; Kar, S.K.; Menon, V.; Kaliamoorthy, C.; Mukherjee, S.; Alradie-Mohamed, A.; Sharma, P.; Marthoenis, M.; Kabir, R.
Panic buying: An insight from the content analysis of media reports during COVID-19 pandemic. Neurol. Psychiatry Brain Res.
2020, 37, 100–103. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Zheng, R.; Shou, B.; Yang, J. Supply disruption management under consumer panic buying and social learning effects. Omega
2021, 101, 102238. [CrossRef]
31. Taylor, S. Understanding and managing pandemic-related panic buying. J. Anxiety Disord. 2021, 78, 102364. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Rosita, R. Panic Buying in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era in Indonesia. Int. J. Multi Sci. 2020, 1, 60–70.
33. Wang, P.; Chapa, S. Online impulse buying behavior and marketing optimization guided by entrepreneurial psychology under
COVID-19. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 939786. [CrossRef]
34. Zafar, A.U.; Shen, J.; Shahzad, M.; Islam, T. Relation of impulsive urges and sustainable purchase decisions in the personalized
environment of social media. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 25, 591–603. [CrossRef]
35. Müller, A.; Claes, L.; Kyrios, M. Object attachment in buying-shopping disorder. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2021, 39, 115–120. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
36. Yuen, K.F.; Wang, X.; Ma, F.; Li, K.X. The psychological causes of panic buying following a health crisis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 2020, 17, 3513. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Arafat, S.Y.; Kar, S.K.; Marthoenis, M.; Sharma, P.; Apu, E.H.; Kabir, R. Psychological underpinning of panic buying during
pandemic (COVID-19). Psychiatry Res. 2020, 289, 113061. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Lynteris, C. Why Do People Really Wear Face Masks During an Epidemic? The New York Times, 13 February 2020.
39. Bonneux, L.; Van Damme, W. An iatrogenic pandemic of panic. BMJ 2006, 332, 786–788. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Alosman, M.I.M.; Raihanah, M.M. Survival Psychology in Kevin Powers’ the Yellow Birds. GEMA Online J. Lang. Stud. 2020, 20,
139–150. [CrossRef]
41. Adolphs, R. The Biology of Fear. Curr. Biol. 2013, 23, R79–R93. [CrossRef]
42. Geller, J.L.; Breslin, D.L. Traumatic Stress: The Effects of Overwhelming Experience on Mind, Body, and Society. Psychiatr. Serv.
1997, 48, 250–251. [CrossRef]
43. Cranfield, J.A.L. Framing consumer food demand responses in a viral pandemic. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2020, 68, 151–156. [CrossRef]
44. Chauhan, V.; Shah, H. An Empirical Analysis into Sentiments, Media Consumption Habits, and Consumer Behaviour during the
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak. UGC Care J. 2020, 31, 2143.
45. Yıldırım, M.; Solmaz, F. COVID-19 burnout, COVID-19 stress and resilience: Initial psychometric properties of COVID-19 Burnout
Scale. Death Stud. 2022, 46, 524–532. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Wong, J.E.L.; Leo, Y.S.; Tan, C.C. COVID-19 in Singapore—Current Experience: Critical Global Issues That Require Attention and
Action. JAMA 2020, 323, 1243–1244. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Nicola, M.; Alsafi, Z.; Sohrabi, C.; Kerwan, A.; Al-Jabir, A.; Iosifidis, C.; Agha, M.; Agha, R. The socio-economic implications of
the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. Int. J. Surg. 2020, 78, 185–193. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Kirk, C.P.; Rifkin, L.S. I’ll trade you diamonds for toilet paper: Consumer reacting, coping and adapting behaviors in the
COVID-19 pandemic. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 117, 124–131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Verma, M.; Naveen, B.R. COVID-19 Impact on Buying Behaviour. Vikalpa J. Decis. Makers 2021, 46, 27–40. [CrossRef]
50. Lopes, B.; Bortolon, C.; Jaspal, R. Paranoia, hallucinations and compulsive buying during the early phase of the COVID-19
outbreak in the United Kingdom: A preliminary experimental study. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 293, 113455. [CrossRef]
51. Çelik, S.; Köse, G.G. Mediating effect of intolerance of uncertainty in the relationship between coping styles with stress during
pandemic (COVID-19) process and compulsive buying behavior. Prog. Neuro-Psychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 2021, 110, 110321.
[CrossRef]
52. Laato, S.; Islam, A.N.; Farooq, A.; Dhir, A. Unusual purchasing behavior during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: The
stimulus-organism-response approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 57, 102224. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 24 of 26

53. Kneafsey, M.; Dowler, E.; Lambie-Mumford, H.; Inman, A.; Collier, R. Consumers and food security: Uncertain or empowered? J.
Rural. Stud. 2013, 29, 101–112. [CrossRef]
54. Sim, K.; Chua, H.C.; Vieta, E.; Fernandez, G. The anatomy of panic buying related to the current COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry
Res. 2020, 288, 113015. [CrossRef]
55. Kaur, A.; Malik, G. Understanding the Psychology Behind Panic Buying: A Grounded Theory Approach. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2020.
ahead of print. [CrossRef]
56. Minton, E.A.; Spielmann, N.; Kahle, L.R.; Kim, C.-H. The subjective norms of sustainable consumption: A cross-cultural
exploration. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 82, 400–408. [CrossRef]
57. Abdulrazak, S.; Quoquab, F. Exploring Consumers’ Motivations for Sustainable Consumption: A Self-Deterministic Approach. J.
Int. Consum. Mark. 2018, 30, 14–28. [CrossRef]
58. Quoquab, F.; Sukari, N.N. Why sustainable consumption is not in practice? A developing country perspective. In Sustainable
Economic Development; World Sustainability Series; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [CrossRef]
59. Quoquab, F.; Mohammad, J.; Sukari, N.N. A multiple-item scale for measuring “sustainable consumption behaviour” construct:
Development and psychometric evaluation. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2019, 31, 791–816. [CrossRef]
60. Mankoff, J.; Matthews, D.; Fussell, S.R.; Johnson, M. Leveraging Social Networks to Motivate Individuals to Reduce their
Ecological Footprints. In Proceedings of the 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’07),
Waikoloa, HI, USA, 3–6 January 2007; p. 87.
61. Nielsen. A ‘Natural’ Rise in Sustainability Around the World; Nielsen: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
62. He, H.; Harris, L. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on corporate social responsibility and marketing philosophy. J. Bus. Res.
2020, 116, 176–182. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Čábelková, I.; Strielkowski, W.; Streimikiene, D.; Cavallaro, F.; Streimikis, J. The social acceptance of nuclear fusion for decision
making towards carbon free circular economy: Evidence from Czech Republic. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 163, 120477.
[CrossRef]
64. Di Renzo, L.; Gualtieri, P.; Pivari, F.; Soldati, L.; Attinà, A.; Cinelli, G.; Leggeri, C.; Caparello, G.; Barrea, L.; Scerbo, F.; et al. Eating
habits and lifestyle changes during COVID-19 lockdown: An Italian survey. J. Transl. Med. 2020, 18, 229. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Lo, A.; Duffy, E.; Ng, S.W. Who’s Grocery Shopping Online and Why: Cross-Sectional Analysis of a Nationally-Representative
Sample Since the Pandemic. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2021, 5, 231. [CrossRef]
66. Li, S.; Kallas, Z. Meta-analysis of consumers’ willingness to pay for sustainable food products. Appetite 2021, 163, 105239.
[CrossRef]
67. Rahmani, D.; Kallas, Z.; Pappa, M.; Gil, J.M. Are consumers’ egg preferences influenced by animal-welfare conditions and
environmental impacts? Sustainability 2019, 11, 6218. [CrossRef]
68. Tsakiridou, E.; Mattas, K.; Tzimitra-Kalogianni, I. The influence of consumer characteristics and attitudes on the demand for
organic olive oil. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2006, 18, 23–31. [CrossRef]
69. Marín-García, A.; Gil-Saura, I.; Ruiz-Molina, M.-E. Do innovation and sustainability influence customer satisfaction in retail? A
question of gender. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraz. 2022, 35, 546–563. [CrossRef]
70. Majeed, A.; Wang, Y.; Muniba; Islam, M.A. The Impact of Social Preferences on Supply Chain Performance: An Application of the
Game Theory Model. Complexity 2023, 2023, 4911514. [CrossRef]
71. Stalenis, G.; Solomon, D. Q&A: How Will Coronavirus Impact the Global Economy? Euromonitor International. Available online:
https://www.euromonitor.com/article/qa-how-will-coronavirus-impact-the-global-economy (accessed on 24 October 2023).
72. Ting, H.; Ling, J.; Cheah, J.H. It will go away!? Pandemic crisis and business in Asia. Asian J. Bus. Res. 2020, 10, 10. [CrossRef]
73. Arrieta-Paredes, M.-P.; Hallsworth, A.G.; Coca-Stefaniak, J.A. Small shop survival—The financial response to a global financial
crisis. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 101984. [CrossRef]
74. Jung, H.; Park, M.; Hong, K.; Hyun, E. The Impact of an epidemic outbreak on consumer expenditures: An empirical assessment
for MERS Korea. Sustainability 2016, 8, 454. [CrossRef]
75. Wang, Y.; Majeed, A. How do users’ feedback influence creators’ contributions: An empirical study of an online music community.
Behav. Inf. Technol. 2023, 42, 1357–1373. [CrossRef]
76. Sharma, P.; Gaur, V.K.; Kim, S.-H.; Pandey, A. Microbial strategies for bio-transforming food waste into resources. Bioresour.
Technol. 2020, 299, 122580. [CrossRef]
77. Martin-Rios, C.; Hofmann, A.; Mackenzie, N. Sustainability-oriented innovations in food waste management technology.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 210. [CrossRef]
78. Principato, L.; Mattia, G.; Di Leo, A.; Pratesi, C.A. The household wasteful behaviour framework: A systematic review of
consumer food waste. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 93, 641–649. [CrossRef]
79. Wichai-Utcha, N.; Chavalparit, O. 3Rs Policy and plastic waste management in Thailand. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2019, 21,
10–22. [CrossRef]
80. Balaji, M.; Arshinder, K. Modeling the causes of food wastage in Indian perishable food supply chain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2016, 114, 153–167. [CrossRef]
81. Principato, L.; Secondi, L.; Pratesi, C.A. Reducing food waste: An investigation on the behaviour of Italian youths. Br. Food J.
2015, 117, 731–748. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 25 of 26

82. Graham-Rowe, E.; Jessop, D.C.; Sparks, P. Identifying motivations and barriers to minimising household food waste. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 84, 15–23. [CrossRef]
83. Göbel, C.; Langen, N.; Blumenthal, A.; Teitscheid, P.; Ritter, G. Cutting Food Waste through Cooperation along the Food Supply
Chain. Sustainability 2015, 7, 1429–1445. [CrossRef]
84. Mortimer, G. Rolling in the aisles: A comparative study of male and female grocery shopper typologies. Int. Rev. Retail. Distrib.
Consum. Res. 2013, 23, 1–30. [CrossRef]
85. Istudor, N.; Pelau, C. Clusters of consumer behavior for food and near-food products in Romania. Manag. Mark. Chall. Knowl. Soc.
2011, 6, 529–542.
86. Wright, K.B. Researching internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online question-
naire authoring software packages, and web survey services. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2005, 10, JCMC1034. [CrossRef]
87. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 2, 314–324. [CrossRef]
88. Glas, A.S.; Lijmer, J.G.; Prins, M.H.; Bonsel, G.J.; Bossuyt, P.M.M. The diagnostic odds ratio: A single indicator of test performance.
J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2003, 56, 1129–1135. [CrossRef]
89. Codron, J.-M.; Siriex, L.; Reardon, T. Social and environmental attributes of food products in an emerging mass market: Challenges
of signaling and consumer perception, with European illustrations. Agric. Hum. Values 2006, 23, 283–297. [CrossRef]
90. Li, S.; Kallas, Z.; Rahmani, D. Did the COVID-19 lockdown affect consumers’ sustainable behaviour in food purchasing and
consumption in China? Food Control. 2022, 132, 108352. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
91. Sun, X.; Su, W.; Guo, X.; Tian, Z. The impact of awe induced by COVID-19 pandemic on green consumption behavior in China.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 543. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
92. Qi, X.; Yu, H.; Ploeger, A. Exploring influential factors including COVID-19 on green food purchase intentions and the intention–
behaviour gap: A qualitative study among consumers in a Chinese context. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7106.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
93. Jian, Y.; Yu, I.Y.; Yang, M.X.; Zeng, K.J. The impacts of fear and uncertainty of COVID-19 on environmental concerns, brand trust,
and behavioral intentions toward green hotels. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8688. [CrossRef]
94. Mehta, S.; Saxena, T.; Purohit, N. The New Consumer Behaviour Paradigm amid COVID-19: Permanent or Transient? J. Health
Manag. 2020, 22, 291–301. [CrossRef]
95. Messaraa, C.; Robertson, N.; Walsh, M.; Hurley, S.; Doyle, L.; Mansfield, A.; Daly, L.; Tansey, C.; Mavon, A. Clinical evidences
of benefits from an advanced skin care routine in comparison with a simple routine. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2020, 19, 1993–1999.
[CrossRef]
96. Xie, B.; Wang, L.; Yang, H.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, M. Consumer perceptions and attitudes of organic food products in Eastern China.
Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 1105–1121. [CrossRef]
97. Czeczotko, M.; Górska-Warsewicz, H.; Zaremba, R. Health and Non-Health Determinants of Consumer Behavior toward Private
Label Products—A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1768. [CrossRef]
98. Hughner, R.S.; McDonagh, P.; Prothero, A.; Shultz, C.J.; Stanton, J. Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review
of why people purchase organic food. J. Consum. Behav. 2007, 6, 94–110. [CrossRef]
99. Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the
role of confidence and values. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64, 542–553. [CrossRef]
100. Joshi, Y.; Rahman, Z. Factors Affecting Green Purchase Behaviour and Future Research Directions. Int. Strategy Manag. Rev. 2015,
3, 128–143. [CrossRef]
101. Wright, O.; Blackburn, E. COVID-19: How Consumer Behavior Will Be Changed. 2020. Available online: https://www.accenture.com/
us-en/insights/consumer-goods-services/coronavirus-consumer-behavior-research (accessed on 24 October 2023).
102. Memery, J.; Angell, R.; Megicks, P.; Lindgreen, A. Unpicking motives to purchase locally-produced food: Analysis of direct and
moderation effects. Eur. J. Mark. 2015, 49, 1207–1233. [CrossRef]
103. Onyango, B.M.; Hallman, W.K.; Bellows, A.C. Purchasing organic food in US food systems: A study of attitudes and practice. Br.
Food J. 2007, 109, 399–411. [CrossRef]
104. Olivas, R.; Bernabéu, R. Men’s and women’s attitudes toward organic food consumption. A Spanish case study. Span. J. Agric.
Res. 2012, 10, 281. [CrossRef]
105. Ureña, F.; Bernabéu, R.; Olmeda, M. Women, men and organic food: Differences in their attitudes and willingness to pay. A
Spanish case study. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2008, 32, 18–26. [CrossRef]
106. Lea, E.; Worsley, T. Australians’ organic food beliefs, demographics and values. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 855–869. [CrossRef]
107. Čábelková, I.; Smutka, L.; Strielkowski, W. Public support for sustainable development and environmental policy: A case of the
Czech Republic. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 30, 110–126. [CrossRef]
108. Rupprecht, C.D.; Fujiyoshi, L.; McGreevy, S.R.; Tayasu, I. Trust me? Consumer trust in expert information on food product labels.
Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 137, 111170. [CrossRef]
109. Schwägele, F. Traceability from a European perspective. Meat Sci. 2005, 71, 164–173. [CrossRef]
110. Gracia, A.; De Magistris, T. Organic food product purchase behaviour: A pilot study for urban consumers in the South of Italy.
Span. J. Agric. Res. 2007, 5, 439. [CrossRef]
111. Zepeda, L.; Li, J. Characteristics of Organic Food Shoppers. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2007, 39, 17–28. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16648 26 of 26

112. Kriwy, P.; Mecking, R. Health and environmental consciousness, costs of behaviour and the purchase of organic food. Int. J.
Consum. Stud. 2012, 36, 30–37. [CrossRef]
113. Gumber, G.; Rana, J. Who buys organic food? Understanding different types of consumers. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1935084.
[CrossRef]
114. Aertsens, J.; Mondelaers, K.; Verbeke, W.; Buysse, J.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. The influence of subjective and objective knowledge
on attitude, motivations and consumption of organic food. Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 1353–1378. [CrossRef]
115. Dangelico, R.M.; Schiaroli, V.; Fraccascia, L. Is COVID-19 changing sustainable consumer behavior? A survey of Italian consumers.
Sustain. Dev. 2022, 30, 1477–1496. [CrossRef]
116. Bhat, C.R.; Sivakumar, A.; Axhausen, K.W. An analysis of the impact of information and communication technologies on
non-maintenance shopping activities. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2003, 37, 857–881. [CrossRef]
117. Sim, L.L.; Koi, S.M. Singapore’s Internet shoppers and their impact on traditional shopping patterns. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2002,
9, 115–124. [CrossRef]
118. Weltevreden, J.W.; Van Rietbergen, T. E-shopping versus city centre shopping: The role of perceived city centre attractiveness.
Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 2007, 98, 68–85. [CrossRef]
119. Cao, X.J.; Xu, Z.; Douma, F. The interactions between e-shopping and traditional in-store shopping: An application of structural
equations model. Transportation 2012, 39, 957–974. [CrossRef]
120. Lachapelle, U.; Jean-Germain, F. Personal use of the Internet and travel: Evidence from the Canadian General Social Survey’s
2010 time use module. Travel Behav. Soc. 2019, 14, 81–91. [CrossRef]
121. Lee, R.J.; Sener, I.N.; Mokhtarian, P.L.; Handy, S.L. Relationships between the online and in-store shopping frequency of Davis,
California residents. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 100, 40–52. [CrossRef]
122. Zhai, Q.; Cao, X.; Mokhtarian, P.L.; Zhen, F. The interactions between e-shopping and store shopping in the shopping process for
search goods and experience goods. Transportation 2016, 44, 885–904. [CrossRef]
123. Calderwood, E.; Freathy, P. Consumer mobility in the Scottish isles: The impact of internet adoption upon retail travel patterns.
Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2014, 59, 192–203. [CrossRef]
124. Zhou, Y.; Wang, X. Explore the relationship between online shopping and shopping trips: An analysis with the 2009 NHTS data.
Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2014, 70, 1–9. [CrossRef]
125. Xi, G.; Cao, X.; Zhen, F. The impacts of same day delivery online shopping on local store shopping in Nanjing, China. Transp. Res.
Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 136, 35–47. [CrossRef]
126. Zhen, F.; Wang, B.; Wei, Z. The rise of the internet city in China: Production and consumption of internet information. Urban Stud.
2015, 52, 2313–2329. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.