Consumer Risk in the Purchasing Process in the Organic Food Market

Abstract

Risk is an inherent part of our lives and every action we take. It accompanies us in various areas of our lives. Each of us encounters risk in everyday life by undertaking and performing specific activities or actions. Risk is not always perceived by us; there are situations when we do not notice it in our actions. The main objective of this article is to identify and assess the factors influencing the level of risk in consumer purchasing decisions in the organic products market. Additionally, it aims to indicate the desired directions of actions taken by producers and suppliers of organic food to reduce the risk associated with the purchasing process perceived by consumers. The research process took into account existing scientific achievements and the survey method, chosen due to the subject and nature of the research. The survey was addressed to consumers from the Lubuskie Voivodeship and was anonymous. The conducted research shows that the greatest risk perceived by consumers is in the case of online purchases, and the way to reduce this risk is through buyer loyalty to the place of purchase. The empirical research also provides grounds to assume that there is a relationship between individual types of risk. The research shows that respondents are most afraid of safety and social risk, and the least afraid of the risk of losing too much time. Consumers who want to reduce the risk use their own experiences or positive opinions about the product. The results provide valuable information for producers and suppliers of organic food who want to build lasting relationships with consumers based on trust and loyalty. The higher the trust, the greater the customer loyalty, and the lower the perceived risk.

1. Introduction

The issue of consumer behavior, and consequently the perceived risk in the purchasing process, is becoming particularly important in the face of changes and transformations taking place on the market. These include the implementation of new distribution channels, the emergence of new forms of payment, as well as new trends in consumption, which is reflected in the purchase of organic food. Recently, consumer attitudes towards food have undergone transformations and align with the concept of sustainable development. The concept of sustainable development encompasses many areas in relation to environmental, economic, and social issues. Its essence is “a development in which the needs of the present generation can be met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Adopted in 2015 by the member states, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [1] document sets out 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The goals focus on ensuring a decent life, peace, and economic progress for all people in the world, while simultaneously caring for the natural environment and combating climate change [1]. One of the development goals pertains to the necessary changes in consumption, namely ensuring patterns of sustainable consumption and production (goal 12), which are related to the organic food market. The decisions made by consumers and producers of organic food are not insignificant for current and future generations. At the symposium in Oslo, the concept of sustainable consumption was defined, recognizing that it is the consumption of goods and services that meet basic needs and allow for achieving a better quality of life, while minimizing the use of natural resources, materials toxic to the natural environment, and the emission of waste and pollutants in all stages of production, so as not to limit the ability of future generations to meet their own needs for consumption of such goods and services [2]. Sustainable consumption is the consumption of goods and services that do not contribute to the degradation of the natural environment and do not create incentives for the intensive exploitation of its resources.

It is observed that more and more consumers are making decisions regarding the choice of organic products. This is dictated by various individual, health, socio-cultural, and economic factors, as well as many other conditions that affect the decision-making process. These include perceived values such as health, environmental, animal welfare and food safety, as confirmed by research [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Additionally, increasing consumer knowledge and awareness about organic food, product features [9,10], and the perception of the country of production [11,12] play a role. Moreover, economic factors [13], distribution barriers, and information in the mass media also influence the choice of organic products [14].

Risk issues in consumer decisions are the subject of detailed research from various scientific disciplines. Risk is inherent in consumer behavior and is often difficult to clearly identify, define, and measure. Risk has accompanied humans since the dawn of time, not only in the process of satisfying needs but also in other aspects of everyday life. Risk is defined as a phenomenon of uncertainty. It affects consumer purchasing behavior and is understood as uncertainty, danger, or failure to achieve the intended goal. It is included in the decision-making process as the risk of making a wrong decision. Hence, consumer decisions are burdened with the probability of risk, which decreases as the consumer’s knowledge and experience increase.

In the literature on the subject, it is often stated that risk perception is a subjective assessment made by consumers in the decision-making process concerning various spheres of human activity [15]. Sjöberg, Moen, and Rundmo [16] define risk perception as a subjective assessment of the probability of a certain type of event occurring. This includes the assessment of risk and ways of coping with the positive or negative consequences of these decisions, and risk is always associated with uncertainty about the effects of the actions taken.

As Magessi and Antunes [15] noted, risk perception is a multidimensional issue and depends on many factors, including social, psychological, and cultural factors. This complexity causes consumers to perceive the same risk in different ways or situations [17]. Risk can be analyzed individually or collectively, from a real and/or subjective perspective [18]. Risk perception is influenced by trust in producers and suppliers of products and services [19,20,21,22], which undoubtedly translates into buyer loyalty. Trust is an important factor in building lasting relationships with consumers and influences the consumer’s purchase intention [23,24,25,26,27].

There are many different definitions of risk in the literature. As indicated by Smyczek [28], there are mainly two approaches to defining consumer risk. The first, subjective approach, is related to the uncertainty of the effects of actions taken by consumers and the consequences these decisions entail. The second approach encompasses multiple dimensions, such as psychological, social, financial, time-related, and safety-related aspects. Many of the studies refer to the perception of risk in these aspects. However, few researchers have conducted studies on risk perception in the organic food market. Therefore, the authors of this study believe that these issues are important and worthy of scientific and research considerations.

Knowledge about the type of risk perceived by consumers in their purchasing decisions allows for a better understanding of some aspects of consumer behavior [29]. Featherman and Pavlou distinguished six types of risk in consumer decisions [30]:

-

Functional risk—manifested by the failure to achieve the expected benefits associated with the purchased product, and in the case of food products, it may result from the subjective feeling of a lack of visible benefits associated with its consumption;

-

Financial risk—related to both the price of the product and the additional costs of its use, or the losses incurred;

-

Time risk—concerns the time lost as a result of poorly made purchasing decisions;

-

Psychological risk—concerning the emotions or potential feelings of the consumer associated with the loss of self-esteem related to a poorly made purchasing decision and failure to achieve the expected or intended effects/goals;

-

Social risk—concerns the loss of social status due to making an incorrect or erroneous purchasing decision;

-

Privacy risk—is the potential loss of personal data when they are used without their consent;

-

Overall perceived risk—combines all types of risk.

Risk can also be perceived by the consumer when paying for purchased products and services using different payment methods. Roselius distinguished four main dimensions of risk [31]:

-

Security risk—the risk of losing cash, a payment card, or a phone from which we make a transaction, but also related to food safety;

-

Functional risk—the risk that the seller may not accept the form of payment used by the consumer for products and services;

-

Financial risk—the risk that the form of payment used may lead to financial losses in the event of withdrawal from the transaction;

-

Risk of losing too much time—the risk that the forms of payment used will require more time to complete the transaction compared to other forms.

Jacoby and Kaplan identified six dimensions of consumer risk [32]:

-

Financial risk—the risk associated with trying out a new product perceived by the consumer as a loss or, conversely, as a benefit from the purchase;

-

Performance risk—the risk associated with the improper functioning of the product;

-

Physical risk—the risk associated with the harmfulness of the product;

-

Psychological risk—the risk associated with the perception of oneself after making an inappropriate purchase;

-

Social risk—the risk associated with how others (the environment) will react to the purchase;

-

Overall perceived risk—combines all the previously mentioned risks.

It is assumed that online shopping is riskier compared to traditional shopping due to the lack of physical apprehension [33,34,35,36]. Generally speaking, risk is understood as the uncertainty related to the use of a product or service, as a set of negative consequences resulting from their consumption, recognized as a potential loss [28].

There are many studies in the literature on risk perception that provide valuable information for companies that want to better understand their customers and adapt their marketing strategies to their needs, expectations, and concerns. The authors’ selected empirical studies on perceived consumer risk are presented in

Table 1. Selected empirical studies by the authors on the subject of perceived consumer risk.

Authors	The Purpose of the Study	Research Method
Brzezińska, Maciejewski [37]	Measuring the perceived risk of unsuccessful purchases by Polish consumers	Survey Method
Jacoby, Kaplan [32]	Perceived risk measurement for 12 different consumer products	Survey Method
Cao, Jiang, Ren, [20]	The research focused on the analysis of changes in the perception of social and functional risk	Methods of analyzing observational data (Quasi-experiment)
Rohden, Zeferino, Garcia [19]	Risk perceptions related to data privacy and the use of technology	Survey and interview method
Regan, Sweeney, McKernan, Benson, Dean [38]	Perception of risk associated with, among others, the use of antibiotics in agriculture	Focus group technique
Serrano-Arcos, Fernández, Pérez-Mesa [39]	A study on the influence of risk perception on purchasing foreign products	Survey Method

Source: Own study based on [19,20,32,37,38,39].

.

In risk research, choosing the right research tool is crucial. The most popular tool is the survey questionnaire. Among other things, a scale for measuring attitudes is used for measurement. The key to understanding consumer behavior regarding perceived consumer risk is to identify factors that influence the level of risk in purchasing decisions. Categories of perceived risk include those related to the product or service, as well as the place and method of purchase. The store’s space and its surroundings shape the situational behavior of buyers (Figure 1).

The structure of this article is as follows: the introduction presents a review of the literature on perceived risk, identifying its types. The subsequent section details the materials and methods of this study. The next section contains the research results, which verify of hypotheses regarding the perceived risk by consumers of food products. The following section proposes selected actions taken by producers and suppliers of organic food to reduce the perceived risk associated with the purchase process of organic products. The fifth section presents the discussion of the results. The final chapter summarizes all of the achievements presented in the article and outlines directions for future research.

2. Materials and Methods

According to data from Bonafide Research reports, the demand for organically produced food is growing, driven by the increase in health awareness among consumers [40]. The report predicts that by 2027, organic food will be a dominant market player, with a market share of over 90% [40]. The number of organic farms is growing in Poland and other European Union countries [41]. In 2022, the number of organic producers in Poland was 22,882, which increased by 5.0% compared to 2021 [41]. In this context, it is worth considering research that addresses the factors influencing the level of risk in consumers’ purchasing decisions in the organic products market. Additionally, it highlights the desired actions by producers and suppliers of organic food to reduce the risk perceived by consumers during the purchasing process. The following research problems were formulated:

(1)

Is there a relationship, and how strong is it, between the place of purchase and the perception of risk regarding the choice of the sales channel in relation to traditional and online distribution channels?

(2)

Do respondents perceive general risk, combining all types of risk, including financial, time, and social, incurred at the place of purchase of organic food?

(3)

Do respondents take risks into account when purchasing organic products, and what are the ways to reduce them?

(4)

Do respondents perceive the types of risk, and if so, which ones?

(5)

Is there a correlation between individual risk pairs?

(6)

What actions should producers and suppliers of organic food take to reduce the perceived risk by consumers of organic food?

The conducted study aims to fill this knowledge gap by testing the following research hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

The place of purchase is correlated with the perception of risk regarding the choice of sales channel in relation to traditional and online distribution channels. The general level of risk perception is higher in the online store than in traditional stores.

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

Respondents perceive general risk in the place of purchase of organic food, and the way to reduce it is to expand the consumer’s knowledge about the purchased product and increase consumer loyalty to the place of purchase.

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

The differences between the individual types of risk are statistically significant.

Hypothesis 4 (H4).

Respondents consider the risk of safety and loss of excessive time as the most important.

The hypotheses were verified using statistical methods.

The selection of respondents was random, using the stratified sampling method according to age range. An online survey was conducted, and the results were generated using the econometric software STATA 17.0. The data analysis was also performed using EXCEL 2019.

The necessary sample size of organic food consumers was determined based on the following assumptions. First, the survey questionnaire was addressed to residents of the Lubusz Voivodeship aged 19 and over, considering that this social group independently makes decisions regarding the purchase of food products or influences such decisions in the household. In the calculations, it was determined that the value of the studied population, according to CSO data, based on the age structure from 19 years old to over 56 years old, constitutes 81%, which means that the value of the coefficient (p) in the formula will be 0.81. The estimation error was set at 5%, and the confidence level at 95%.

The selection of respondents was random, using the stratified sampling method by age group. To calculate the minimum sample size for residents, a structure of residents by age in the Lubusz Voivodeship was prepared, as is shown in

Table 2. Population structure by age in the Lubusz Voivodeship according to CSO [42].

Population by Age (Age Range)	Number of People	Percent
Up to 18 years old	195,558	19.21
19–25	88,963	8.74
19–36 lat	182,773	17.95
37–46 lat	146,421	14.38
47–56 lat	128,226	12.59
Over 56 years old	276,134	27.12
Total	1,018,075	100.00

Source: study based on [42].

.

The necessary (minimum) sample size for the research was determined according to the formula [43]:

$$n={\displaystyle \frac{u^2\times p\times (1-p)}{{e_p}^2}}$$

(1)

where:

• n—sample size,
• u²—coefficient dependent on the chosen confidence level of 0.95,
• u = 1.96,
• _ep2—estimation error,
• p—relative frequency (structure of feature p).

The minimum sample size for a random sample depends on the influence of three factors: the level of the coefficient of variation in the studied statistical characteristic, the level of confidence, and the level of the desired relative precision of the estimation of the given parameter. Particularly strong influence should be attributed to this first factor [44].

$$\mathrm{n}={\displaystyle \frac{1.96^2\times 0.81\times 0.19}{0.05^2}}=236$$

(2)

The minimum sample size for this study was set at 236 people.

The necessary sample size for the research (n) ensuring representativeness under the adopted assumptions was 236 surveys. In the research procedure, a total of 541 questionnaires were collected, of which 500 were correctly filled out, and the numerical data contained in these questionnaires were subjected to further analysis. Among the 500 people participating in this study, 198 respondents did not make any purchases of organic food at all, while 302 respondents declared purchases of organic food, and these questionnaires were subjected to further analysis. In light of the above, the representativeness of the research for the Lubusz Voivodeship has been statistically confirmed, as the respondents reflect the population structure of the studied Lubusz Voivodeship. Therefore, the obtained results can be generalized to the residents of the Lubusz Voivodeship.

The survey was conducted among consumers from the Lubuskie Voivodeship. The characteristics of the research sample included in this study were as follows: gender, place of residence, age, education, and income. Of the 302 respondents, 198 were women (66%), and 104 were men (34%). Additionally, 63% of the respondents were city dwellers, and 37% lived in the countryside. This study included the following age ranges: up to 25 years, 26–36 years, 37–46 years, and 47–56 years. The majority of respondents had higher education (68%), while the remaining respondents declared secondary education (32%). Regarding net income per person in the household, the largest percentage of respondents (40%), declared an income of PLN 1501–2000. The method of collecting empirical data was a survey, the questionnaire of which aimed to collect demographic data such as age, gender, income, and education, as well as questions regarding perceived risk in the context of purchasing organic products. The choice of the survey method was driven by the subject of the research. For the perception of risk by respondents, a nominal, quantitative scale, as well as a Likert scale were used, being an example of an ordinal scale.

3. Results

In this part of the study, based on empirical data, the verification of hypotheses testing the perceived risk by consumers of food products is presented. The aim is to determine whether there is a clear relationship between the place of purchase and the perception of risk regarding the choice of sales channel in relation to traditional distribution channels, by showing the correlation of two characteristics (

Table 3. The relationship between the place of purchase and the perception of risk regarding the choice of sales channel (Answer to the question “Do you see any risk in choosing the sales channel? (traditional sales channels vs online)”).

Distribution Channel		Perceived Risk Assessment	Together
	Yes	No
Traditional channels	33 (a)	164 (b)	197
Online channels	65 (c)	40 (d)	105
Together	98	204	302

Source: Own calculations.

). The first feature concerned the place of purchase, and the second the assessment of perceived risk. As indicated by the data presented in Table 3, 33 respondents perceive a risk when making purchases through traditional channels, while 174 people do not perceive such a risk. In the case of online shopping, 65 people perceive a risk, while 40 respondents hold the opposite opinion. Most consumers (174) do not see any risk in traditional distribution channels, which suggests that they are perceived as safer and more reliable compared to online shopping.

The null hypothesis (H0) and the alternative hypothesis (H1) were formulated for verification using the chi-square test to check whether the place of purchase is correlated with the perception of risk regarding the choice of sales channel in relation to traditional and online distribution channels.

Null hypothesis (H0): The place of purchase is not correlated with the perception of risk regarding the choice of sales channel.

H0: ρ = 0 H0: ρ = 0

Alternative hypothesis (H1): The place of purchase is correlated with the perception of risk regarding the choice of sales channel.

H1: ρ ≠ 0 H1: ρ ≠ 0

We are calculating the value of the statistic χ2 [45].

$$\mathrm{\chi }2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{N}\times (\mathrm{a}\mathrm{d}-\mathrm{b}\mathrm{c}{)}^2}{(\mathrm{a}+\mathrm{b})(\mathrm{a}+\mathrm{c})(\mathrm{b}+\mathrm{d})(\mathrm{c}+\mathrm{d})}}$$

(3)

$$\mathrm{\chi }2={\displaystyle \frac{302\times (33\times 40-164\times 65{)}^2}{197\times 98\times 204\times 105}}=63.86$$

From the chi-square distribution, at a significance level of α = 0.05 and (r − 1) (k − 1) = 1 degrees of freedom, a critical value of 3.841 is obtained. Since $\mathrm{\chi }2$ is greater than the critical value, we reject the null hypothesis (H0) and conclude that there is a significant relationship between the studied traits. To determine this correlation, we calculate the value of the ϕ Yule’s coefficient [45].

$$\mathsf{\varphi }=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\chi }2}{\mathrm{N}}}}$$

(4)

$$\mathsf{\varphi }=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{63.86}{302}}}=0.46$$

The value of the $\mathsf{\varphi }$ correlation coefficient is 0.46, indicating a moderate significant relationship between the studied traits.

To determine the direction of this correlation (whether it is positive or negative), null (H0) and alternative (H1) hypotheses were formulated for verification using the chi-square test.

Null hypothesis (H0): The place of purchase is not correlated with the perception of risk regarding the choice of sales channel.

H0: ρ = 0 H0: ρ = 0

Alternative hypothesis (H1): The place of purchase is negatively correlated with the perception of risk regarding the choice of sales channel.

H1: ρ < 0 H1: ρ < 0

To determine this correlation, we calculate the value of Kendall’s Tau coefficient.

$$\mathrm{T}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{u} \mathrm{K}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{a}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{d}-\mathrm{b}\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{d}+\mathrm{b}\mathrm{c}}}$$

(5)

$$\mathrm{T}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{u} \mathrm{K}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{a}={\displaystyle \frac{33\mathrm{\times }40-164\mathrm{\times }65}{33\mathrm{\times }40+164\mathrm{\times }65}}=-0.78$$

The value of the Kendall Tau correlation coefficient is −0.78, indicating a significant negative relationship between risk perception and the choice of sales channel, specifically between traditional and online channels.

Consumers have the possibility of different places to buy organic food, and decisions will be related not only to their consumer preferences regarding their choice or the availability of products, but also to the perceived risk. At this point, it is worth mentioning that the development of e-commerce in the sale of organic products makes these products more accessible to consumers.

Table 4. Perception of the general risk incurred at the place of purchase of organic food.

Place of Purchase	Very High	High	Neither High nor Low	Low	Very Low	I Can’t See It
Marketplace	7.28%	14.90%	13.25%	5.96%	29.47%	29.14%
Directly from the producer	1.33%	0.99%	18.54%	8.28%	32.12%	38.74%
Health food store	0.66%	1.66%	16.23%	18.21%	29.80%	33.44%
Local store	22.19%	2.31%	28.81%	32.78%	3.98%	39.93%
Retail chains	0.99%	1.33%	35.10%	3.64%	10.93%	48.01%
Fairs	15.89%	22.52%	4.97%	12.25%	14.57%	29.80%
Online store (e-shop)	44.70%	6.29%	25.83%	7.29%	10.26%	15.63%

Source: Own calculations.

shows the perception of the general risk by respondents at the place of purchase of organic food.

The highest percentage of respondents indicated that the risk incurred when purchasing directly from the producer was as follows: 8.28%—low, 32.12%—very low, 38.74%—the risk is invisible. In a health food store, the percentages were as follows: 18.21%—low, 29.80%—very low, and 33.44%—the risk is invisible. For marketplaces, the figures were as follows: 5.96%—low, 29.47%—very low, and 29.14%—the risk is invisible. In retail chains, the percentages were as follows: 3.64%—low, 10.93%—very low, and 48.01%—the risk is invisible. At occasional fairs, the figures were as follows: 12.25%—low, 14.57%—very low, and 29.80%—the risk is invisible.

In relation to the local store, 24% of respondents indicated a higher perceived risk than in the case of markets, purchasing directly from the manufacturer, in a health food store, and retail chains. On the other hand, the largest percentage of people from places of purchase of organic food such as a marketplaces, directly from the producer, a health food store, a local store, retail chains, occasional fairs, or an online store perceived the greatest risk at the place of purchase in the case of online stores (e-shops), i.e., over 50% of respondents, as well as occasional events such as fairs, i.e., over 38% of respondents.

It is worth noting that every 8th person in the case of marketplaces, every 5th directly from the producer, every 6th in a health food store, almost every 4th in a local store, every 3rd in a retail chain, almost every 20th in the case of a marketplace, and almost every 4th in the case of an online store did not opt for any option, stating that the perceived risk was “neither high nor low”.

Risk perception is considered a factor that determines the purchase of products and services. The next question asked was an assessment of individual risks based on a Likert scale. Respondents were asked “Please indicate to what extent you perceive individual risks when deciding to purchase an organic food product. Please assess each risk on a five-point scale. The first level means that a given risk has no influence on your purchases, and the fifth level means that it has a very large influence. For each of the 13 lines, please mark one of the 5 answers”. The average strength of indications, standard deviation, dominant, and median of the assessment of risk types by the people taking part in this study are presented in the

Table 5. Average strength of indications, standard deviation, dominant, and median of risk type assessment by respondents.

Types of Risk	Average Strength of Indications	Standard Deviation	Dominant	Median
The product will not taste good to me (R1)	2.97	0.98	3	3
Fear that the purchase will require spending more time searching for information about the product (R2)	2.23	1.00	2	2
Family/friends will criticize my purchase (R3)	3.08	1.07	3	3
Feeling that the information on the label will turn out to be untrue (R4)	2.96	0.96	3	3
I will overpay (I could pay less elsewhere) (R5)	2.36	1.15	1	2
The product will not meet my expectations, I will make the wrong choice (R6)	2.63	1.24	2	3
Inconsistency between the description on the label and the content (R7)	2.39	0.91	2	2
The product will turn out to be not worth its price (R8)	2.47	1.18	3	2
My relatives/friends will not like the product (R9)	2.99	1.20	3	3
A competitor’s product may turn out to be better (R10)	2.63	1.12	3	3
Fear that the seller will mix organic products with non-organic products (R11)	2.84	1.29	4	3
Fear that the products will be contaminated with prohibited substances (R12)	3.23	1.11	3	3
A food intolerance will occur (R13)	2.88	1.28	3	3

Source: Own calculations.

.

As can be seen from the data in Table 4, the highest rated out of the 13 types of risk included was the risk of fear of contamination of products with prohibited substances (average = 3.23). The second risk was that family/friends will criticize my purchase (average = 3.08). The median value for these listed types of risk was 3. Other notable risks included the fear that my family/friends will not like the product (average = 2.99) and that the product will not taste good to me (average = 2.97). Respondents also expressed concern that the information on the label might be untrue (average value 2.96).

The lowest risk was the fear that the purchase requires spending more time searching for information about the product (average = 2.23), with a median value of 2 for the mentioned type of risk.

Table 6. Descriptive statistics for the analyzed risks.

Variable	Obs.	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max
R1	302	2.966887	0.9776045	1	5
R2	302	2.225166	1.002801	1	5
R3	302	3.076159	1.070983	1	5
R4	302	2.963576	0.9586108	1	5
R5	302	2.357616	1.151883	1	5
R6	302	2.63245	1.244526	1	5
R7	302	2.387417	0.9107556	1	5
R8	302	2.47351	1.180247	1	5
R9	302	2.990066	1.199349	1	5
R10	302	2.625828	1.124654	1	5
R11	302	2.84106	1.297033	1	5
R12	302	3.225166	1.11273	1	5
R13	302	2.877076	1.288994	1	5

Source: Calculations based on research conducted generated using the program STATA.

shows the number of observations (302), mean value, standard deviation, minimum value (1), and maximum value (5) of each of the risk variables in the data set.

Table 7. Anti-image correlation matrix for thirteen types of risk.

(Obs. = 301)	R1	R2	R3	R4	R5	R6	R7	R8	R9	R10	R11	R12	R13
R1	1.0000
R2	0.3611	1.0000
R3	0.1138	0.2190	1.0000
R4	0.1693	0.3272	0.3046	1.0000
R5	0.0844	0.2141	0.3518	0.3273	1.0000
R6	0.1024	0.2542	0.2121	0.2472	0.3675	1.0000
R7	0.1862	0.2195	0.3914	0.2398	0.3676	0.3569	1.0000
R8	0.2707	0.2088	0.2310	0.1586	0.2851	0.2232	0.3008	1.0000
R9	0.2504	0.1703	0.3256	0.1773	0.3222	0.1158	0.3588	0.4030	1.0000
R10	0.0461	0.1336	0.1027	0.1028	0.0717	0.1664	0.1149	0.1271	0.2074	1.0000
R11	0.0587	0.0430	0.1221	0.0064	0.2329	0.0956	0.2537	0.1927	0.2553	0.1565	1.0000
R12	−0.0603	0.0639	0.0351	0.1163	−0.0633	0.1122	0.0445	−0.0140	0.0206	0.3374	0.2030	1.0000
R13	−0.0217	0.1613	0.220	0.2125	0.0522	0.2384	0.2137	0.0739	0.0538	0.1611	0.1335	0.3837	1.0000

Source: Calculations based on research conducted generated using the program STATA.

presents the correlation matrix between individual risk pairs. Calculations were performed in the STATA program, as was the case for the Table 6 on basic descriptive statistics. On the diagonal, the correlation took the value of 1.0000, which is the correlation of the risk with itself. Each risk pair has a correlation coefficient, which can be positive or negative. The highest correlation occurs between the fear that the products will be contaminated with prohibited substances and the occurrence of a food intolerance (+0.3837), as well as between the fear that family/friends will criticize my purchase and the inconsistency between the description on the label and the content (+0.3914).

In the case of individual risk pairs, an increase in the value of one risk corresponds to a decrease in the value of the other. This is observed in the following risk pairs: the fear that I will not like the product and the fear that the products will be contaminated with prohibited substances, the fear that I will not like the product and I will develop a food intolerance, the fear that the purchase will require spending more time searching for information about the product and the fear that the seller will mix organic products with non-organic products, and the fear that I will be overpaying and the fear that the products will be contaminated with prohibited substances.

As can be seen from the presented table, the explanatory variables and the explained variables are the same, allowing for the formulation of a comparable correlation. When the correlations between variables are low, the presented risk pairs do not create strong common factors.

Table 8. Statements regarding respondents taking risk into account when purchasing organic products and ways to reduce it.

Statements	Always	Often	Sometimes	Rarely	Never
I take the risks into account when buying organic food.	17.88	32.12	37.75	8.61	3.64
In order to reduce the risk when purchasing organic products, I use the advice of the salesperson in the store.	12.91	7.62	48.68	12.91	17.88
I’m going back to the store where I made/made successful purchases	64.90	20.20	14.90	0.00	0.00

Source: Own calculations.

shows statements regarding respondents taking risk into account when purchasing organic products and ways to reduce it.

As it turns out, the highest percentage of respondents, almost 38%, sometimes take risk into account when buying organic food, while 32% of people declared that they often do so. Almost every sixth respondent always takes risk into account when buying organic food, while almost every twelfth declared that they rarely do so. A small percentage of respondents, about 3.7%, do not think about risk at all when shopping.

To reduce risk when buying organic products, the largest percentage of people taking part in the study, i.e., almost 49% sometimes use the advice of a salesperson in a store. Every thirteenth respondent does so often, and every seventh respondent always consults the salesperson about the products they buy. Almost 13% use the advice of a salesperson occasionally, and almost 18% never do.

Regarding the statement concerning I return to the store where I made/made successful purchases, the situation was as follows: among the 302 respondents taking part in the survey, over 64% of the respondents answered that they always do so, over 20% declared that they often do so, while almost 15% of the respondents make repeat purchases in the same store.

4. Selected Actions Taken by Producers and Suppliers of Organic Food to Reduce Consumers’ Perceived Risk in the Purchasing Process

Issues related to the occurrence of risk at individual stages of the consumption process are connected to the following stages: before purchase, during purchase, after purchase, and during and after consumption. At each of these stages, it is important how organic food producers respond to emerging issues related to risk perceived by consumers. Regardless of the method of risk recognition, it is crucial to answer the question of what factors are the source of perceived risk. Perceived risk depends on various factors, which, the consumer’s purchasing decisions, it can be related to the product or service, as well as the place and method of making a purchase (Figure 2).

Actions taken by producers and suppliers of organic food to reduce the risk perceived by consumers during the purchasing process should focus on a number of solutions aimed at supporting and promoting organic food at every stage of the purchasing process, as well as after the purchase.

5. Discussion

Brzezińska and Maciejewski [37] undertook a study to examine the risk and its types influencing consumer decisions concerning product groups such as food, household appliances, and tourist services. The research related to food shows that respondents perceive the risk and are most afraid of stale products, followed by the concern that the product is not worth its price (average = 4.26). The third most significant risk was that the buyer will not like the product (average = 4.09). The lowest risk was related to the fear of gaining weight after its consumption and in the concern that the product will not be to the taste of people from the respondent’s environment, leading to criticism for its purchase (average = 2.93).

The results of their research correlate with some of the results obtained during the analysis, which show that respondents gave the highest rating to the fear of contamination of products with prohibited substances, and slightly lower ratings to the risk that family/friends will criticize their purchase (average = 3.08). The lowest risk was related to the concern that the purchase requires spending more time searching for information about the product, and the risk that the product can be purchased at a lower price elsewhere (average = 2.36).

According to Jacoby and Kaplan [30], perceived consumer risk can be defined based on five components such as the following: financial, performance, physical, psychological, and social risk. The research shows that similar types of products have a similar hierarchy of risk components and the resulting $r_m^2$s range from 63% to 83% (all significant at p < 0.0001), with a median of 74% across the 12 product categories [32].

The authors’ research results confirm these observations. In relation to the research by Featherman and Pavlou [30], the results indicate that in the case of using services, financial risk, privacy risk, and time risk were the greatest constraints to using e-services. This is also confirmed by this research, which proved that consumers are afraid of the above-mentioned risks, especially those related to food and social security, and to a lesser extent, of the risk of losing too much time.

The review of the literature on the subject shows that an often unexpected events, such as the emergence of a crisis, causes changes in the perception of risk and influences consumer behavior. This was the case with the COVID-19 pandemic, or information in the mass media about the harmfulness of a product that poses a threat to health and life, which forces some industries to introduce technological innovations, including pharmaceuticals and chemicals [20].

Similar conclusions are drawn by the studies of Regan, Sweeney, McKernan, Benson, and Dean [38], who claim that consumers should be informed through educational campaigns about the use of antibiotics in the breeding of farm animals and the consequences of their use. This is so that consumers have sufficient knowledge about the effects they bring, as using them as growth stimulants is one of the causes of the bacterial resistance, i.e., the so-called antibiotic resistance. It is important for consumers to be aware of the products they buy, including the origin of the products used, pesticides and chemical fertilizers, GMOs, antibiotics, and hormones and what consequences they bring. As it turns out from the studies of Regan, Sweeney, McKernan, and Dean [38], t most consumers do not notice non-ecological practices used in agriculture and lack knowledge about the consequences of using plant protection products and other unsustainable practices in agriculture. Education in this regard is becoming important so that consumers pay attention to the markings on food product packaging and certificates, enabling them to make informed purchases.

It is crucial that producers and suppliers comply with the principles of corporate social responsibility, manifested, among others, by business honesty. This includes accurately informing buyers about the product, providing them with the necessary information in this area.

Researchers Serrano-Arcos, Fernández, and Pérez-Mesa [39] identified factors that can potentially increase perceived risk when purchasing foreign products, indicating actions that can mitigate the perceived risk. They concluded that perceived risk increases in the case of image crises. Therefore, cooperation between companies and institutions in creating a positive image of the country in the international context becomes important, especially when companies have experienced negative promotional campaigns and/or image crises in their countries. Understanding the factors influencing consumer behavior and their perception of products from other countries is also crucial. The authors of this study reached similar conclusions, emphasizing the importance of campaigns that raise buyers’ awareness of the purchases [39].

Research shows [28] that consumers in the financial services market mainly consider security risk (31.8%) and functional risk (24.1%). In the medical services market, psychological risk is deemed important by 18.9% of respondents, and in the financial market by 21.7% [28]. Our research results, similar to those in the financial market, show that respondents are mostly concerned about security risks. It turns out that consumers also attach significance to the financial risk—13.2% in the medical services market and 18.4% in the financial market [28]. However, in the organic food market, social risk is significant (average value = 3.08). Therefore, it is important for companies to understand individual risks and to apply appropriate risk mitigation strategies. Identifying perceived risk by consumers is becoming crucial. Analyzing individual markets reveals similarities and differences in risk perception. However, one thing is certain: companies must analyze risk and strive to mitigate it in the consumer decision-making process.

Taking this into account, it is necessary to properly direct efforts towards creating demand for organic products. In the Lubusz Voivodeship, greater demand for organic food products can be stimulated by raising consumer awareness about their organic nature, in order to reduce the perceived risks. For this purpose, actions in the field of marketing communication are necessary. Therefore, there is a need to intensify efforts in promoting organic products by utilizing diverse promotional tools and, above all, organizing events and other occasions where offers of organic products will be presented, such as Organic Food and Products Fairs.

An important action also becomes informing consumers about the characteristics of the products and their impact on health. It becomes essential to reduce the perceived risk for buyers of organic products. To increase the availability of organic products, it is recommended to build stronger relationships between producers, as well as between producers and distributors, and the institutional environment in order to integrate ongoing activities. In the context of the consumer, it is recommended to increase consumer trust in these products by informing and educating consumers and creating institutional support that will help alleviate consumer concerns.

Risk in the decision-making process regarding the purchase of organic food plays a significant role influencing the final result of the purchase. Producers and suppliers of organic food should analyze these risks and strive to reduce them in the purchasing process, among others, by transferring their knowledge, planned information campaigns regarding organic food.

6. Conclusions

The analysis of publications on the perception of risk in the consumer purchasing process highlights various aspects of risk and the issues addressed. The authors of this study aim to fill the research gap by focusing on approaches to consumer risk, particularly in relation to organic food. In diagnosing risk, this study utilized nominal, quantitative, and ordinal scales in conjunction with the Likert attitude scale, which required respondents to respond statements using a five-point scale. The research and calculations allowed for the verification of the initial research. The first hypothesis concerned the relationship between the place of purchase and the perception of risk regarding the choice of the sales channel comparing traditional and online distribution channels, as well as the information obtained about the product. The value of the Yule’s coefficient was 0.46, indicating a moderate significant degree of contrast in the co-occurrence between the perception of risk and the choice of the sales channel, whether traditional and online channels.

The empirical studies also suggest that the perceived risk in online purchases was the highest among the participants. A way to mitigate this the risk is the buyers’ loyalty to the place of purchase. Additionally, the studies indicate a relationship between different types of risk. The highest correlation occurs between risk of contamination of products with prohibited substances and the occurrence of food intolerance (+0.3837), as well as the risk that family/friends will criticize my purchase and the discrepancy between the description on the label and the content (+0.3914). However, for certain risk pairs, an increase in the value of one risk corresponds to a decrease in the value of the other.

This is observed in pairs such as the product will not taste good to me and the fear of contamination of products with prohibited substances, as well as fear that the purchase requires spending more time searching for information about the product and fear that the seller will mix up organic products with non-organic products. Additionally, there is the fear of overpaying and the fear of contaminating products with prohibited substances. The studies also reveal that respondents are most concerned about safety and social risk, while they are least concerned about the risk of losing too much time. Consequently, the fourth hypothesis (H4) was confirmed.

The obtained research results allowed for the formulation of conclusions regarding selected issues related to risk in the process of making purchasing decisions in the organic food market. Firstly, it is important to use appropriate research tools to understand consumer risk perception. To conduct an effective and efficient promotional campaign, it is necessary to identify the factors of risk perceived by consumers. Actions undertaken by producers and suppliers of organic food should be based on various solutions aimed at supporting and promoting organic food at every stage of the purchasing process. It is crucial to understand the factors that affect the level and structure of organic food consumption, as increasing environmental awareness, in addition to economic factors, has an impact [46].

There are two main limitations of this study. First, generalization is limited because this study was conducted only in the Lubusz Voivodeship, which restricts the possibility of generalizing the results to all of Poland or other regions. Second, this study does not take into account the influence of the socio-cultural context on risk perception.

Despite these limitations, the authors believe that the results provide significant information for producers and suppliers of organic food in the context of actions related to consumers’ perception of risk, which is a certain type of uncertainty and concern that the buyer faces when they are unable to predict the consequences of their decision. The direction of future research on this issue, according to the authors of this study, could involve the use of experimental studies, as Cao, Jiang, and Ren [20] do, to explain the mechanisms of reaction to making a bad decision regarding a purchased product. This study would aim to demonstrate the influence of perceived risk, allowing for the identification of the relationship between phenomena that can be interpreted in terms of cause-and-effect. In future research, it would be important to present the influence of the socio-cultural context on risk perception, which could contribute to an even fuller understanding of the issue.