Skip to content
Grading.Feedback
1. Group project + Presentation + Paper
FEEDBACK Qualitative
1) What is a research gap?
→A missing puzzle piece in existing knowledge, identified through your literature
review
2) Working Effectively as a Group
→ Before submission, review each others work
→ Ensure your sections align, are coherent, and not redundant
3) Formatting Matters
→The formatting of your submissions is graded
→Double-check formatting: citations, structure, and consistency
Dear all,
Thanks again for your presentations yesterday. It was great to hear about your results and see how much work you’ve put in. As promised, here’s some general feedback to keep in mind for your final reports.
1. Research Focus and Framing:
Most of you had strong introductions that clearly explained the background and relevance of your topic. A few groups should double-check the framing of their research question: remember, we are interested in students’ perceptions, not in whether the living environment actually changes their behavior. That might sound like a small detail, but it’s important. Behavioral change is something you would measure differently, while subjective experiences and meanings are what we study qualitatively.
2. Details about Interview Situation:
Many of you included helpful tables summarizing key information (e.g., gender, background, interview length and setting). That’s great! You can also include such a table in the report. You’re welcome to code demographic data, but there’s no need to include these codes in the main analysis. Instead, describe your sample in the methods section and refer back to that information if needed during the analysis.
3. Interview Guide:
Some of you already reflected on how you developed your interview guide, which is great, even though that wasn’t required in the presentation. Please make sure to include this in the report: how did you design your initial guide, how did you come up with the questions, and how did you structure it? Then, of course, explain that you used the final version we provided when conducting the interviews.
4. Application of Qualitative Content Analysis:
You all explained the basics of qualitative content analysis well, which shows you’ve understood the method. In the report, go one step further and show how you applied it. Clearly outline how you moved from open to axial to selective coding. Don’t just describe the process, but illustrate it with concrete examples and include quotes. It’s particularly interesting to see how you decided on your codes and subcodes. A few groups did this really well, so feel free to look at each other’s slides for inspiration.
5. Inductive vs. Deducting Coding:
The coding process should be inductive. It’s fine to introduce some deductive elements later (e.g., concepts from your interview guide), but don’t begin with a set of predefined categories. Let the data speak first, and bring in structure afterwards.
6. Quantifying Qualitative Data and Generalizations:
Some of you quantified your codes (e.g., “this code appeared five times”). That’s not necessarily wrong, but with only three interviews, this isn’t very meaningful. What matters more is how you built your categories and which quotes illustrate them. Also, be careful with generalizations. Avoid statements like “students think…,” because you only spoke with three people. Better to write: “the interviewees described…” or “some participants noted…”.
Be mindful of using vague or redundant codes like “perception,” especially when the entire project is already about students’ perceptions. Try to be more precise.
7. Literature Review:
While you didn’t need to include a literature review in your presentation (although some of you did. That’s great!), the report should engage with relevant literature. Use it not only to situate your research but also to reflect critically: What was useful? What didn’t quite fit your case? How did your results differ/conform the results of the key studies?
8. Reflections:
Some of you already offered thoughtful and specific reflections on your research process, highlighting real challenges and group dynamics. That’s exactly what we’re looking for! However, a few reflections remained too general, focusing mostly on the limits of qualitative research or offering general feedback on the course.
For the final report, please reflect in more detail on your group’s specific experience. What did you personally find difficult? Were there moments of disagreement when coding? Did you struggle with formulating interview questions, staying inductive, or interpreting vague responses? How did you deal with uncertainty or unexpected results?
Generic comments like “qualitative research is subjective” or “we only interviewed three people” don’t tell us much about your actual process. Instead, we’re interested in how you navigated concrete challenges and what you learned from them.
If you have feedback on the course itself, feel free to share that via the email from Nicolas Gerber, but in your report, the reflection section should focus on your research process and team experience.
Lastly, thank you for the great questions and discussions in the feedback sessions! They were really helpful for everyone. In general, grades for the presentations are ranging between 1.0 and 2.0, based on the clarity and depth of your work.
We’re very much looking forward to reading your reports!
Best regards,
Monja & Leonie
This report covers a wide range of changes planned for the
future of the NGO. An impressive number of aspects are
presented in a thoughtful way. Neglecting the chapter on
Concerns is the major flaw weakening the argument clarity
and consistency. Also, the style of writing primarily in
key phrases within a wide range of chapters reduces the
quality of writing.
Today we had the seminar presentation from the students who will go to France. Many of you were not there, a real pity. Many lessons were learnt from that seminar – on content and topics but also on another focus of this excursion module: to get you to inform yourself about a current policy issue in your field, to be able to communicate about that issue, reflect critically about it, and more generally practice on your public presentation skills.
So, we one week to go, my general message:
As you are “my” students, going to Brussels with me, talking to some of my contacts there, people who are sacrificing their time out of their busy working day to address you, please make me proud next week and in Brussels. So, good preparation and active participation, as well as appropriate behavior during meetings (bathroom breaks are taken before meetings, not during; staying quiet while others present/talk; be attentive and not in your laptop or mobile phone) are expected. I did not think I would have to say this, but today’s experience proved me wrong. This does not mean we all have to be rigid in our behavior, but respectful of others and their time and efforts, so that we (and especially you) all gain from these meetings.
Thanking you all in advance for a good seminar next week.
Dear Anna and Team,
Thanks, your slides look good. It’s always tough to decide what to focus on in short presentations – my only suggestion (and maybe you plan to di it and just did not put it on the slides) would be to explain the potential mechanisms behind the expected impacts you introduce on slide 4, i.e. why do you expect increases in GHG emissions and biodiversity loss as a result of the trade deal and what does the size of these impacts depend on (e.g. effective national forest policies etc.). This will help you to better justify the recommendations you propose on slide 5.
All the best
Jan
Thank you for sending your reports on the Brussels excursion. I have now read all of them and here are a few thoughts from my side:
Really interesting for me to see the diversity of issues that were picked or highlighted by the group – even bringing me back to some bits that eluded my own reporting, although in a whole there was quite a consensus of which sessions were most interesting.
Of course, there was also diversity in the quality of the reports and, at least this is how I see it, how valuable and how deep the impact of the excursion will be, how much of an enriching educational experience this can prove to be for you. Whilst a handful of reports show a superficial understanding of what was discussed, about a dozen of them go much deeper and this made me very happy. We even have a handful of really, really good reports.
Almost all of you chose to structure your report by meeting, then highlighting elements of these meetings. My favorite report though is structured around 3 issues, which were discussed in several meetings and from various perspectives. The synthesis offered on those three issues in the report and the depth of reflection (even in such a short 1-pager) is really good – congrats!
I know, the excursion is tiring, with lots of meetings, and some (visibly) struggled to stay focused: well, this is what life will be like after you leave the academic cocoon… People have to concentrate the whole day long and not only when it suits them, constantly having to switch their attention to different people or issues. This is exhausting, and student life is not always preparing you much for this. So, this was maybe a first experience of that sort and a good one, I think.
Yes, lobbying is a necessary part of our democracies – and luckily in the EU it is also regulated to prevent excesses and unethical practices. Which leads me to my last point: I hope/think you will take away much about those two words: democracy and regulations.
Whilst I gained a new understanding for the Greek roots of the word democracy at the EESC meeting, what the word actually means to us has not changed. Our various activities in Brussels highlighted how the EU (painfully) got there, what we need to do to protect it – which we must!, and how it functions on a day-to-day basis in the probably not perfect yet amazing and complex example of the EU.
One of the down sides of the EU system is maybe the heavy dose of regulations it dishes out, unavoidable and reflecting (we were told) the diversity of its constituents. Various groups (not just farmers) tend to rebel against these heavy, complex regulations. So why do we do them? Well, the same farmers’ own association gave us a clue: leaving it free to actors to act, or not, under incentives is also likely to create unequitable ways in which various countries will “do the right thing” from a sustainability perspective and protect/invest in our global public goods. Monitoring progress towards sustainability is most often more difficult than monitoring whether actor x in country y is complying with regulation z… This is an eternal debate: regulation vs incentive-based mechanisms, forcing people to take certain actions vs letting them see that it is in their interest to do so. Interesting is to note that even in the conservative circles in the US, the ability of free markets to deliver national wealth and well-being is currently being heavily questioned. And what about global wealth and well-being? I certainly do not have an answer here, but this debate will probably only increase in the near future, also in the EU and globally.
Thanks for your feedback and your participation in the excursion.
Nicolas
Speaker 1
(0:00) I trust that no one will sue us for giving grades that you consider unfair. (0:06) I also think you don't need to, because nobody gets... (0:12) Can I say that?
(0:13) Nobody gets a poor grade. (0:14) Because I don't think you will hand in something really inappropriate. (0:18) And this is why this is good.
(0:21) Zero means you provide nothing, right? (0:23) Nothing. (0:24) But nobody of you will write an English text full of mistakes only.
(0:28) It's impossible. (0:29) If you just think about your case and you provide the text, everybody will at least reach level 3. (0:37) I uploaded a document also on eCampus under case studies called Rubrik.
(0:43) And you will find sentences explaining each position in this network. (0:50) So something like, for clarity, zero. (0:53) Nothing of the text is linguistically or logically clear.
(0:57) One, only a tiny fraction is logically clear. (1:00) Two, some parts of the text are logically and linguistically clear. (1:04) And then like most of it, everything.
(1:07) And then five is like outstanding clarity. (1:09) So it's a kind of semi-quantification of these categories. (1:16) What I also want to say is, we will certainly not strictly give like 20% to each.
(1:23) For example, form. (1:25) I mean, this is necessary, but it's maybe 5%. (1:28) And clarity is 10%.
(1:30) What we look at mostly is plausibility and the knowledge you put in. (1:34) You should show that you listened to the class at some point or you at least read the script. (1:40) Ideally, you also show that you did some research yourself on something related to your case.
(1:48) That you say, okay, if it is a question of, let's say, food safety, that you had a look at some sources explaining what's important about food safety, who are stakeholders, how can conflicts be resolved. (2:05) Some of that you heard in class. (2:08) Some of that is not necessary to hear in class.
(2:13) Because, I mean, as students, you know how to do some research. (2:20) And Google here is enough. (2:22) I mean, you don't need to read scientific papers on that to get some background information.
(2:28) But yeah, certainly plausibility and knowledge structure, I think it's important because obviously we want to have something like a kind of argument. (2:37) But you can't do much wrong if it's really like, you start from the description of what is, then you describe the states, and you look at responsibilities and how to argue for certain decisions. (2:51) I mean, that's a good structure.
(3:00) I hope you're fine with that. (3:02) That I don't give you a very 100% clear answer, like 20%, 20%, and this, I find that not necessary. (3:10) Especially for ethics analysis.
(3:15) And especially because we combine, I mean, we look at the text you will provide and your presentation. (3:24) And some of you are good at writing. (3:26) Others feel more comfortable standing here and explaining.
(3:30) So we grant ourselves a bit of flexibility. (3:33) Even if we think, oh, well, the text sounds a bit, I don't know, dry or something. (3:38) But if your presentation is very clear, then we say, okay, that can compensate something from the text too.
(3:46) So my message is always don't worry too much about it.
Speaker 2
(3:49) Okay. (3:53) It's a good advice anyways. (3:55) Don't worry.
(3:56) Be happy.
Speaker 1
(3:56) My experience is when students stop worrying, they do better work. (4:01) Because it's about the thing. (4:02) It's not about, that's the Buddhist speaking.
(4:05) If you do something here and now, that means if you sit there and think about the case and say, okay, I understand what's at stake, okay, I don't, so I check. (4:13) Then I make an analysis. (4:14) Then you do good work.
(4:15) But if you think, oh, my God, what do I have to do to get a good grade in two weeks from now? (4:20) Your thinking is diverted from the actual problem. (4:23) So if you do it, like, focus on the case, you're certainly smart enough to get the things, to produce good stuff, and don't worry about future, then you do good work.
(4:38) Any questions? (4:43) Oh, another thing. (4:45) For the final projects, I'm not sure if you already formed the teams for that, but, yeah?
Speaker 2
(4:52) How many people do you have to be? (4:54) Because I think in the slides somewhere there was three, but then in class I think half.
Summary
Feedback was given on a student's essay and presentation about cultivated meat, focusing on areas for improvement.
Essay lacked a conclusion and thorough elaboration on responsibilities.
Comparison with the dairy industry wasn't fully plausible.
Ethical matrix was presented without sufficient explanation.
Essay exceeded the word limit and had formatting issues.
Presentation slides were overloaded with text and some were initially empty.
Student needs to practice public speaking.
To-dos
Revise essay: Add conclusion, elaborate on responsibilities, refine dairy comparison, explain ethical matrix.
Fix formatting issues: Page numbers, consistent colors, remove duplicate source.
Improve slides: Reduce text, ensure all slides have content.
Practice public speaking.
Recording
Show speakers 00:00
So, welcome to the group and I don't know, Jan, would you like to start?
Show speakers 00:10
Yes, one more thing.
Show speakers 00:13
Could you switch off the blurring because I can only see your hand and nothing else.
Show speakers 00:17
I'm not sure that I can.
Show speakers 00:19
Can I switch to the blurring?
Show speakers 00:27
Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure.
Show speakers 00:29
Go ahead.
Show speakers 00:30
I see somebody knows better to go.
Show speakers 00:35
Ah, you have extended.
Show speakers 00:40
You need to go to settings.
Show speakers 00:42
Oh, here, yeah, here.
Show speakers 00:45
So, I hope now we now you can see hopefully a little bit from us.
Show speakers 01:03
All right, all right, all right.
Show speakers 01:08
Where to start?
Show speakers 01:13
Okay, you successfully, and I appreciate that you successfully made
Show speakers 01:23
the difference to the other group talking about cultivated meat.
Show speakers 01:26
And I think the difference becomes very clear that you focus on a just transition.
Show speakers 01:32
You successfully narrow it down to it and don't try even to relate this to other side discussions.
Show speakers 01:43
That's very good.
Show speakers 01:45
What I thought is that
Show speakers 01:51
First thing is about the format of the essay.
Show speakers 01:59
I focus more on the essay than the presentation for now.
Show speakers 02:03
I was missing something like a conclusion.
Show speakers 02:07
It ends rather abruptly after the comparison with the dairy industry.
Show speakers 02:13
And I thought what you could have done better is a more thorough, or let's say further,
Show speakers 02:20
elaboration of the responsibilities that you take from the Philip Bray paper, Anticipatory Ethics for Emerging Technologies.
Show speakers 02:31
I thought this is a very good approach because that's exactly what you talk about.
Show speakers 02:35
But this is unfortunately the shortest
Show speakers 02:40
paragraph in your essay talking about the responsibilities and for each one giving just like a one-line example.
Show speakers 02:47
And I thought if you had taken this a bit further, say how can we use this to look at the possible pathways and options that we have on the technological side, maybe on the regulatory side, to accompany this to a smooth transition and a just transition.
Show speakers 03:06
then it would be clearer like what is the underlying ethical stakes that you are discussing here.
Show speakers 03:18
The comparison with the dairy industry, I'm not sure, maybe Tor Hartman can say something about the economic,
Show speakers 03:28
possibility.
Show speakers 03:31
But what I want to say here is I understand the point you're trying to make, that we have here a successful example where due to a transition, the main actors, the drivers of it, try to take other stakeholders and aid them in the transition as well.
Show speakers 03:49
But it is not clear to me at the end how this can work for the
Show speakers 03:57
a cultivated meat industry because at the same time you say this is mostly maybe startups and new players on the field and they might not be in the position to do exactly that.
Show speakers 04:07
So I found that that part, it makes sense to me why you bring it, but it's not that plausible.
Show speakers 04:14
I mean, what would have been good in this case would have been to have also reflection.
Show speakers 04:19
How is it a like case and how might it...
Show speakers 04:22
might actually differ.
Show speakers 04:23
I like to look at what has been done in other areas already, but is it really to what extent can it can it can it can it really really?
Show speakers 04:36
I think one of the things which were also
Show speakers 04:43
a point that there are quite a bit of issues which you are picking up.
Show speakers 04:48
You know, you have this ethical matrix which is very complex, but it's not really reflected in the text.
Show speakers 04:56
You know, you don't really refer to
Show speakers 05:00
the ethical matrix.
Show speakers 05:01
You have this anticipatory ethics, and it's, as Jana really said, it was really thoughtfully then really referred to that.
Show speakers 05:10
So we had a little bit of feeling less would have been more to focus on one of those issues and not to try to cover kind of everything.
Show speakers 05:22
Yeah, that was one what what what we what you already mentioned, and I would what I would like to add.
Show speakers 05:35
I I have a few smaller points, but I'm not sure whether you would want to, yeah, or should I should I just?
Show speakers 05:46
No, no, yeah, this is the part I forgot about that ethical metrics.
Show speakers 05:49
I think it's it's it's, I mean, that's what we...
Show speakers 05:52
what I told you to do basically, right?
Show speakers 05:54
We had this in class, like list out stakeholders and their various, but I agree that, of course, if you do it, you want to take something from it and use this as an overview, but in this case, like without commenting, you present the table, you kind of expect the reader to get the essence by looking at the table.
Show speakers 06:11
Usually, I mean, this is kind of advice for future work.
Show speakers 06:14
Don't do like this, like a table does not substitute an explanation in the full text body.
Show speakers 06:19
Yeah.
Show speakers 06:20
What did you say?
Show speakers 06:24
I didn't understand the lesson.
Show speakers 06:26
The table itself is not enough.
Show speakers 06:28
You need to, not just put the table, just say readers need to digest it.
Show speakers 06:34
But you need to consider that.
Show speakers 06:39
With the ethical matrix, your paper is much longer than it was supposed to be.
Show speakers 06:46
So you really extended your max 3000 words.
Show speakers 06:53
Maybe also small things for your other term papers you might have put page numbers on your paper.
Show speakers 07:02
You don't have that, for example.
Show speakers 07:05
You do have sometimes different colors in your paper.
Show speakers 07:09
It seems like you copied something somewhere in parts out or something.
Show speakers 07:13
So you should be a little bit careful
Show speakers 07:17
with that.
Show speakers 07:20
That was one of the things what we found.
Show speakers 07:22
The same source is twice there.
Show speakers 07:25
There are some formatting issues also in your paper, just small things, you know, which don't ruin anything, but which one can easily take care of.
Show speakers 07:38
You put some efforts
Show speakers 07:42
in developing your slides, which has been nice.
Show speakers 07:48
Some slides were overloaded.
Show speakers 07:49
I think in your part there were some slides where there was a lot of text.
Show speakers 07:53
Put less text on your slides.
Show speakers 07:56
Some slides were empty when you submitted, but when you presented, there was some content on it.
Show speakers 08:04
Yeah, that was something what we also noticed.
Show speakers 08:11
I mean,
Show speakers 08:11
You were very strong in the discussion, as you are always.
Show speakers 08:15
Yeah.
Show speakers 08:20
And it's something one needs to learn to speak in front of class, but it's something which maybe you can try in front of a mural.
Show speakers 08:30
Before you go to class, just talk to yourself in front of a mural.
Show speakers 08:35
Sometimes it sometimes helps.
Show speakers 08:37
And most people are not
Show speakers 08:39
natural talkers, maybe a few, but one just needs to practice.
Show speakers 08:45
Can I double check?
Show speakers 08:47
For the slides with a lot of text, but if the speaker has accent, will it be better to have more text than?
Show speakers 08:58
No, not on the slides.
Show speakers 09:00
Have your own cards.
Show speakers 09:01
Work with cards.
Show speakers 09:02
If you're not...
Show speakers 09:03
But the speaker has accent, very high accent, no?
Show speakers 09:06
You mean you present a lot of text to give the listener a chance to read it in case they don't understand when the presenter talks?
Show speakers 09:16
No, it's not working or it's...
Show speakers 09:19
Because more text diverts the attention and then it makes it even harder to listen and read at the same time, I would say.
Show speakers 09:26
Then it's better to say, okay, if it needs concentration to listen to the speaker, then even present less text.
Show speakers 09:33
It makes it a bit easier from my experience.
Show speakers 09:36
Okay.
Show speakers 09:36
Yeah, sure.
Show speakers 09:40
We all are not native English speakers, right?
Show speakers 09:42
So that makes it sometimes a little bit harder for all of us, right?
Show speakers 09:47
But I think everybody in class has an understanding of that.
Show speakers 09:51
And then just don't try to present too much in too short of a time because then you need to rush.
Show speakers 09:57
I mean, those who are really, really good in English,
Show speakers 10:00
So the problem was that there was too much condensed in one slide, so it's better to just divide the slides so it would be less condensed.
Show speakers 10:10
And there was some slides which were, wait, where was that?
Show speakers 10:22
I think the last one.
Show speakers 10:23
Yeah, yeah, yeah, these kind of things is quite a bit of information on.
Show speakers 10:31
So, just divide them two.
Show speakers 10:33
It's all kind of weirdly formatted, and sometimes it's not good to have full sentences on.
Show speakers 10:39
It's the main message, you don't need the verbs, so don't have a whole sentence.
Show speakers 10:45
It's similar, like having having a poster, and so I'm just looking at it.
Show speakers 10:53
And I would think about how your arguments are kind of plausible.
Show speakers 10:58
I mean, freeing labor in slaughterhouses, you cannot use that in a bio-fermentation company, you know.
Show speakers 11:12
I mean, that's completely different areas.
Show speakers 11:16
You can say there will be no new areas, but these people, you probably cannot.
Show speakers 11:21
directly compensate, you know, which are working in the packing industry and so on.
Show speakers 11:26
So these are issues which might hold for other protein, but not for cultured meat.
Show speakers 11:34
You know, so I did see that you sometimes used sauces which were not just dealing with cultured meat, but with different protein areas.
Show speakers 11:44
But you did discuss that you wanted to focus on cultured meat, right?
Show speakers 11:49
I think we need to move on, right?
Show speakers 11:51
I do assume that the next group is waiting outside.
Show speakers 11:57
But maybe you do have one of your last questions to ask.
Show speakers 12:01
Was it the expectations on like ethical analysis, like from your side, was it meeting your expectations?
Show speakers 12:14
Like in a way, in a core way, like what the ethical essay should be like in terms of your expectations for this project?
Show speakers 12:25
I think our main issue was that we did feel that a lot of issues were addressed, but it could have been more focused, using one framework and then going in more detail with that framework.
Show speakers 12:39
So yes, we think you've covered
Show speakers 12:43
a lot of relevant issues, but as I said before, maybe less would have been lost.
Show speakers 12:53
I don't know, did I say that?
Áyna, [20/09/2025 17:02]
Recording
00:00
Who wants to be next?
00:02
She was the first to get up.
00:06
But you cannot use your.
00:09
Yeah, I know, but I don't have any PPT, so I will just.
00:13
Okay, so we cannot see any slides.
00:14
Unfortunately, yeah.
00:16
So I, based on your feedback last time, I made more general topic.
00:25
So, my topic is investigating sources of confusion about food products' attributes, like ingredients, nutrients, taste, and other aspects, through various communication theories.
00:37
and also investigate what is confusion specifically.
00:42
For example, semantic confusion, what do terms mean or functional, how do I use it, or expectational, it is what I thought that I bought or something else, and trust-related.
00:53
Do I trust, is it safe, is it okay for me, and et cetera.
00:59
So this based on the case study for alternative proteins and plant-based projects in general.
01:07
I want to understand and look for the papers, not only like last time they used survey, right?
01:15
But I want to maybe studies that, and I found some of them that actually measure the behavior of people, like a real decision making or maybe mock the purchasing behavior.
01:30
Not maybe the actual one, but the mocking one, but using maybe like
01:36
Yeah, like experiments that are more real, not like online, they choose between the pictures.
01:43
And also maybe they understand how the eye movement, whether they look at it and they actually, like, how many time they spend on understanding the package and et cetera, et cetera.
01:57
So more, something more real, not only like artificial experiments.
02:04
Yeah, so that is relevant to the topic of communication in our class because that, I think, specifically focus on the perception of the products and how we can explain that using the communication theories, why the confusion arise, because of what.
02:25
And then
02:26
I don't have all the papers that I want to find, but I want to try to find more.
02:36
But I will focus on alternative proteins and maybe only on dairy products like alternative or dairy.
02:43
Yeah.
02:43
Because we can have more data on that.
02:47
Because plant-based meat, for example, I think it's not very, we don't have enough data of it, of the real life, but dairy we can find more about that.
02:56
Yeah.
02:57
Okay.
02:57
So your focus is now.
02:59
an appropriate understanding.
03:04
So if we take that simple model of the one-way communication, that simple model, you suppose we have the sender.
03:16
with some, let's say, nutritional information or what it is, and you have the receiver who does the decoding, and you want to see whether the encoding and the decoding overlap or not.
03:27
Yeah, and what are specific confusion?
03:30
Why in what?
03:31
kind of claims they are confused about, or maybe non-verbal things like color also.
03:39
So I want to understand like what are the various aspects of confusions on functionality, on taste, on like other stuff, and like have like a literature review in terms of like methods, like all the papers that I can find on a limited time.
04:01
Don't make it too comprehensive because the workload is restricted.
04:06
So don't make a comprehensive review if you just have, let's say, two or three papers that deal with the topic, this is really enough.
04:16
Don't focus so much on purchase behavior, purchase behavior intention because what I understood is that you want to see to which extent they really overlap.
04:30
So the
04:30
the messages that are sent and to which extent consumers can organize them with the knowledge that they have.
04:41
For example, if they have a red dairy product, there should be some.
04:44
But I don't want to base my understanding on like their perception, but actual behavior, which source, which is source of confusion.
04:56
For example, they, I want to try to find
05:00
Ideally, maybe that is not related actually, but I was searching that like a feedback for all the comments on after purchasing the product, like a real situation, for example, some study that will collect the comments on the plant-based milk and then they understand whether they perceive it correctly.
05:23
You're more in the field of communication.
05:26
If you just look at the purchase, purchase intention or whatever that is, you do not know exactly what causes the confusion.
05:34
If there is, and if there is confusion.
05:37
Yeah, so I need studies that also link it to the.
05:41
If you have, for example, the feedback, and with the feedback, you can see to which extent.
05:46
at least how they understand that information, or whether they understand that uniformly, or whether one group understands that in that way, another in the other way, and so on.
05:58
So this confusion is a good topic, but confusion cannot be seen in purchase attention.
06:06
But actual...
06:09
Purchasing data?
06:11
No, not only because you do not know if you just take the purchase, but then qualitative qualitative interviews or surveys, but if you just take the purchase data, you cannot see, you cannot assess whether they were confused or not.
06:27
What about what?
06:28
Yes, specifically.
06:29
And you cannot whether or and if they were confused about what they were confused.
06:34
So what you said, for example, the feedback thing is a good thing.
06:37
that you can see, we're having a study and we see that these claim or whatever it is, or this package is understood by that group and that group and that group.
06:47
And if you really could be, if you can go a step further and if you can say, hey, we have to look, what is the, let's say, the real nutritional value?
07:02
But this book is a little bit more difficult because then you have to
07:07
define what is the adequate understanding of the claim.
07:10
This is often very difficult because we are not experts in nutritional sciences.
07:16
But you can say, you can say they had that very differently and perhaps if they say, hey, I didn't understand, it fits together, then of course you can
07:26
Yeah, some studies do that, actually.
07:28
They also measure it actually in nutritional content, whether they understood it correctly or like over-exaggerated the content of protein, for example.
07:39
Yeah, so these are the studies that are appropriate for the topic.
07:45
Okay.
07:46
Okay, and then you have the, you understand the communication, communication via packaging.
07:52
OK, thank you.
07:58
Who's next?
Standard recording 22
Recording
Show speakers 00:00
I had the, I saw.
Show speakers 00:01
I've had a construct.
Show speakers 00:03
So, based on your paper, what plant-based alternatives would you recommend?
Show speakers 00:11
In terms of what?
Show speakers 00:15
In terms of like consuming yourself?
Show speakers 00:18
Yeah.
Show speakers 00:18
It based on your also goals.
Show speakers 00:23
If you want to just to have
Show speakers 00:25
sweetener for your coffee, maybe any plant-based milk can go.
Show speakers 00:32
But if you want to try, I don't know, alternative to milk, it can be, it should be fortified for sure, for sure.
Show speakers 00:40
You need to check whether it's like have calcium, I don't know, fat and other essential stuff.
Show speakers 00:49
But then
Show speakers 00:51
Yeah, you need to keep in mind that still bioavailability of this fortified nutrients is different.
Show speakers 00:59
And so it would be digested differently.
Show speakers 01:02
So as long...
Show speakers 01:04
There is no equivalent, basically, to milk at this point of time and other dairy products.
Show speakers 01:10
But in terms of functionality, if you need for coffee, you can take plant-based.
Show speakers 01:15
You need maybe for cooking some kind of pancakes, you can take that also.
Show speakers 01:20
So there can be alternative.
Show speakers 01:22
I'm sure we are not on the nutritional advice anymore.
Show speakers 01:25
So we have a complication.
Show speakers 01:26
So this is a question.
Show speakers 01:28
We should not lose time.
Show speakers 01:30
Yeah, you also have a question.
Show speakers 01:33
Sorry.
Show speakers 01:33
What did you find most interesting in terms of preparing this?
Show speakers 01:37
I was focused basically on understanding what was the like regulatory and lobbyists from like dairy industry, what was their take, why they were confused.
Show speakers 01:52
or why they thought that consumers can be confused, and they were based on nutritional content.
Show speakers 01:58
And then what's most interesting was kind of defining this narrow, like trying to find papers or some kind of proof in the papers related to confusion related to nutritional information.
Show speakers 02:12
So that was interesting to define that.
Show speakers 02:14
So just unfortunately, you did not cite the two papers in the...
Show speakers 02:18
presentation that you sent me.
Show speakers 02:21
Yeah, sorry, yeah.
Show speakers 02:22
So I could not follow on, I must admit, that I could not follow you by scrolling through the papers, what I exactly did, so that I cannot really put some questions regarding the paper and the content of the papers.
Show speakers 02:34
But for me, what is the, you focus on consumer confusion.
Show speakers 02:39
What is the, let's say, the main extract from what you wanted to say?
Show speakers 02:47
And if you want to do that between cow milk and plant milk.
Show speakers 02:52
Yeah, because confusion.
Show speakers 02:53
So you want to say plant milk because of the European Union, let's say plant drinks.
Show speakers 02:58
Plant drinks and yeah.
Show speakers 03:00
So my main like summary is that regulators, they ban and cancel some qualifiers which are not specifically confuse consumers.
Show speakers 03:16
But the packaging itself, milk, specific animal-related products, terms like milk, kefir, cheese, in some countries, like meat also, in the European Union, I think it's also only milk.
Show speakers 03:33
Also, the word is spelling in a different way, but we're simply the normal word.
Show speakers 03:38
For example, you had milk with Y instead of I.
Show speakers 03:40
This is also banned?
Show speakers 03:41
No.
Show speakers 03:42
No.
Show speakers 03:43
And also they banned, I think, some characteristics of the products like creamy, for example, which is related to kind of cream, like milk cream.
Show speakers 03:53
So yeah, my idea is that it's not working, but specifically what confused customers is using images, for example, or colors or something, those kind of stuff that are more directed, right, and heuristics.
Show speakers 04:10
And another part is for the alternative product producers that the idea is that they can work on their nutritional equivalence if they want to compete.
Show speakers 04:23
But instead of competing, they just need to highlight these nutritional differences and kind of distinguish themselves so there won't be a confusion and there won't be a dissatisfaction.
Show speakers 04:33
So for example, I saw not in this paper, but in different paper, there was a lawsuit against plant-based
Show speakers 04:39
dairy, also a milk product, I think, that there was like a claim for gram of protein per serving, but it was not like that, actually.
Show speakers 04:51
They confused and misled the consumer, and the consumer was outraged about that.
Show speakers 04:56
So they need to stress
Show speakers 04:59
This is not specific for the difference between cow milk and plant-based milk, but they don't have to do that on cow milk and on the plant drinks.
Show speakers 05:09
What do you mean?
Show speakers 05:11
If they mislead consumers by saying that there is a too high protein content or that there is protein rich even though there is regulated in the...
Show speakers 05:20
regulation of the EU that you just have to say protein rich, if it has a protein contender, I don't know exactly what, then it occurs to cow milk in the same way as plant work.
Show speakers 05:34
So this is not the difference.
Show speakers 05:35
So the question is, there, because you addressed the difference between information between plant-based and dairy.
Show speakers 05:43
But this is the difference.
Show speakers 05:46
in terms of like it's not equivalent, right?
Show speakers 05:49
Yes, consumers know that obviously that it is not equivalent because they have not sometimes in this case there was not there were not so company.
Show speakers 06:01
I don't know how, but they have a little, very, very little qualified that this is for one serving and one serving is 4 bottles.
Show speakers 06:12
4 gram of protein for 4 bottles.
Show speakers 06:14
So basically they push their marketing to be equivalent kind of to milk because milk is tend to be more protein rich kind of.
Show speakers 06:24
I mean in terms of compared to the plant-based.
Show speakers 06:27
But in general, you say that people can differentiate between the plant-based and the dairy products.
Show speakers 06:36
And on the other hand,
Show speakers 06:38
that there is some confusion perhaps about the nutritional value, but this refers to plant-based products as well as to comment.
Show speakers 06:45
You can be pretty sure.
Show speakers 06:48
But they are confused about different stuff.
Show speakers 06:51
So in general, there are people more confused about protein quality or protein level about the plant-based.
Show speakers 07:01
And about milk, they confuse about, I don't know, use, what is organic milk?
Show speakers 07:06
Or, I don't know, they confuse about other stuff.
Show speakers 07:09
Where did you know that from?
Show speakers 07:12
a paper that, yeah, just a paper that compared the organic milk only.
Show speakers 07:23
About the value of the fat in the milk, about the value of the protein in the milk.
Show speakers 07:27
And perhaps they didn't know something about the calcium in the back.
Show speakers 07:31
But confusion can be on the same level with all the products that we have and with all the nutritional things that we have.
Show speakers 07:40
Yeah.
Show speakers 07:40
Because we use labels in order to signal the overall nutritional things.
Show speakers 07:47
Okay.
Show speakers 07:48
I'm very sorry that I could not have a look at the...
Show speakers 07:52
No, I'm sorry.
Show speakers 07:53
This is my mistake.
Show speakers 07:54
Yes.
Show speakers 07:54
Because I look at the other two papers that you state here was useless because you did not mention them here.
Show speakers 08:03
So this is the same.
Show speakers 08:05
It was more than on the image of, on the perception of cow milk versus plant-based milk.
Show speakers 08:10
And this is a little bit different, but this is not, has nothing to do with communication directly.
Show speakers 08:15
Okay.
Show speakers 08:16
And the last thing, how to overcome that confusion, any idea?
Show speakers 08:21
So we saw that there was confusion.
Show speakers 08:23
But this is not so differentiate the problem of communication, but this is the problem of the background knowledge or so.
Show speakers 08:35
where do you see the link to communication then?
Show speakers 08:38
Yes, specifically educate and differentiate like information about the nutrient content because it is different and people do not understand that and educate consumers about that.
Show speakers 08:51
Yeah, and that can be done by plant-based companies itself.
Show speakers 08:56
That can be done by the regulators.
Show speakers 08:59
I mean, government maybe.
Show speakers 09:01
That you can make experts out of a bunch of uneducated people.
Show speakers 09:05
That you can make experts out of a population of highly uneducated people regarding nutritional things.
Show speakers 09:13
I happy you...
Show speakers 09:16
Okay.
Show speakers 09:17
Is that really?
Show speakers 09:18
Yeah, that's a goal maybe, yeah.
Show speakers 09:20
Okay.
Standard recording 21
Recording
Show speakers 00:00
Anna, I want to present you today a topic regarding consumer confusion over nutritional information in specifically plant-based alternatives for dairy products or dairy products.
Show speakers 00:13
Yeah, so
Show speakers 00:17
Why I wanted to talk about that specifically is because, plant-based alternatives are growing in the market and regulators start to look at that more strictly.
Show speakers 00:37
And recently, several countries, including European Union, they banned
Show speakers 00:43
animal related terms like as a qualifiers in the product names like milk, kefir, meat and other kind of like chicken and other stuff that related to animals in the naming of the product based alternatives, plant based alternatives.
Show speakers 01:01
So yeah, I got interested.
Show speakers 01:03
Basically they claim that this is because to protect consumers from confusion.
Show speakers 01:08
So they will not like
Show speakers 01:11
relate that this is 2 products, dairy products and alternative products are actually comparable.
Show speakers 01:18
They are not comparable, of course, with the nutritional content.
Show speakers 01:22
Some of the plant-based companies, they fortify their products, but still there is not like a complete equivalence between these products.
Show speakers 01:32
So yeah, I got interested in that.
Show speakers 01:35
And yeah, I want to present to you several papers, 2 papers.
Show speakers 01:40
that kind of related to that.
Show speakers 01:43
And agenda is following.
Show speakers 01:45
I want to explain specifically like theoretical framework that I found about consumer confusion, what is that, and how basically we can define it.
Show speakers 01:53
And then like check the papers itself, like with the proposed background content.
Show speakers 02:00
Yeah, so first of all, I want to explain like how confusion is related to our topics and communication in general.
Show speakers 02:08
basically confusion happens when there is like some kind of stimuli information that like person cannot understand is like muddled maybe or unclear and organism like a receptor cannot understand it specifically or like perceive it.
Show speakers 02:32
And this is similar in terms with the cognitive dissonance theory that we talked about during classes, that there is also like some kind of dissonance or state of like unease that arise within the organism that perceive this stimuli and he doesn't understand or maybe yet some experience of discomfort.
Show speakers 02:56
So Chauhan and Sagar define consumer confusion as an uncomfortable cognitive state, yeah, in the decision-making process that affects choice behavior through some emotional behavioral consequences.
Show speakers 03:10
And yeah, so, but the difference between confusion and the theories that I will present and cognitive dissonance theory is that confusion theories, they're based mostly on the
Show speakers 03:25
specifically the stimuli, like what is going on with the stimuli, why it can be confusing for the organism.
Show speakers 03:33
And then cognitive dissonance theory is mostly based on the state of the organism itself, like what kind of dissonance it creates within themselves.
Show speakers 03:44
And yeah, one of the theories that I found, it's like a meta-analytic review on consumer confusion, like published in 2025.
Show speakers 03:53
They found this one information overload theory by Aninu and Foxal.
Show speakers 03:59
So the basic idea is that, yeah, there is an information overload and capacity of the organism to perceive this information is like limited and they are not able to process it.
Show speakers 04:12
And there is several factors why it can happen.
Show speakers 04:15
So it can be information related factors.
Show speakers 04:18
like complexity of the information, ambiguity of the information, maybe question promises.
Show speakers 04:25
Yeah, so also it can be that motivation of the organism itself is to consume a lot of information and at some point, like a person just unable to process anything more because there's information overload.
Show speakers 04:40
Also, there is a consumer related factors like consumer background knowledge and awareness, risk and benefit perceptions like food neophobia, maybe and emotional responses regarding like maybe some trigger towards some kind of stimuli or there is some excitement, stress and everything.
Show speakers 04:59
And then product related factors.
Show speakers 05:01
which is more interesting in our presentation, is perceived similarity, which is like packaging, branding, other kind of information signals like that can be like confusing.
Show speakers 05:15
And then also product assortment, like choice overload.
Show speakers 05:18
So here it is.
Show speakers 05:21
And then the second one is cognitive appraisal theory, which basically explains how
Show speakers 05:28
What happens after the confusion?
Show speakers 05:33
What kind of consequences there can be?
Show speakers 05:36
And yeah, there can be a variety of consequences and be in responses basically based on the individual reaction on the event, on the stimuli that is confusing.
Show speakers 05:48
But yeah, some of them is dissatisfaction, negative word of mouth, decision making uncertainty, purchase avoidance,
Show speakers 05:55
and anticipated regret.
Show speakers 05:57
And for me, it was interesting, like this decision-making uncertainty.
Show speakers 06:00
So basically, these theories can help us understand how we can now evaluate our papers and kind of understand what kind of confusions are there in terms of like what these papers are measured.
Show speakers 06:17
Assessed and et cetera, so decision making and certain can be, for example, time spent to understand and sort something or answer the question and et cetera.
Show speakers 06:29
And what else?
Show speakers 06:31
This Shahid et al meta-analytic review said that most, like, or the strongest driver of the consumer confusion in response is actually perceived similarity, this product-related factor, that whether the products are really similar, then there is like more confusion and more dissatisfaction and other negative outcomes of this confusion.
Show speakers 06:55
So let's open papers.
Show speakers 06:58
Yeah, I'm sorry that I wasn't able to put it inside the paper.
Show speakers 07:10
No?
Show speakers 07:14
Ah, here.
Show speakers 07:16
Yeah, I think...
Show speakers 07:29
can be visible.
Show speakers 07:32
So first one is, just a disclaimer, I wasn't able to find a lot of the papers in general regarding specifically confusion related to plant dairy.
Show speakers 07:44
I wanted to specify it about plant-based alternative dairy.
Show speakers 07:48
So yeah, some of them also have alternative meat, and a lot of them, they basically assess perception.
Show speakers 07:58
which is also good in our case, but they're based on the quantitative methods, mostly like surveys.
Show speakers 08:04
There's not a lot of mixed method kind of papers with quantitative and qualitative part, which like explains why they chose what they chose.
Show speakers 08:14
So we don't, like we cannot like have like a complete view and based on these papers, but at least I found something.
Show speakers 08:23
So I want to present those.
Show speakers 08:25
And yeah.
Show speakers 08:27
so first of all, first one is a paper from 2022.
Show speakers 08:37
It's about consumer perception in the nut-based alternatives specifically.
Show speakers 08:43
Oh, no, sorry.
Show speakers 08:48
It's A plant-based alternative to milk market in Brazil.
Show speakers 08:50
And I need this one.
Show speakers 08:55
Yeah.
Show speakers 08:55
So the research question or the aims basically what they wanted to see is that whether they understand and what the consumer profile and what they understand on the nutritional value of vegetable drinks.
Show speakers 09:14
And yeah, the overall purpose of this study was to like support like awareness about these advantages or disadvantages of
Show speakers 09:25
like substituting the plant-based, I mean, dairy with a plant-based alternative.
Show speakers 09:34
What, yeah, that there was like online questionnaire and it was 400 response obtained.
Show speakers 09:39
Mostly it was, yeah, mostly it was females aged between 25 and 35 years old.
Show speakers 09:50
But yeah, they tried to basically ask
Show speakers 09:55
all people from all the regions in Brazil.
Show speakers 09:59
they ask five questions on the social demographic characteristic and then they like some sentences, they presented some sentences and they like respondents, they need to agree or disagree with them on the five-point Likert scale.
Show speakers 10:18
Yeah, there was
Show speakers 10:20
this is like social demographic of all the participants.
Show speakers 10:28
So 400 in general, female, male, age, mostly younger people, like 18 to 35, as you see.
Show speakers 10:40
And yeah, prevalence in regions, education, university level, and post-graduation, which is like most of them was
Show speakers 10:50
So it's skewed basically to more educated, urbanized population.
Show speakers 10:56
Yeah.
Show speakers 11:00
And the questions itself, like types of vegetables, drinks that most consumed among respondents, like soya, cocoa.
Show speakers 11:15
Cocoa is coconut.
Show speakers 11:18
And
Show speakers 11:19
Yeah, frequency of consumption.
Show speakers 11:22
So it's not, there's a lot of flexitarians, basically.
Show speakers 11:27
And this is like the question itself that they asked.
Show speakers 11:30
And yeah, there's like a percentage of people who agree or disagree.
Show speakers 11:37
Yeah.
Show speakers 11:40
Who would that time this one year?
Show speakers 11:47
Yeah, so basically most consumers agree that the plant-based drinks are a good source of protein and a natural source of calcium, but the milk is better for strengthening bones and demonstrating that this is like contradictory for them.
Show speakers 12:06
So yeah, and the questions itself may be a little bit biased because like it is a good source of protein, it's a natural source of calcium, so and there can be, the answers can be biased a little.
Show speakers 12:16
But in general, that shows that
Show speakers 12:19
And there's some confusion on the nutrient content basically among the participants.
Show speakers 12:26
Yeah, but they also ask about the reading, whether they read the ingredients.
Show speakers 12:32
And yeah, majority of them read the ingredients, but still it's like hard to assess.
Show speakers 12:40
Yeah.
Show speakers 12:42
And they also divided on the non-consumers of the plant-based beverages and consumers.
Show speakers 12:48
So still non-consumers still was like not also sure about the content.
Show speakers 12:55
They thought that plant-based kind of healthy.
Show speakers 12:58
Yeah, so there's not a lot of like it's what was the proportion of the answers for the non-consumers, which is also a good source of protein, natural source of calcium, which is lower.
Show speakers 13:12
But yeah, still.
Show speakers 13:14
Yeah, nutritionally replaced animal milk.
Show speakers 13:18
Still a lot of them partially agree.
Show speakers 13:21
Yeah.
Show speakers 13:22
So this is the first one.
Show speakers 13:25
And the second one is specifically related to these animal terms, like animal products terms.
Show speakers 13:38
So there...
Show speakers 13:43
They wanted to evaluate the effects of these typical terms on the willingness to try and understanding of the origin, basically animal or vegetable, and some sensory expectations, like creamy or, I don't know, smooth.
Show speakers 14:01
So yeah, they have also a survey.
Show speakers 14:04
It was online survey, 600 participants.
Show speakers 14:07
It was in the US.
Show speakers 14:08
Yeah.
Show speakers 14:10
Some of them was like vegan vegetarians, like some of them was flexitarians, and 60% was omnivores.
Show speakers 14:18
Yeah.
Show speakers 14:20
Oops.
Show speakers 14:22
So in this case, they were assessing also pictures.
Show speakers 14:29
In the first one, there was not pictures.
Show speakers 14:33
So and also here you have chicken kind of alternative.
Show speakers 14:36
So there was eight, this kind of eight options with the variety of the product naming and the picture and then also the packaging.
Show speakers 14:48
So they have soap milk, soy milk, creamy, smooth, bean, picture of the bean, picture of the cow, and it was nine
Show speakers 15:00
of these options and they basically show them to different people and assess how they like, how they like understand this.
Show speakers 15:15
is the whole packaging, like terminology, container, image, claim.
Show speakers 15:20
So it's like different options.
Show speakers 15:22
How they
Show speakers 15:24
affected together.
Show speakers 15:27
And then what they basically found out that participants were more willing to try samples labelled milk than drink.
Show speakers 15:38
And yeah, it, which I, it was interesting for me that participants like took more time to relate origin when there was an image of a cow.
Show speakers 15:52
Yeah.
Show speakers 15:54
which confuse them basically.
Show speakers 15:56
This image is like a very heuristic kind of information that goes directly to the consumer and that was confusing.
Show speakers 16:05
This is different kind of sensory notions and how they chose like across different samples, different options, like ****** taste, chalky taste, more milky flavor.
Show speakers 16:23
So yeah.
Show speakers 16:25
And so but basically the idea is that specifically the qualifiers itself like milk or meat, they do not confuse like respondents.
Show speakers 16:51
But what confused them is using the images like of a cow on a soybean plant-based product.
Show speakers 16:59
So this is also like limitation, of course, is that it's not a real scenario.
Show speakers 17:05
It's just a survey online and it's only based on US consumers.
Show speakers 17:11
So yeah, this is like one of the limitations of that.
Show speakers 17:15
Oops.
Show speakers 17:23
And both of them, they, first of them, of this topic, the first paper said that, basically more females
Show speakers 17:39
and educated, agreed to, willing to try the plant-based, which is also was interesting.
Show speakers 17:45
And here they didn't found those correlations.
Show speakers 17:49
But yeah, they say that the more younger generations want to try and willing to try, but there's no specifically like gender difference between the female and male.
Show speakers 18:00
Yeah, but we need to remember that the first paper was heavily skewed for the females.
Show speakers 18:05
So that's most probably the reason.
Show speakers 18:08
So that's basically, it for me.
Show speakers 18:15
Yeah.
Summary
Two presentations on food packaging and religious labels were given and discussed. Feedback and questions followed.
Presentation on children's perception of food packaging.
Discussion of research methodology and limitations.
Presentation on the impact of religious labels on brand perception.
Questions regarding sample size and generalizability.
Discussion of the influence of visual elements and taste.
Analysis of the effect of religious labels on consumer attitudes.
Standard recording 23
Recording
Show speakers 00:00
Normally people do not know it.
Show speakers 00:01
It's not a critique, it's a learning.
Show speakers 00:04
No, but we do not, we do not rate here the soft skills.
Show speakers 00:08
No, the presentation was very good.
Show speakers 00:11
Yeah, it was clear.
Show speakers 00:12
Thank you.
Show speakers 00:13
Thank you.
Show speakers 00:28
So welcome to my presentation about children's perception and preferences regarding food packaging.
Show speakers 01:20
First I want to talk about the relevance for communication, then the children's perception and preferences on a theoretical background, and then the paper.
Show speakers 01:31
And then I'm going to talk about what role parents play and how they are influenced, and then the outlook.
Show speakers 01:37
So we're starting with the relevance for communication.
Show speakers 01:42
Food packaging is one of the key factors influencing consumers at a point of sale, and it plays a significant role in the marketing mix because it's part of the product.
Show speakers 01:56
And it's a central strategy to target products at children.
Show speakers 02:02
And food packaging design plays a key role in attracting children's and parents' attention in shaping product associations.
Show speakers 02:10
Then talking about health claims and nutritional claims.
Show speakers 02:15
Health claims on food packaging are regulated in most countries and nutritional claims related to nutrient content, specific ingredients and production methods are regulated in the EU.
Show speakers 02:28
But packages of products targeted at children are frequently contained nutrition claims and other visual and textual features that convey health-related association.
Show speakers 02:45
So there's a question, do children perceive particular package design features as more or less healthy?
Show speakers 02:52
So people's decisions are usually not based on in-depth processing of all available information.
Show speakers 03:00
They rely heavily on heuristics, for example, simplified decision-making strategies.
Show speakers 03:06
And children also rely on these.
Show speakers 03:09
So children's understanding of packages rely on simple representation of object-based standout features.
Show speakers 03:16
And it's important to know that children are the most vulnerable audience to the effects of food packaging.
Show speakers 03:22
because their food choices are mainly driven by pleasure.
Show speakers 03:26
So the market of child-oriented food and beverages is expected to reach 146.7 billion USD worldwide by the year of 2025.
Show speakers 03:40
So it's a really big market.
Show speakers 03:42
and most products targeted at children are not adequate for them.
Show speakers 03:48
And they usually contain high energy density, excessive content of added sugar and fats, and the playthrough designs might push children to unhealthy products.
Show speakers 04:00
So there's a need to understand how children perceive food packaging and the factors that contribute to the differential perception of certain products.
Show speakers 04:10
On this background, I chose this paper.
Show speakers 04:14
It's called A Qualitative Study of Children's Snack Food Packaging, Perceptions and Preferences.
Show speakers 04:19
It's from 2014 and by Litona et al.
Show speakers 04:24
And I wanted to highlight some research questions.
Show speakers 04:27
So what leads children to select their favorite packaging?
Show speakers 04:30
How do children decide if a product is healthy?
Show speakers 04:33
And what packaging elements are most significant to children when drawing the packaging of a new snack?
Show speakers 04:38
and it's aimed to understand how Guatemalan children from public school receive food packaging.
Show speakers 04:46
These schools are attended by children of lower socio-economic status relative to private schools, so that is why they chose a public school because they might have lower media literacy and therefore are more susceptible for the intent of marketing.
Show speakers 05:06
Then talking about the methods, they used activity-based focus groups with three activities to make focus groups more fun and maintain children's attention, give them time to think about their responses and enhance discussion.
Show speakers 05:21
And as a side effect, that enables them to record each children's selections for quantitative and qualitative methods.
Show speakers 05:29
Now talking about the participants,
Show speakers 05:33
The selection was using convenience sampling of two low-income elementary public schools in Mexico.
Show speakers 05:42
It's an urban community in Guatemala where 68% of school children attended public schools.
Show speakers 05:49
And these public schools have similar characteristics across schools, so therefore children selected weren't likely to be different to other children from the public schools in the area.
Show speakers 06:01
Then they got a list of students enrolled in elementary schools provided by the principal.
Show speakers 06:08
Then this list was stratified by gender using random digit generator to guarantee same numbers of girls and boys.
Show speakers 06:16
After that, the parents of the selected children were invited to a school meeting.
Show speakers 06:23
where the study, the procedure, and the consent form were explained.
Show speakers 06:27
And only children with written parental consent and child's verbal assent were repetitive.
Show speakers 06:33
Now the procedure.
Show speakers 06:37
There were six activity-based focus groups conducted in September of 2012.
Show speakers 06:42
Three focus groups in each school, so 1st and 2nd graders, then 3rd and 4th graders, and 5th and 6th graders.
Show speakers 06:50
Each group contained 4 to 9 participants and it took about 60 to 90 minutes.
Show speakers 06:57
All conducted privately in an empty classroom and facilitated by a moderator with the help of a research assistant, which in purpose was mainly technical support.
Show speakers 07:08
And the participants received a snack after as a compensation for that time.
Show speakers 07:13
Now the discussion, there were three activities and after a short introduction where participants discussed their favorite television show, they started with activity one.
Show speakers 07:29
So they got a pencil, a sheet of paper, and then they had to write down the name of the foods and drinks they most frequently buy in stores inside and outside the school.
Show speakers 07:39
And the researchers didn't specify or request the time of the day or the children to include products they asked their parents to buy.
Show speakers 07:49
Then the second activity, they got a set of eight-colored photos of different types of snacks and beverages.
Show speakers 07:59
Most children have tried, but are not exposed to them frequently.
Show speakers 08:03
So pictures of very familiar products were excluded to reduce potential biases.
Show speakers 08:09
And then they had to observe all photos carefully, select favorite products, the favorite packaging, and the healthiest product.
Show speakers 08:17
And 5 out of eight products had child-targeted marketing techniques on the packaging like promotional characters, premiere offers, or movie tie-ins.
Show speakers 08:26
And then for the third activity, they got two sheets of paper, one pencil, and a box of crayons.
Show speakers 08:33
And they got told a storyline that a food company was going to launch a new cheese-flavored packaged snack, and they wanted their opinion about
Show speakers 08:42
how to design the packaging so that the children the same age would buy it.
Show speakers 08:48
Then they had to draw the packaging front and back for the new snack and explain that drawing.
Show speakers 08:55
And after that, all drawings were collected and the research assistant reviewed each drawings and reported the packaging elements if they are visual or informational.
Show speakers 09:06
Then for data collection and analysis, they used descriptive statistics to summarize product preferences, the favorite product, the packaging, the perceived happiness and the package elements in children's drawings, using data and qualitative analysis for the focus groups recording, and they transcripted it in Spanish, they encoded it, and analyzed it in Atlantis's size.
Show speakers 09:35
Selected quotes were translated into English.
Show speakers 09:39
I think my file is a little bit destroyed, but it's okay.
Show speakers 09:44
Then talking about the results, 37 children participated in the focus groups.
Show speakers 09:50
They were aged 7 to 13 and 51.4% were female.
Show speakers 09:55
For the most frequently purchased products, children wrote names of 155 products, repeated products included.
Show speakers 10:04
which they purchased in small stores located inside and outside their schools.
Show speakers 10:08
So the most named was soji snacks with 49.7%, then regular soda with 17.4% and candy with 11.6%.
Show speakers 10:19
Now, for their favorite product, they chose Cheetos with 24.4%, Ben Fiesta snacks with 18.9%, Laced potato chips with 16.2%, there was a Thai with Rabbit Soba with also 16.2%.
Show speakers 10:40
And most children, plus all in grades one and two, based their decision on enjoyable taste, and grades 3 to 6
Show speakers 10:50
based their decision on the variety, large quantity, or low price.
Show speakers 10:54
For example, in the Fiesta snacks, there are different brands of chips, so there's a big variety of snacks.
Show speakers 11:03
And premium offers and characters were rarely mentioned.
Show speakers 11:08
But some kids wouldn't choose a product because it had fruits or vegetables on the packaging, and they said that they didn't like fruits or vegetables.
Show speakers 11:18
Then for the favorite packaging, they are pretty tight.
Show speakers 11:23
So first they are about V8 splash, then Lay's potato chips and then the soda again, mostly basing their selection on visual elements, but some because of the drawings or the characters and some because of the combination of colors which caught their attention.
Show speakers 11:42
Then grades 1 to 2 focus on the taste preferences rather than the appearance.
Show speakers 11:48
and grades 5 to 6 only were the only ones mentioning packaging design and style of letters.
Show speakers 11:55
Then for the healthier products, the vast majority used or chose fruit drinks.
Show speakers 12:02
Only a small percentage of fruit and vegetable is contained.
Show speakers 12:07
So 75.7% chose the fruit drinks.
Show speakers 12:13
And this was the only product with fruits and vegetables on the packaging.
Show speakers 12:18
And most children believe that they are made from the fruits or vegetables on the packaging, considering them as healthy or full of vitamins.
Show speakers 12:27
And some children confuse the flavour with the real ingredients.
Show speakers 12:31
So for example, stating that in Cheetos, they were made of cheese or that the soda was made with grapes.
Show speakers 12:40
Then for the packaging drawings, 16 packaging elements were identified, so 6 visual and 10 informational.
Show speakers 12:51
And the most frequently drawn elements were product names and price, and then also product image and characters, but also slogans.
Show speakers 13:00
And all grades often named product names or price and product images.
Show speakers 13:08
Grades one to two were more aware of visual elements like product image, character, secondary elements like stars or hearts, and ingredient images like cheese, for example.
Show speakers 13:21
And grades 5 to 6 focus more on informational elements like slogans, like the terms new and try them.
Show speakers 13:30
But the children didn't draw any exact elements from the pictures previously shown.
Show speakers 13:37
So talking about the discussion, packaging drawings mostly included product names, price, product image and character.
Show speakers 13:49
And literature showed that availability and price influence choices.
Show speakers 13:55
And this is linked with diet quality and obesity.
Show speakers 14:00
For example, the most frequently bought product was the salty snacks.
Show speakers 14:05
And this is the most available and least expensive in the area found.
Show speakers 14:11
Then when selecting the favorite product, the most important was the taste.
Show speakers 14:18
And literature shows that taste is the most frequently cited reason for choosing a favorite product.
Show speakers 14:24
And additional findings showed us the licensed characters, unfamiliar characters, health claims and product branding can also increase taste preferences.
Show speakers 14:35
but unfortunately the most palatable foods tend to be energy dense and include high levels of sugar, fat and salt.
Show speakers 14:43
Then the Lay's potato chips and the soda were both favorite product and hosts, like packaging, which shows that the packaging might play a role in food purchasing decisions and taste perceptions.
Show speakers 15:00
And the selection of favorite packaging and healthiest products relied heavily on visual elements and their perception.
Show speakers 15:09
So children rarely mentioned these, but they were clearly influenced by it.
Show speakers 15:16
And there were similar findings in the Canadian elementary school.
Show speakers 15:19
Now talking about the conclusion and the limitations of the paper.
Show speakers 15:25
So children select favorite products based on taste.
Show speakers 15:28
Research shows that food packaging can influence taste perception.
Show speakers 15:32
The visual elements influence children's selection of their favorite packaging and healthiest products.
Show speakers 15:38
It convinced them to incorrectly think certain foods contain healthy ingredients like fruits.
Show speakers 15:46
And several packaging elements like characters and decorative designs have been found to influence children's perceptive taste and food preferences.
Show speakers 15:57
And for limitations, the findings are not generalizable to all Guatemalan children because the sample was drawn in public elementary school and therefore is only representative of children of low socio-economic status.
Show speakers 16:13
And the group-oriented setting might have encouraged participants to respond in a socially desired manner.
Show speakers 16:21
And although the researchers tried to attempt to reduce this,
Show speakers 16:27
by having a moderator.
Show speakers 16:29
Now, finally, talking about what role do the parents play and how they are influenced.
Show speakers 16:36
So, children...
Show speakers 16:37
You don't have fishing minutes.
Show speakers 16:40
Okay, I have just two slides left.
Show speakers 16:42
Children can be primary consumers and secondary consumers by spending their own money or through pester power, so their attempts to influence parental food choices.
Show speakers 16:55
So, candies can be frequently selected as treats or to show love or warmth from the parents.
Show speakers 17:02
So, children indirectly influence parents' food choices and parents tend to select foods according to their children's preferences.
Show speakers 17:10
Cartoon characters can also influence parents' perception and personal decision, although research on this topic is still scarred.
Show speakers 17:19
scarce.
Show speakers 17:20
So parents are expected to bend their own rules and to yield to their children's requests and to create, to select products with characters to fulfill pleasure-related goals.
Show speakers 17:32
And parents have a tendency to over generalize claims like vitamin or general mineral content.
Show speakers 17:39
So the effect of food packaging on children's diets is also linked to foods parents choose for their children.
Show speakers 17:46
And the focus on products directed to children might not be enough to protect them from misleading information.
Show speakers 17:53
And now as an outlook, changes in the food environment is necessary to guide children towards a healthier diet.
Show speakers 18:03
Research has shown that the inclusion of cartoon characters can have a positive effect on children's evaluation of packages.
Show speakers 18:11
So based on this effect, you could use it to promote consumption of fruits and vegetables.
Show speakers 18:17
And the recent study of 2020 showed that 6 to 9 year old children rating fruits and vegetables in packages featuring cartoon characters as tastier, those in plain packages or unpackaged.
Show speakers 18:32
And it also increased children's willingness to taste fruits or vegetables.
Show speakers 18:36
So thank you for your attention.
Show speakers 18:38
Do you have any questions?
Show speakers 18:39
I have a question from understanding.
Show speakers 18:49
You mentioned that in Canada, the results are similar.
Show speakers 18:52
This was another study.
Show speakers 18:54
Yeah.
Show speakers 18:54
And did the survey also load low income?
Show speakers 19:02
kids and families?
Show speakers 19:06
They had similar findings on the visual elements affecting their perception, but I think it wasn't also low-income families.
Show speakers 19:15
So there might be some difference, but there are also findings on that visual elements change their perception.
Show speakers 19:24
So my follow-up question would be that in the limitations, the authors say that the
Show speakers 19:29
findings cannot be generalizable because they only surveyed low income for children coming from low income parties.
Show speakers 19:38
Would you think that the results would be different for children of other socioeconomic status?
Show speakers 19:46
I think they would be quite similar, but maybe children of lower income are more susceptible to the marketing itself.
Show speakers 19:59
Maybe because they are not as educated by their parents about certain elements of the food packaging.
Show speakers 20:13
I don't recall my parents educating myself, so I don't know if it's fits, but you also mentioned that what children consume is related to what parents consume, yeah, correct?
Show speakers 20:26
Yeah.
Show speakers 20:26
So consumption of parents tend to be different as well across, yeah.
Show speakers 20:29
across income, that income level.
Show speakers 20:32
So it could be that the interplay between parents and children are different in different income groups.
Show speakers 20:39
It could be, but I think...
Show speakers 20:39
Because if you are stressed, you don't, you want the children to be quiet and you feed them the sweets and...
Show speakers 20:44
Yes, and you also don't have so much knowledge.
Show speakers 20:47
You just buy it's cheap.
Show speakers 20:48
I you have normally you have you have enough knowledge, but you normally people know that fruit is better than sweets, so they have enough knowledge to improve the diet.
Show speakers 20:58
Anyway, I think kids are equally, anyway.
Show speakers 21:04
I think the knowledge of the consequence of unhealthy food is also a thing to take into account here, because you know that healthy foods are better, but how unhealthy or how dangerous 2 brackets are.
Show speakers 21:18
It's a constant exposure to unhealthy food.
Show speakers 21:20
That is what I think is also about.
Show speakers 21:22
Interesting.
Show speakers 21:23
It was a little bit said that my slides were only slopped on this one.
Show speakers 21:35
I have another question.
Show speakers 21:36
I have, sorry, can I just wait for you?
Show speakers 21:39
I just wanted to put the limitations.
Show speakers 21:41
You do not mention the limitation that the sample was very small.
Show speakers 21:48
Yes.
Show speakers 21:49
And in spite of the small sample, they made a quantitative
Show speakers 21:53
A statistical thing is ********.
Show speakers 21:56
Sorry for that, but this is not in the limitation, I suppose.
Show speakers 22:00
And I cannot understand that this paper is going to a rapid process if you just have such a small group and you have a quantitative results.
Show speakers 22:11
So this is one of the big limitations of the paper.
Show speakers 22:15
But yes, so that's me first step.
Show speakers 22:20
You can go in.
Show speakers 22:23
I actually, I agree with that that was the point I was going to make in terms of...
Show speakers 22:29
And the other thing is that you mentioned that parents, how is it that they discovered that parents would tend to generalize nutritional claims?
Show speakers 22:41
You said it in one of your, we need to talk parents, yeah.
Show speakers 22:44
You said that parents have a tendency to over-generalize the claims.
Show speakers 22:50
How do they measure that?
Show speakers 22:52
It wasn't it wasn't in the paper I presented.
Show speakers 22:57
It was in a different paper.
Show speakers 22:58
It was in this one.
Show speakers 23:01
They cited another paper, but I didn't look into it.
Show speakers 23:05
So.
Show speakers 23:06
OK, all right.
Show speakers 23:07
No, but overall a very nice presentation.
Show speakers 23:11
But somewhere else.
Show speakers 23:18
But if you look at the paper and you have 3 activities, can you
Show speakers 23:22
just specify a little bit more the connection of the activities to communication.
Show speakers 23:30
This one.
Show speakers 23:40
So this was too much.
Show speakers 23:44
Yeah, can we just in general look across the question?
Show speakers 23:50
Yeah, we have 3 activities.
Show speakers 23:52
that they had to do during that kind of session that they had.
Show speakers 23:57
How can you precisely connect that to communication?
Show speakers 24:03
This one, for example, the first one, has something to do with communication or...
Show speakers 24:08
I think that the first one was to get an idea of which product they used to.
Show speakers 24:18
And I think especially the second and the third activity are related to communication the most.
Show speakers 24:25
For example, the photos of the different snacks and beverages.
Show speakers 24:29
So they get an image of the products and what the products communicates to them.
Show speakers 24:36
So what was the second or the third?
Show speakers 24:38
The second where the photos and the third is how they would expect
Show speakers 24:47
accompany to communicate to children their age.
Show speakers 24:51
But if you look at the second activity, did you find out or did they find out whether that choice of the favorite package or the favorite product to what extent they coincide on the one hand and on the other hand, if it comes to the healthiest product, they are misled by the characters of the package or
Show speakers 25:13
is just the fruit so that they know that fruit is the healthiest thing and the other one is the...
Show speakers 25:19
Yeah, for the healthiest product, there was no character on the package where also fruit was on the package.
Show speakers 25:28
So I think they linked it with the fruits that are healthy, that this would be the healthiest product.
Show speakers 25:36
So there was no character involved with that.
Show speakers 25:40
So clever, so clever, clever decision.
Show speakers 25:43
The only thing is that it offers room for fraudulent behavior from the companies.
Show speakers 25:49
So as far as I know, and you said that health claims are regulated, as far as I know, this health claim regulation does not only refer to wording, but also to pictures.
Show speakers 26:01
It's much more difficult to bring them to the court with pictures.
Show speakers 26:06
But this is something perhaps that could be concluded here, that children perceive via pictures.
Show speakers 26:14
And where do you have the information that the package influences taste?
Show speakers 26:22
It was also a paper cited in the first paper I had in the reference, which was a review of different papers.
Show speakers 26:32
Okay.
Show speakers 26:34
Perhaps one comment, the theoretical background of most products targeted is not theoretical background, it's just the background.
Show speakers 26:41
Yeah, I suppose that is in the business state that they made that they just did quantitative results.
Show speakers 26:54
It's really ridiculous.
Show speakers 26:56
I also wonder how they estimated the, I mean, the...
Show speakers 27:02
Possibly, I mean, the level of understanding of kids, because you have from grade one to three, I think you said, and so obviously level of understanding of when they have to write down the name of the foods and drinks, right?
Show speakers 27:18
It's more like a thought.
Show speakers 27:20
I wonder how, yeah, how relative it is depending on their 30-something kids, because you can actually exposing them to three types of activities and
Show speakers 27:32
so little that so few people with different levels of understanding then make it random results, right?
Show speakers 27:39
Yeah, especially because in first rate you just learn how to write down, so.
Show speakers 27:43
Exactly.
Show speakers 27:44
Probably pretty different.
Show speakers 27:47
Once the survey in schools, it was so crazy.
Show speakers 27:53
How unable they are to do with things.
Show speakers 27:56
Okay.
Show speakers 27:59
Thank you.
Show speakers 28:00
Any other comments?
Show speakers 28:03
No.
Show speakers 28:05
Thank you.
Show speakers 28:13
Thank you very much.
Show speakers 28:13
I think it's Friday at 11, at 11, but I think it can make full screen.
Show speakers 28:52
So, good afternoon, everyone.
Show speakers 28:56
My name is V, and today I'm going to present about a kind of tribe rule.
Show speakers 29:02
it's not included here, but actually the stimuli today will be about Haribo.
Show speakers 29:09
I believe that maybe some of you love Haribo.
Show speakers 29:12
And sometimes in the Haribo package, you can see some sort of label which indicate that it's Haga or Kosher or also it's the same for another product like Benry, sorry, Jerry's and Ben's.
Show speakers 29:29
So today I decided to choose
Show speakers 29:32
the story about religious labor.
Show speakers 29:35
Okay, so talking about the context and relevance, we both know that now we have growing use in religious labor in mainstream food because there are more and more diversity in terms of population these days, which also leads to the Thailand coastal markets that work gillions globally.
Show speakers 29:58
And also talking
Show speakers 30:00
For the labels, label can serve religious communities, but also visible to all the consumer.
Show speakers 30:06
And sometimes the unused label may signal purity for someone who understand it, but at the same time provoke something like exclusion.
Show speakers 30:15
And in some cases, in France, the fast food chain KFC and Quick has some movement, like they exclude all of the pork from the
Show speakers 30:28
product from their menu and then there was a protest by politician and also about non-religious people and they see that these kind of actions as an endorsement.
Show speakers 30:40
So sometimes religion can, sometimes religious label can really, really provoke an exclusion.
Show speakers 30:46
And last but not least, the implication of these label for branding, inclusivity and intercultural communications really.
Show speakers 30:57
So, talking about halal and kosher, maybe some of you might not be familiar with these terms, so I decided to introduce a little bit here.
Show speakers 31:11
Kosher means the product described as selling or serving food ratio fit according to Jewish law.
Show speakers 31:18
And the same for halal, it will be translated as permissible according to Icelandic view.
Show speakers 31:24
And if you can see here in the high level, we have the how to say label, and in the nutella, EU is percussion.
Show speakers 31:35
And in the study that I decided to base my presentation on, we have three different research questions, which are, do non-religious consumers recognize and understand the label?
Show speakers 31:50
How attitudes toward a religion, a brand, would affect the perception of the label which has the product which has the label inside?
Show speakers 32:00
And the largest question, and also the question that I personally care about, is do religious label impact brand valuation over spillover?
Show speakers 32:10
And here we can see is the theoretical framework.
Show speakers 32:16
It's also explained the process, like how people will perceive and evaluate the label as well as the product that has the religious label on.
Show speakers 32:26
So basically with the semantic network theory, we know that we have already had some, how to say, piece of information, like something attributed to religion and to certain brand.
Show speakers 32:42
And when we encounter the product from that brand that has the label for religion, then all of the information will come together in terms of information integration theory.
Show speakers 32:55
And somehow it's going to differ with people from how they identify with them as mono-religion or religious using the social identity theory.
Show speakers 33:08
and after processing the RLP based on all the information that they had, and they can come up with the post perception about brand and religion with the mixed up information, right?
Show speakers 33:23
Talking about the methodology, this is the online reputative experiment using seven-point differential skills, and it's the online survey with
Show speakers 33:37
Actually, at first they have 649 participants, but because they decided to only include the non-religious participants, so the sample is a little bit smaller, which is a little bit over 600.
Show speakers 33:51
And the respondent is assigned to into three different groups to view the package of candy with halal mark, with causal label, or without any labels.
Show speakers 34:03
And then the pre- and post-exposure to the product attitudes towards ground, product, and religion were measured.
Show speakers 34:12
And then they used structural equation modeling in the moderator analysis with two moderators, which are nationalism and cosmopolitanism.
Show speakers 34:23
And they come up with the six type of thesis in the study.
Show speakers 34:30
But now I just want to focus on the
Show speakers 34:32
fourth for first one which will indicate like the attitude toward religion and towards the brand will related to the attitude toward the product and then the attitude toward product will then also affect the part the attitude toward religion and brand after the experiment.
Show speakers 34:55
So talking about further about the procedure.
Show speakers 35:00
All the participants will be randomly assigned in three groups, as I explained before, and the stimuli here is a haribo with some lip.
Show speakers 35:11
And the reason why they chose haribo is because it is really well presented for the fast-moving consumerhood.
Show speakers 35:18
And also, as you know, in the gummy bear, there's some gelatin, and the source of gelatin normally is from pork or seaweed or fish.
Show speakers 35:28
But in terms of muscleism, sometimes like pork or by-product from pork are not acceptable.
Show speakers 35:36
So that's why they chose the stimuli as horrible.
Show speakers 35:40
And then they would measure the, we call them pre-exposure and post-exposure attitude.
Show speakers 35:46
And after analyzing all of the statistics, they came up with the findings that
Show speakers 35:57
Generally, people recognize the religious label, which is like 95% of them know what is, like, how to say, have some information about this label before, but 25% of them misunderstood what exactly this label is trying to say.
Show speakers 36:17
And then we also have the fact that label do not strongly answer the product attitude, but affect the brand perception.
Show speakers 36:26
And the attitude toward religion and brands predict the attitude toward the product itself, and also the attitude toward the product when spilled over to the brand and religion after processing.
Show speakers 36:40
And last but not least, all of these processes are moderated by nationalism, which might give the negative effect, and also the cosmopolitanism, which might have a positive effect.
Show speakers 36:55
Here you can see like the result, which is a little bit statistical, I believe, but we have some kind of the correlation between among these criteria and variables they were trying to measure.
Show speakers 37:15
And I also want to explain it further in terms of the SOR model.
Show speakers 37:21
So let's say first we choose classifies into two, which group with the singular.
Show speakers 37:29
has the halal label or causal label, and the organizer organism will be like this.
Show speakers 37:36
First, they can recognize the label, but the understanding varies somewhat misunderstood, and then the interpretation of the label will be influenced by two moderators.
Show speakers 37:50
Nationalism is lower understanding or negative reaction of cosmopolitanism with higher acceptance and trust.
Show speakers 37:58
And it's been result in the slightly decreased attitude towards the ground, especially among nationalistic participants.
Show speakers 38:08
But the attitude towards the product or the attitude towards the religion after they process the labor is quite like the same, not changed A lot.
Show speakers 38:19
And for the group with no labors, of course we don't have specific religious or cultural queue.
Show speakers 38:26
and there is no stamma about a label or like piece of information was activated and they only interpret the product itself only by the brand and their familiarity.
Show speakers 38:38
And it's but surprisingly it's also observed that there was a decreased attitude towards the brand but the attitude towards the product is the same.
Show speakers 38:50
And I want to explain further about the process when they come up with the label in the product.
Show speakers 39:05
So first, when they recognize that, okay, there was some labels on that product, consumer will draw the memory and social identity schema of religion and brand.
Show speakers 39:16
And here we apply the social identification and information integration theory.
Show speakers 39:22
And the respond is, they will evaluate the product with connotation of trust, values, or exclusion.
Show speakers 39:29
And then when they recognize a product, they will give some internal value like nationalism, cosmopolitanism, past experience to shape the response.
Show speakers 39:41
And they have the in brand or product attitude.
Show speakers 39:45
And at this point, if labor is misunderstood or disliked, then the inconsistency between the expectation will trigger the cognitive disordance or emotional resistance.
Show speakers 39:56
And it's also result in potential negative spillover on brand or religion.
Show speakers 40:02
But on the other hand, if your label is understood or liked, then the consumer will feel that the label aligns with value and new trust.
Show speakers 40:12
And then it leads to positive wrong perception and strongly the most of it.
Show speakers 40:17
So, talking about cognitive dissonant theory, because we got this knowledge in our course.
Show speakers 40:26
Basically, to say when religious label are there, like all the products, especially on parable, which is just like a candy, and sometimes people will perceive parable as neutral.
Show speakers 40:41
But then they encounter the product and it might not align with the expectation or values, or sometimes they don't really understand what is the label it's trying to explain.
Show speakers 40:55
Then there will be a psychological discomfort, or we call dissonance.
Show speakers 41:00
And to sone these dissonance, they will come up with some emotional resistance, skepticism, or even avoidance.
Show speakers 41:07
And this will also result in a negative spill over-effect.
Show speakers 41:11
And the other thing about the cognitive dissonant theory is that because we have in-group and out-group mechanism affect how the product of the seat is labeled tied to the out-groups, and it will trigger the resistance or the prejudice between the people.
Show speakers 41:28
So, in conclusion...
Show speakers 41:32
It seems like consumer when process the religious label based on the existing attitude and understanding.
Show speakers 41:40
And if the label is aligned with expectation, they will inherit trust.
Show speakers 41:45
And if the label are unrecognized or misunderstood or seen as inconsistent, they will trigger the cognitive dissonance and leading to the negative reaction.
Show speakers 41:57
And of course, the label add to the study, the result is the label has more impact on brand perception, but not on the product.
Show speakers 42:05
And about the limitation of this study is only focused on German consumer or German-speaking consumer.
Show speakers 42:15
And we only have one stimuli, like one FCG, fast-moving consumer food brand, which is Harigal.
Show speakers 42:24
And it's kind of short-term attitude measurement from the time that we didn't see the product, then we see the product with labor, and then after, what is the movement in terms of attitudes.
Show speakers 42:37
And the last one is no behavioral tracking or purchase data was included.
Show speakers 42:42
And here is my reference.
Show speakers 42:45
Thank you for your time.
Show speakers 42:47
Any time for questions?
Show speakers 42:53
If anyone has a question, please raise it.
Show speakers 42:57
Do you think that the resource would be different with different food categories?
Show speakers 43:04
For example, candies versus meat?
Show speakers 43:08
Yeah.
Show speakers 43:09
Actually, I think talking about halal, there are a lot of, also there are a lot of producer or let's say supplier.
Show speakers 43:20
that are supplying halal food or some product, especially for meat.
Show speakers 43:25
And maybe right now the research is choosing halipo, which is quite neutral.
Show speakers 43:31
And I mean, people will have indifferent attitude toward this one.
Show speakers 43:37
But with meat, maybe it will be more sensitive.
Show speakers 43:39
And if we conduct a survey or research with different product like meat, maybe the result can be different.
Show speakers 43:47
I suppose they did that because the animal ingredients that they have, and they both are from pork, a metaphor for the Jewish community and for the Muslim community.
Show speakers 44:02
That is why they took the other goal.
Show speakers 44:04
Yeah, it's true.
Show speakers 44:05
Yes?
Show speakers 44:08
Yeah, can you explain again why they only took participants that were either non-Muslim or non-Jewish?
Show speakers 44:14
Okay, so because the...
Show speakers 44:17
Do you know that the religious label will target the customer segment that are religious, right?
Show speakers 44:25
But as I explained before, sometimes, not sometimes, but always, all the consumer will be, will look at this label.
Show speakers 44:34
And sometimes there are some misunderstanding, they didn't recognize.
Show speakers 44:38
Me, myself, before I did this presentation, sometimes I encounter some label on product, but actually I didn't know what it is.
Show speakers 44:47
That's why they decided to choose people who are non-religious to see what is like the event.
Show speakers 44:54
They're not non-religious, they are not Muslim or Jewish.
Show speakers 45:00
Yeah, I'm sorry.
Show speakers 45:01
It's like non-religious.
Show speakers 45:04
No, I said non-religious in the presentation.
Show speakers 45:12
Actually, all the majority of participants are Christian.
Show speakers 45:17
I don't believe in anything I don't know.
Show speakers 45:21
Yes, please.
Show speakers 45:23
I have questions of understanding.
Show speakers 45:24
They measure their religious beliefs or something like that in general, right?
Show speakers 45:33
Not towards a particular religion.
Show speakers 45:35
So in your model, one of the variables are religious.
Show speakers 45:41
This one.
Show speakers 45:43
No, it's in general.
Show speakers 45:45
No, not in general.
Show speakers 45:46
In the Muslism and through Jews.
Show speakers 45:50
And they measure after they show the products.
Show speakers 45:54
Yeah, okay.
Show speakers 45:55
So they measured before and after seeing the product and they measure it again.
Show speakers 45:59
They also measured before, so they were already priming to see the label.
Show speakers 46:03
So here is like before they see the product, here is the process, and then here is like after they see the product.
Show speakers 46:11
The problem is that when you are priming these religious thoughts towards this particular religion, and then you see the product, and then of course you notice the label much more than you would normally not be primed by.
Show speakers 46:22
Yeah, no, so this is not so good.
Show speakers 46:25
Okay, but my other question of understanding is in your results, I didn't understand whether the results are regarding label versus not label, or if they also compare the two labels.
Show speakers 46:36
No, they didn't compare the two labels, only like, yeah, labels and then non-label.
Show speakers 46:42
And in the non-label, you got, you mentioned decreased brand attitudes.
Show speakers 46:48
Yes.
Show speakers 46:48
In comparison to label?
Show speakers 46:52
No, in comparison to before.
Show speakers 46:55
Like before, okay, do you have a, I love Haribo, and then you see the package, we have a label, and then later people say, okay, I love Haribo less.
Show speakers 47:04
I see.
Show speakers 47:04
Okay, thanks.
Show speakers 47:06
I have a question of understanding too, when it comes to the slide where you have the three theories.
Show speakers 47:12
So it is right that you have the religious attitude and what you name here, the perception, is what you call here religion or the religious, the labeled product.
Show speakers 47:26
You have two things.
Show speakers 47:28
You have the perception and you have the attitude in your presentation.
Show speakers 47:34
Sometimes you call it the perception, brand perception, and then you have brand attitude.
Show speakers 47:38
And the question is, brand attitude what you...
Show speakers 47:41
here is just brand or what is brand perception?
Show speakers 47:46
What is your religion and brand and ROP?
Show speakers 47:51
Is here correct?
Show speakers 47:55
This is the attitude.
Show speakers 47:57
Yeah.
Show speakers 47:58
So basically I just...
Show speakers 48:02
You say, for example, labels do not strongly alter brand attitude or product attitude, but affect brand perception.
Show speakers 48:09
Where do I find brand perception here?
Show speakers 48:11
So, okay, from my understanding, it's just like they wouldn't use the attitude to form the perception.
Show speakers 48:28
So how did they measure the perception?
Show speakers 48:31
Because you say it increased or decreased.
Show speakers 48:35
Or maybe I choose the same variable attitudes, but then they present here.
Show speakers 48:43
I don't think they use the same because you have brand attitudes influencing brand.
Show speakers 48:48
Yeah, this should be in your graph that you have on the next slide, or then the next one, this one, you have attitude brand.
Show speakers 49:01
So, but attitude brand is a lot of things.
Show speakers 49:08
they actually have different, if I look at the picture here, they have different brands, one, two, and three.
Show speakers 49:18
This is a scale, right?
Show speakers 49:23
Three items?
Show speakers 49:24
Three items for brand attitude?
Show speakers 49:26
I don't know.
Show speakers 49:27
But what, yeah, but then this is, what is brand perception?
Show speakers 49:32
maybe this brand is the final score of the...
Show speakers 49:36
Yeah, so this is what I'm what I want to know, whether this is, if you call about grant perception, that it doesn't really change the score in that.
Show speakers 49:45
So this is, okay, this is one.
Show speakers 49:49
Can you look at, if you look at the coefficients there, the coefficients, what can you, how can you depreed that coefficients?
Show speakers 49:58
Have you any idea about that?
Show speakers 50:00
So it's just like the old.
Show speakers 50:06
Show the positive, like the positive collaboration is mean if the attitude of religion is positive, then the attitude of product will be positive, and we have...
Show speakers 50:22
Two moderators here, which, but the coefficient is just 0.32.
Show speakers 50:29
Yeah, 0.32.
Show speakers 50:30
Is that much or is that not much?
Show speakers 50:33
Yeah, because the is that strong?
Show speakers 50:35
Is that a strong?
Show speakers 50:35
The weight is depends on these two.
Show speakers 50:37
The more nationalistic, like the, they will negatively affect the weight.
Show speakers 50:45
And if they are cosmopolyagination, it can positively affect the weight.
Show speakers 50:51
Then if you go to the slides with the results.
Show speakers 50:57
This one, yes.
Show speakers 51:01
Are these really results in the organism or how did they find that out?
Show speakers 51:08
Consumers grow from memory and social identity schemes of religion.
Show speakers 51:12
I think they explain it in the theoretical framework.
Show speakers 51:17
So it's not the results, but they used the theoretical framework because they could not measure that, but they did not measure that, obviously.
Show speakers 51:26
It would be a discussion, right?
Show speakers 51:29
Why maybe you have this response, because the problem is my draw from memory.
Show speakers 51:35
Yeah, I think they mentioned in the theoretical and also in conclusion.
Show speakers 51:41
Yeah, but not the result, they haven't measured memory.
Show speakers 51:45
So, I mean, here is what I perceive this response is a result of an organism, which is like how people, like what is going on in the brain and stuff.
Show speakers 51:58
Yeah, but they have some constructs or they have some ideas of how to explain that, but they cannot measure that, and this is...
Show speakers 52:07
not directly results, but this is an explanation based on the theoretical background that they take, but you missed to explain the theoretical background, I suppose.
Show speakers 52:16
So, I should have mentioned a little bit this theoretical background, but in the paper they much more focus on the theoretical background, and they tried to explain that, and I suppose this could be relevant in order to have an idea how communication works on the one hand, and
Show speakers 52:34
And if the limitation, what do you think had happened if they had integrated a sample with Jewish people and a sample with Muslim people and no non-religious people at all?
Show speakers 52:47
What about the results?
Show speakers 52:49
So they had two labels?
Show speakers 52:51
Yeah.
Show speakers 52:52
They had two groups, one group with the Muslim people and the other group with the Jewish people.
Show speakers 52:57
Yeah.
Show speakers 52:57
Do you suppose that the results had been the same?
Show speakers 53:00
Actually, they didn't mention like the difference between the two groups, which is group of non-Muslim and non-Jewish and then normal people.
Show speakers 53:15
So, but if they had taken just these two groups, this, let's say, I think maybe it will be different because I don't know from my perspective and also sometimes I ask my friend.
Show speakers 53:31
How the labels might be really might be easier to recognize and understood and caution because before this presentation I personally didn't know what it caution and what is the label about.
Show speakers 53:47
So maybe it's also depends on the kind of knowledge.
Show speakers 53:52
But if the influence on the label, the product valuation might be much stronger.
Show speakers 53:59
if you take the Muslims and that the halal label, for example, because if you look at the situation in the world, they perhaps would prevent everything where a halal label is on.
Show speakers 54:09
So there is a precision for those groups that are non-Muslim and non-Jewish people.
Show speakers 54:19
So it's not just German consumers, but the limitation is that they have not just
Show speakers 54:26
those consumers that you call the non-religious ones.
Show speakers 54:29
Okay.
Show speakers 54:31
The other people they excluded because we recruited much more than the Muslims.
Show speakers 54:39
Those who are Muslims and Jewish.
Show speakers 54:41
Yes.
Show speakers 54:42
And they haven't participated at all in this.
Show speakers 54:46
Yeah, like they excluded them from the first passion.
Show speakers 54:50
At first, they recruit 600 and forty-nine people.
Show speakers 54:57
What was the final one?
Show speakers 55:02
616.
Show speakers 55:04
Do you want to say something?
Show speakers 55:23
No, I've already I've already had several sessions, and yeah, I don't have anything to ask you.
Show speakers 55:37
So, thank you so much for your attention.
Áyna, [20/09/2025 17:01]
Summary
Meeting focused on student presentations, addressing research methodologies and refining communication strategies.
Discussion on the psychology of color in food marketing.
Critique of NutriScore's effectiveness and potential for misinterpretation.
Analysis of CSR communication changes due to new directives.
Examination of AI's impact on food brand-consumer communication.
Questions raised about research validity and data sources.
Suggestions for improving presentation clarity and supporting evidence.
To-dos
Shindan: Include more literature on color psychology in final presentation.
Robin: Find additional papers on NutriScore interpretation.
AI presenter: Differentiate between consumer perception and response metrics.
Standard recording 7
Recording
Show speakers 00:00
Robin.
Show speakers 00:33
Hello person, my name is Shindan Dhoda and the title I have selected for the presentation is...
Show speakers 00:51
The title I have selected for the presentation is the Psychology of Color in Food Marketing: How color influences the level of choices.
Show speakers 00:59
So color is a powerful tool across the psychological tool.
Show speakers 01:05
And when we see color, we react first emotionally and logically.
Show speakers 01:11
It influences attention, perception and purchase decisions.
Show speakers 01:16
So this presentation will tell how different colors impact on food branding and marketing.
Show speakers 01:22
This slide is for the relevance of our model communication as a framework.
Show speakers 01:32
Stimulus, coloring, packaging and branding.
Show speakers 01:35
Organism, perception of color like emotions and sociation.
Show speakers 01:40
And the response of the purchase decisions of the consumers.
Show speakers 01:44
So we will see how different colors, different emotions.
Show speakers 01:51
So the first one is the red.
Show speakers 01:53
It shows, okay, the color evokes emotions.
Show speakers 01:58
So red is for appetite, blue is for trust, green is for health.
Show speakers 02:02
And these are used in packaging ads or restaurant records.
Show speakers 02:05
The first color we see is the red.
Show speakers 02:08
It stimulates its appetite.
Show speakers 02:10
It increases heart rate and stimulates hunger and energy.
Show speakers 02:14
And the examples are McDonald's and KFC.
Show speakers 02:17
The next one is the yellow.
Show speakers 02:20
It optimizes visibility.
Show speakers 02:24
It evokes clearfulness and grabs the attention of the consumers.
Show speakers 02:27
It's often pared with fast foods like McDonald's.
Show speakers 02:32
And green, it's for health and freshness.
Show speakers 02:37
This seals nature, health, and eco-friendliness.
These are only the origins of this and organic fats.
Show speakers 02:44
Then the next color is the blue.
Show speakers 02:47
This is for trust and cleanliness.
Show speakers 02:50
It conveys reliability and safety.
Show speakers 02:53
It is an appetite suppressor and not commonly used in main meals.
Show speakers 02:58
like Pepsi and the water.
Show speakers 03:01
Then it's black, white and the curtains.
Show speakers 03:05
Black is generally used for luxury and exclusivity.
Show speakers 03:08
White is for simplicity and culinary.
Show speakers 03:11
And brown is for personicity and tradition.
Show speakers 03:14
So I would like to give you an example.
Show speakers 03:16
In India, we have a brand named Kananjali.
Show speakers 03:19
In that ad, they show that the mother is cooking for his son and using the Kanjali color.
Show speakers 03:26
It shows that
Show speakers 03:27
So, it shows the tradition.
Show speakers 03:37
So, you don't should not introduce the results here.
Show speakers 03:45
The question is, how did they get that information?
Show speakers 03:52
So you say McDonald's brand used colors strategically.
Show speakers 03:59
What kind of research do they base the impact of colors or the perception of colors on?
Show speakers 04:12
Yes.
Show speakers 04:17
How did they find it out?
Show speakers 04:19
Actually, when we see a color,
Show speakers 04:21
I just shared that it was first emotional threat and then the logical threat.
Show speakers 04:26
Yeah, but how did they find, if you start with one of the first slides that you have, how did they find, okay, could be increased heart rate and urgency.
Show speakers 04:40
How did they find that out?
Show speakers 04:42
Is that really, really empirical or is that more, let's say that,
Show speakers 04:50
Not that the people just say, Hey, it increases the heart rate, red.
Show speakers 04:55
So, I see the red light, the traffic light, where perhaps sometimes my heart rate increases because I cannot go on.
Show speakers 05:05
But, you know, red is for danger, for example.
Show speakers 05:12
Red is for loud.
Show speakers 05:14
Red is for a very diverse
Show speakers 05:19
Yeah, it's diverse, but when we see a food product with that red, we attempt to eat that.
Show speakers 05:26
That color makes you that temptation of eating it.
Show speakers 05:29
And how did they know that?
Show speakers 05:31
How do they know that?
Show speakers 05:33
Actually, not the red color, but I have made an example where the Coffee can produce company changed their packaging color and their sales dropped by 30% in this survey of 2009.
Show speakers 05:46
Yes, but this.
Show speakers 05:49
many reasons.
Show speakers 05:51
So the topic that you communicate with colors is very interesting and very relevant because that is what they do.
Show speakers 05:58
The question is now to which extent it is really substantiated what you have here with the, and you have to find out the impact of colors, whether there's really a general rule behind that.
Show speakers 06:13
So
Show speakers 06:13
if you do that red increases heart rate and urgency or stimulates energy, whether this is generally or whether this is more anecdotal, that people more or less on the one hand conclude from the colors of the companies, and on the other hand, you know, we learned that.
Show speakers 06:34
We learned that in the, for example, in the dairy shelves,
Show speakers 06:40
is more blue and green.
Show speakers 06:42
So you'll have the time, you'll find some red colors in there.
Show speakers 06:46
And this is a question of learning maybe.
Show speakers 06:50
And this is more of a cultural background than that we have.
Show speakers 06:56
Did they address those topics in the research that you want to introduce here?
Show speakers 07:03
So at least you have to consider that.
Show speakers 07:06
So it's not, if you take the next one, the red appetite simulator.
Show speakers 07:11
So how, why, if that is the case, why is the shelf and the every products not red?
Show speakers 07:21
Because they want us to buy that.
Show speakers 07:24
So everything should be red, but this colors, the signals.
Show speakers 07:29
to certain product groups, those things should be part of the presentation.
Show speakers 07:38
And if you, if they measure that the heart rate or there are some methods that you can do that with that MRG and those things, so you don't have to make surveys for that, you can do that in different ways.
Show speakers 07:54
These are methods that could be adequate to look at
Show speakers 07:58
to look at the impact of counts.
Show speakers 08:01
So if there's a difference between red, blue, and green, you can do that with the sweat on your fingers and with a lot of things.
Show speakers 08:10
You have that with the eyes, for example, where do the eyes go to?
Show speakers 08:15
Do they get to red, green, or first?
Show speakers 08:18
Those things, those methods are appropriate to do that.
Show speakers 08:23
But it's not that you just go on
Show speakers 08:26
What kind of literature do you have here?
Show speakers 08:31
So I should focus more on giving proofs that this is an actual piece.
Show speakers 08:36
Yeah, you have, the only thing that I saw in the literature was that colors, that the first impression is color.
Show speakers 08:44
This was literature 2006.
Show speakers 08:48
But is there any literature behind that red, blue-green, and so on?
Show speakers 08:55
Or is it that there's...
Show speakers 08:57
Actually, there are literature I have not yet, so I will do it and include in my final.
Show speakers 09:06
So, that is what you're doing, just to state that, yes, here, subway evokes cheerfulness and grabs attention, so it should be substantiated somewhere and not just taken by an agency if you want to sell some color to.
Show speakers 09:26
to whomever.
Show speakers 09:29
Yeah.
Show speakers 09:41
So but but this is not for today's for today's you just have that reference.
Show speakers 09:48
Yeah, of course.
Show speakers 09:49
Okay, but this is
Show speakers 09:56
Let's see a small paper.
Show speakers 09:59
I'm not sure whether I know that, but...
Show speakers 10:07
So you know what you think?
Show speakers 10:14
Yes.
Show speakers 10:14
Or on the diversity of the perception of counts.
Show speakers 10:19
So you see the lady in red and whatever is so maybe very different.
Show speakers 10:25
OK, what to do next?
Show speakers 10:33
Yes, but you cannot connect, so our sensitive things, so you have to do that on a stick and then...
Show speakers 10:48
Then I need someone else.
Show speakers 11:10
Sure.
Show speakers 11:10
Yeah.
Show speakers 11:10
Go to present a move.
Show speakers 12:18
Is that the PowerPoint?
Show speakers 12:23
OK.
Show speakers 12:27
I'm always.
Show speakers 12:28
Makes a big difference.
Show speakers 12:35
Perfect.
Show speakers 12:45
So my topic is to remember was the duplication of the industry score labeling.
Show speakers 12:53
And I also did this quick thing.
Show speakers 12:57
So my motivation was because I'm super interested in the topic of prevention, prevention and everything.
Show speakers 13:06
And I wanted to think about what the government can create to
Show speakers 13:11
get some incentives to the society and improving the health of the society.
Show speakers 13:17
And this leads us to the NutriScore.
Show speakers 13:19
And yeah, just a quick explanation, the NutriScore is the colored traffic light system and it should have...
Show speakers 13:30
Just for coloring.
Show speakers 13:32
So also my motivation was that it's a bit confusing that in this example, and I also have seen that there are like toast breads
Show speakers 13:41
I think all of us, we should know that toothbrain are not that healthy, have this letter A on it, and then we could get a bit more confused.
Show speakers 13:51
And then it leads me to the question, could the Dutch score be confusing for those with limited nutritional knowledge?
Show speakers 13:58
And also these people who know fundamentally, which is fundamentally healthy, as we also discussed last time, post-health defined.
Show speakers 14:09
Yeah, but
Show speakers 14:11
due to this, I came to this literature, which is called between dissonance and perfusion, when the nutritional signal is misinterpreted.
Show speakers 14:21
And this literature deals with the topic how consumers, especially mothers, perceive and understand the nutrient score, particularly in the context of contradictory media information.
Show speakers 14:35
These are the research questions, so how
Show speakers 14:38
how do consumers perceive them to store as a signal for good quality, how they interpret them, and what's also the role of the media.
Show speakers 14:46
And due to this, they use media analysis, so they analyze press articles to analyze the signaling environment.
Show speakers 14:58
So what happens a lot?
Show speakers 15:00
Last year, around the media, and then moreover, they're doing interviews, and so product examples, and want to analyze their spontaneous interpretations of how do they understand this, and just for example.
Show speakers 15:19
So here is like the confusing thing, like a normal orange juice, which has the letter C, and the coke, which has another V, so we can get confused about that.
Show speakers 15:32
Why is the cook in this example healthier than this one?
Show speakers 15:37
Yeah, so this is my approach from the final presentation.
Show speakers 15:43
there's a lot of research.
Show speakers 15:47
You just had that one literature, that one paper could be that we said to just look for one or two other papers that deal with the interpretation of the NutriScore.
Show speakers 16:00
There should be comprehensive research.
Show speakers 16:02
Yeah, I did not know the literature.
Show speakers 16:05
They're thinking about if they have a NutriScore on the product.
Show speakers 16:11
If they think, okay, it's healthier or not.
Show speakers 16:13
So what you said before, like the before and after example is in this.
Show speakers 16:18
Yeah, so that this is the one thing, whether it helps them or whether it influences them.
Show speakers 16:24
So we don't, we cannot define healthy food, that's for sure.
Show speakers 16:29
Yeah.
Show speakers 16:30
Because just a healthy diet and it never helps food.
Show speakers 16:33
with perception and whether they perceive the food healthy or not, even if it cannot be kind of healthy food, we as consumers do always, we know that fast food is not healthy and fruits and vegetables are healthy.
Show speakers 16:49
So I recommend just try to find one or two people that go in the same direction.
Show speakers 16:58
And with the media analysis in that paper,
Show speakers 17:02
You can describe the way that communication goes, perhaps, but this is just the sender, and to which extent you can integrate that, and the quality of the reviews are very fine, and if I understood that right, you just have that one example with the orange juice and color zero.
Show speakers 17:26
No, there are some more like also series and everything, but they did their own examples, so yes, and they tried to find out whether they get where that the different product groups and that the group score with different product group is not directly comparable.
Show speakers 17:45
Yeah, I suppose this is what they want to find out.
Show speakers 17:48
Yeah, Okay, if you have some more about that, then I suppose it's more comprehensive than...
Show speakers 17:54
Yeah.
Show speakers 17:55
OK.
Show speakers 17:56
Now you're prepared.
Show speakers 18:00
I'm also.
Show speakers 18:02
I can press and speak.
Show speakers 18:05
I'll give you the next one.
Show speakers 18:11
You have to smile to make him accept.
Show speakers 18:48
Don't forget.
Show speakers 18:50
All right, so I want to do a presentation on CSR communication, so corporate sustainability report.
Show speakers 19:07
But I had to change the paper I'm presenting, because as you mentioned last time, the paper from, I think it was 2021, was outdated on this topic because it was about CSR report.
Show speakers 19:25
before the new CSRD or CSR directive from LEDU.
Show speakers 19:30
So this is where I've chosen a new paper.
Show speakers 19:33
This one's newer and it's on burning regulation or opportunity for CSR communication.
Show speakers 19:40
In particular, the study tries to examine how the corporate sustainability reporting directive influences the CSR communication of large German companies.
Show speakers 19:53
So we have
Show speakers 19:54
or stimulus or to, yeah, apply to the SOR model, like stimulus to CSRD, which influences the organism, the companies which have to respond in their, yeah, changes in communication practice.
Show speakers 20:12
This paper, therefore, did the study or of that they, yeah, defined the research questions and
Show speakers 20:23
Those are what opportunities does the CRSC offer for the CSR communication, what communicative challenge arise because of that toward the companies, and also how is the organization of CSR communication changing in light of the new director.
Show speakers 20:42
Therefore, they did the qualitative research, they did
Show speakers 20:50
14 semi-structured guided interviews with experts in CSR communication.
Show speakers 20:55
Those were either experts within the largest certain companies that already worked on the communication department or these were CSR reporting companies, so external consultants.
Show speakers 21:15
The scope of these
Show speakers 21:17
14 companies is not only within the food sector because they did interviews with experts from all different large companies, but the food sector is also included.
Show speakers 21:34
Yeah, and from the same subject guided interviews, they identified like and insight related to CSR communication.
Show speakers 21:45
Yeah, I could go over all the key finding stuff, but I'm not sure if it's hard now or it does formation due to constraints.
Show speakers 22:01
Okay, so if you put the challenges, if you have challenges, yeah, somehow, so you talked about the...
Show speakers 22:15
different field like compared to the students before.
Show speakers 22:20
It's more the that one what you already talked about here in the course about the directive for reporting.
Show speakers 22:29
The question is now, the challenges, are the challenges really, they are dependent on the external consultant service providers.
Show speakers 22:44
So this is a job creating machine obviously.
Show speakers 22:48
How do you relate that to communication?
Show speakers 22:54
Of course, the challenges at first, not those are only like the identified challenges.
Show speakers 23:01
Of course, companies have to spend more resources and hire some consultants.
Show speakers 23:06
It's nothing to do with communication, but what I want to focus more on are not only the change, but also the opportunities which are highlighted in this paper on how companies will change to communicate not only to
Show speakers 23:24
experts and the stakeholder, but also to the general public.
Show speakers 23:28
There's also highlighted how companies plan to adapt to new ways to publish information like social media and if it might be an option to use these sustainability reports.
Show speakers 23:47
So this is published, then it helps.
Show speakers 23:52
On the one hand, you already learned that it helps structure the information.
Show speakers 23:58
This is why they have to standardize that and this is why all the agency.
Show speakers 24:03
But then that they broaden the audience and that this kind of communication is more appropriate for a wider audience to understand.
Show speakers 24:16
And by that, of course, has a...
Show speakers 24:19
backward impact on the companies to behave more sustainable because it's more transparent.
Show speakers 24:30
Okay, so, but you have to, the challenges, the agencies and all the consultants is not that in power.
Show speakers 24:42
It's for the companies.
Show speakers 24:44
For the companies, it's really important because you hardly find anyone.
Show speakers 24:47
can do that and even the big companies, they do not have their own staff to do that normally.
Show speakers 24:53
So you have to focus on the other things.
Show speakers 24:56
Okay?
Show speakers 24:57
So yeah, just as an example, the conclusion, stay true and also I'm drawing, I heavily focused on the...
Show speakers 25:05
So the influence of communication present post challenges and opportunities for the world is fine, but there's changes on that.
Show speakers 25:12
Yeah, that's true.
Show speakers 25:14
Yes, but I also wanted to ask if this topic is okay for this communication class as...
Show speakers 25:24
Yes, it's different from what from the other topics.
Show speakers 25:28
So, your problem could be what you have to solve.
Show speakers 25:32
Your challenge is to look at communication and not so much on the data and then the companies and the accounting systems and so on.
Show speakers 25:44
So, what this...
Show speakers 25:45
Does that pressure on the communication and that framework that they have to fulfill communication?
Show speakers 25:52
What is about the way that the point that they communicate?
Show speakers 25:59
And does that have an impact on the audience?
Show speakers 26:04
Yes.
Show speakers 26:05
Yeah.
Show speakers 26:05
OK.
Show speakers 26:06
Great.
Show speakers 26:06
So.
Show speakers 26:08
With the AI...
Show speakers 26:19
What are you looking for?
Show speakers 26:38
Present.
Show speakers 26:39
It's in German.
Show speakers 26:41
It's an operation.
Show speakers 26:46
Oh, it's a PDF file.
Show speakers 27:00
It's a PDF file.
Show speakers 27:01
Okay, it's a PDF file.
Show speakers 27:18
So my topic today is approaching the impact of AI and food working and from the perspective of communication between brands and consumers.
Show speakers 27:44
In the beginning, I had a really long presentation because I was a bit confused between the big presentation and what we have to present by you.
Show speakers 27:50
So I try to shrink it down as much as I can to get to the point.
Show speakers 27:54
Sorry.
Show speakers 27:54
Okay.
Show speakers 27:55
So from the beginning, how and why this topic is relevant.
Show speakers 28:01
Now we can see a major shift between the traditional marketing methods used in the food industry and the new ways of AI and how
Show speakers 28:13
brands communicate with consumers based on the data history and their preferences and their diet.
Show speakers 28:19
And in the beginning, there was a lot of TV and sleep billboards which still exist, but now we have more digital platforms driven by artificial intelligence because now consumers expect marketing to be personal, fast, and more relevant to them.
Show speakers 28:34
And for example, we have Uber Eats, which can give you preferences and
Show speakers 28:42
food choices based on your history and your purchases, previous purchases.
Show speakers 28:48
And as we can see, the more data we have on the person, the more targeted communication that we can make to them.
Show speakers 28:55
And as we said, Google eats and personalized receipts.
Show speakers 29:00
Second, we try to use the SOR models, which is stimulus organism and response.
Show speakers 29:06
For the stimulus, we get the content itself, which is the AI generated content.
Show speakers 29:11
like ads, Instagram ads, for example, or the ads that appears on the applications.
Show speakers 29:16
Second, the organism, which is the consumer perception or the interpretation of them.
Show speakers 29:21
Would they trust our ad or how we can grab their attention and their interest?
Show speakers 29:26
And third, their response, whether they will click on the ad or purchase the folder, and how it will affect their brand way.
Show speakers 29:34
Just a question.
Show speakers 29:37
I'll just interrupt you.
Show speakers 29:39
How do they
Show speakers 29:40
Find out the interpretation, the perception, then yeah, you have the yes, trust, attention, and interest.
Show speakers 29:48
How do you set the clicks or mostly from the clicks here?
Show speakers 29:51
If they show an ad, how would they be interested to click on it, or how will they?
Show speakers 29:56
Yeah, this need to be...
Show speakers 30:00
So that we have to kind of the ways that everywhere.
Show speakers 30:03
Okay.
Show speakers 30:04
But you have to respond to which is mostly the same.
Show speakers 30:07
So this is more that they measure that on.
Show speakers 30:11
Yeah, I think they have to differentiate a bit more.
Show speakers 30:14
And what about brand or young team?
Show speakers 30:16
I think brand right is the more they purchase the product.
Show speakers 30:19
For example, if someone is left with intolerant and the app shows for him more products that are relevant to his choice.
Show speakers 30:26
So the more and more he buys the same product over and over again, we can.
Show speakers 30:30
But can they really track that?
Show speakers 30:33
I think they can, yeah.
Show speakers 30:34
Based on the history-based purchases.
Show speakers 30:37
And third and last thing is the research question, which is how I will approach this topic in the presentation.
Show speakers 30:45
How does AI affect consumer targeting and personalization between brands and consumers?
Show speakers 30:52
And second, how do AI strategies compare with traditional food advertising, which already worked in the previous times, in terms of efficiency and engagement and the cost?
Show speakers 31:04
Because traditional methods usually cost a lot more than AI in the longer term, but AI also requires a huge initial investment and more skilled labor.
Show speakers 31:14
So, yeah.
Show speakers 31:16
Okay.
Show speakers 31:17
So,
Show speakers 31:18
If I focus on communication, the question, or on the marketing side of communication, your question is, to which extent enables AI and more target-oriented communication?
Show speakers 31:32
And to which extent is it, you know, efficiency is a different measure because efficiency, you know, from an economic point of view, you have to look at the investment, you have to look at the outcomes.
Show speakers 31:48
Could be to really measure that.
Show speakers 31:52
I suppose there are a lot of guesses in that model.
Show speakers 31:56
Mostly, yes, but I think if we have the initial cost of using AI in targeting the audience, and we have the marketing posted using the traditional methods like TV ads or billboards in the streets, and then we can count the outcomes, I think there is Google Analytics or Google Ads, which we can
Show speakers 32:15
It could be interesting if you look at the indicators, to which extent these indicators really help to look at efficiency, to look at all those things.
Show speakers 32:32
So to which extent are the essence, the more clicks, the better it is for the brand, but perhaps it's just for entertainment and not for the brand.
Show speakers 32:43
So these things, so, okay, no, okay, so, but with the communication, it's more the type of oriented communication, I suppose, that you could just build your presentation around to that AI helps to do that.
Show speakers 33:00
Okay, thanks.
Áyna, [20/09/2025 17:01]
Recording
00:00
I assume that this is the way that it works.
00:05
Yes.
00:06
Based on the statistics of their company, but they don't show...
00:12
Okay.
00:13
But then, if you do that, at least from a scientific point of view, you have to state that these are all guesses.
00:23
You know, marketeers, the same as every one of us,
00:28
we have our perception of reality and they assume that.
00:36
And if you act in the field of marketeers, you will find out that they assume a lot of work.
00:43
But still, they do that and nobody can really prove that.
00:50
The response, how do they, is that they guess that they met the stronger relationships, higher trust and loyalty that they met, or is that again
00:59
that the marketeers assume.
01:02
And this is a problem then in the witness of your paper that you present, that they just look at the marketeers, but they, the only thing that you can say that these are the guesses of the impact, or the guesses of marketeers on the impact of different strategies.
01:27
language strategies, but you could ask me.
01:30
No, but so, and I could give some guesses about that.
01:36
So, what kind of data is it?
01:42
Yes, so what you see the use of customer language, and you see what you don't see here is so much the impact of the use of customer language.
02:04
So, what I, if I followed you right, it's more, can you make a different, can you make our different approaches of the language use?
02:18
And this is the use of customer language, and we have different ways to do that.
02:22
What I'm missing here is more here a substantiated analysis of the impact.
02:33
Perhaps you find something that you that deals with that and that is 20 years old.
02:43
More than 20 years old.
02:47
So they will use 22 years old, I suppose.
02:50
It takes a long time before you bring your paper over the process.
02:55
Perhaps you try the topics of K, but perhaps you find some other papers that really is more substantiated than that kind of paper that you and Matthew.
03:13
Okay.
03:13
Thank you.
03:16
You're the next one, okay?
03:18
You can, you need to present the mode if you want to see the next slide.
03:38
We can change the, you can see the next slide.
03:44
So, just like that.
04:18
So, this paper was published in 2022, and it had the group of five countries, which includes 20,000 adult participants.
04:38
It used a randomized online experiment to compare how the six label influences the consumers to shape their perception in treating
04:50
And the research question was, how did we treat a FOP label sequencers that were six helpful use experiences across the countries?
04:59
This was Australia, Canada, Mexico.
05:01
They used it in the US.
05:02
So this was the study plan.
05:06
And the methods used were immolabel, GBA, MTL, which is multiple traffic lights, HSR, HWL and HRWL.
05:15
So this is what they used.
05:20
One was with only the control, which consumers prefer when they were more complete.
05:26
The GDA was not as clear as the others.
05:31
The NPL was just given the red light, which made more specific to shape the perception of consumers.
05:40
The health star was quite confusing.
05:44
SWL was most
05:47
impactful on the consumers and the NWB had a similar effect as HWL.
05:56
So the key results were HIWL leads to a greater reduction in healthiness in all the countries.
06:07
SRH was similar and HWL showed moderate impact.
06:13
NGDA was used to affect overall.
06:16
Welcome to Specification Insight, Australia.
06:23
Thank you.
06:25
Don't skip the results.
06:27
We're not interested in a question which extends the research is people here for the presentation.
06:37
It seems that they believe that they look at the independent of marks.
06:45
whether the product is healthy or not.
06:47
So they do not look at the future.
06:50
So which extent these labels do you have?
06:54
It's just one paper that you have.
06:58
Yeah, but I have two of those.
07:01
Okay, but they should go into the same direction.
07:03
It's not just the, and you don't have purchase intentions, fortunately, because we do not know
Áyna, [20/09/2025 17:01]
exactly the reasons why the purchase things.
07:15
But the healthiness of food is the healthy, to seek health.
07:22
Okay, yes.
07:24
Okay, so if you have some more papers, it's fine to do that.
07:28
In your presentation, perhaps, if you look at the slide before, that's here.
07:37
Do you know all the abbreviations or can you learn them that fast?
07:44
If you see that.
07:46
You see the GDR, MGL, HSR.
07:51
It's difficult for the audience normally to follow.
07:57
This is relevant for the presentation, perhaps for all, if you present something, it's not the scientific value of the presentation, but you have to look at the audience.
08:07
And you are covered with that for, let's say, weeks or for hours at least, and you know the abbreviations about the HSR in Australia was simply affected than HIWL or lost.
08:25
OK, that's OK.
08:28
No, no.
08:30
Yeah, are you going to test this here?
09:05
You have to plug it in so we don't have to get out there.
09:12
OK, so this is my topic for the presentation: The Impact of a Communication Perspective.
09:47
This is exploring how form of package warning labels work as communication tools, how consumers interpret them,
09:55
and how the food industry responds.
09:57
So this is the octagon, how it looks.
10:01
This is the English translation.
10:06
And yeah, so why is the topic relevant in the context of communication?
10:12
It's how consumers
10:15
Process the warning, read emotionally and cognitively, and change or not their behavior.
10:21
So, this is the response, right?
10:23
So, I have the SOR number, so the stimulus, the warning label, the ordering, the consumer's perception, emotions, and cognitive processing, and the response is the purchasing behavior.
10:37
that while the government sends a health message through the FOP, the industry responds with marketing message.
10:46
This interaction shows that food communication is not one way, but a dynamic system of competing influences.
10:54
So I wanted to finish the triangle that you learned before.
10:59
So is the government, consumer, and industry.
11:03
The papers that I chose before was one, just one, the qualitative study, how the consumers perceive and respond to these warming bubbles.
11:15
So the consumers are the mothers in Peru.
11:18
And then I also need to do the framework, right?
11:24
And also I wanted to add the industry response.
11:28
So I also chose this paper, so the marketing techniques.
11:32
that the industry use in Peru.
11:36
So, it's a quantitative analysis study of how high-in food products in Peru use marketing to use the strategies.
11:45
And yeah, so technically how the food industry adapts its communication through marketing strategies.
11:53
And this is the framework, the influence of FOP nutrition leveling on consumer behavior and product formulation.
12:02
This is the theoretical paper, and it's to explain how FOP allows to affect consumer thinking, emotions, and paper, and what theoretical mechanisms explain these effects and interactions.
12:17
Okay, just, I just saw here.
12:20
What is high in?
12:25
I don't, because in the octogons.
12:28
The question is, are you ready?
12:43
Okay, you just have restricted time for the presentation.
12:52
Ask yourself to which extent it's too comprehensive what you want to do, whether you really...
13:00
succeed in so all of you have to eat that and then and you have the quality study is just restricted to Peruvian mothers.
13:12
Yeah, right.
13:13
Because I did the restrictions just in Peru.
13:18
Yeah, that's okay, but is it does it refer to food for children or food for themselves?
13:24
Food for children and the mothers have the decision.
13:28
Okay, no, but this
13:29
this may be quite different and perhaps it's not not able to generalize that so if I buy I bought when when my children were small and I bought for them because the the younger they are the more I look for healthy food so um could be that they're uh but still try try to I suppose
13:59
You have to use pictures, because if you really want a theoretical paper, if you want to do that, it's
Áyna, [20/09/2025 17:01]
already very comprehensive.
14:07
If you have a minute and a qualitative study, and afterwards, want to do a qualitative study of the marketing, of the marketing techniques, it could be that you cannot come along with 20 minutes.
14:22
Actually, the main paper that I wanted to do is the results of the
14:28
how the same mother responds to this to this buyer and well the theoretical paper is just to give help to my framework.
14:40
Yeah, but perhaps we go together to start with a good paper here with a theoretical paper and then you have a case study of a qualitative study because the theoretical paper tries to
14:57
To look at general.
15:00
rules or differentiation that they have, and then you can look at the qualitative style to which extent theoretical paper and the qualitative study are in line.
15:10
Yeah, and if you succeed in making the marketing techniques, if you can try to do this without having taken through your presentation, that's fine, but it could be the step.
15:26
OK.
15:28
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I can skip.
15:30
I just wanted to say, like, to understand how everything connects, but if I can delete it, I'll just try it.
15:40
OK.
15:41
OK.
15:41
Thank you.
15:41
Thank you.
15:42
So our research paper is about crisis communications, trust repair strategy in the fast food industry.
16:04
And then using the SOR, stimulus for medicine response model, we analyzed the following.
16:11
We believe that within the scope of the research paper, it's the crisis communication that is acting as a stimulus.
16:20
However, my partner and I believe that in a broader sense of the SOR model,
16:26
we think that it's the food crisis that initiates the full communication line that affects public perception about the fast food brands.
16:40
So through the messages, public apologies of the fast food brands, the consumers will analyze that through their emotional and perceptory framework
16:56
how they would react to the food crisis.
17:00
So for example, if they think that the crisis communication is positive, then they would still support the brand.
17:08
Or if they think that it's too late or it's like negative, then they would be afraid to try the brand again.
17:17
They would not go back to that brand.
17:19
However, the main criticism of this research paper is that it uses
17:26
qualitative methods and trust is a latent construct.
17:31
It means that it's something that is not directly, that it's something that we cannot directly observe or measured.
17:39
It's something that we can infer based on the responses, based on the behavior of the people.
17:45
And because of that, like they're just, they're just analyzing the case studies.
17:52
They didn't do their own data.
17:54
They didn't do their own survey.
17:56
So, and also they limited this to China.
18:03
They have 4 case studies in China and they relied on interpretation of the social media content and newspaper articles.
18:14
For us, they provided a good foundation for future research and which we hope like
18:22
people would start looking into adding quantitative methods.
18:28
The quantitative methods that we thought would be appropriate would be the consumer trust skills that most marketing brands use.
18:40
However, we should be cautious about social desirability bias and trust being a latent construct.
18:49
So there's always that challenge.
18:51
So the paper is relevant because we think like in any food crisis, it can damage the reputation of the fast food brand rapidly.
19:06
So the consumers will not go to the fast food as soon as they hear about something bad.
19:13
So crisis communication should not just be
19:17
we're active, it should be strategic.
19:21
So it's important for fast food rallies to actually.
19:24
We don't, we don't look at the results.
19:26
Okay.
19:28
So now, what is not quite clear to me on the one hand, I suppose it's not, you know, all come, if you suppose that communication is always based on external context and so on,
19:47
then a case study is the only appropriate thing because it cannot generalize results anyhow.
19:53
So you lo
Áyna, [20/09/2025 17:01]
ok at case studies and we already talked about that some market research is inevitably iterative.
20:03
So, but this is not a micro of that research, I suppose.
20:10
I think it is a case study, of course you cannot just do a case study in China or in Germany or whatever.
20:16
The question is,
20:17
How do they look at public perception?
20:21
I do not know whether I misunderstood you.
20:25
I just said that they looked at the brand loyalty and so on.
20:31
So they checked the social platform gold label and then they're looking at the tone of the comments, the likes and shares.
20:41
Okay, so this is then the kind of perception you don't have.
20:47
market share analysis, and so on.
20:50
So, no, it's just a team, and you should really, but you should clearly point out what kind of indicators they take in your project.
21:01
This is the other one.
21:03
Yeah.
21:05
OK.
21:06
And he's not here.
21:08
OK.
21:08
So this is what we should exactly.
21:12
to within the presentation, not to be described in the which indicators they take in order to look at the perception.
21:21
And if you, for example, of course you have that the crisis and the communication of the crisis are really interlinked.
21:31
This is okay, this is clear.
21:33
So depending on the crisis, you will change your communication.
21:37
I'm not quite sure what kind of crisis it was.
21:41
Did they have some...
21:42
They mentioned they mentioned the 40 case studies of the root supplier provided them spoiled meat already.
21:51
Okay.
21:51
So this is done that the communication has to be different compared to a situation where their staff members have spoiled the meat somehow.
22:01
So that you change your supplier and so on that you think new quality system.
22:07
Okay.
22:08
Yes, but look at that and the methodology that you just look at the indicators that they take in order to find out the effect of the communication within the framework of the crisis on the perception.
22:24
And of course, you have the limited things.
22:27
They do not have that representative.
22:28
They have that as a case study.
22:31
Okay.
22:32
Yes.
22:34
Yes, next.
22:42
Yep.
22:45
So you joined together one group, then.
23:05
So we decided to do...
23:23
So another one for my old guy years.
23:28
Okay, so we decided to do...
23:32
on the impact of advertising on consumer behavior.
23:40
Yeah, on behavior or perception.
23:42
So you look, what you told, you looked at the impact of advertising on consumer behavior.
23:52
But we...
23:54
want to look more to perception of the advertising to perception, attitude to the brand and those things, not just the volumes that they purchase, because we do not know exactly why they purchase.
24:12
Is there anything in your presentation that deals with perception of the...
24:23
So when the results, the results indicated that there was a positive correlation between advertising exposure and the consumer attitude towards the advertised products, advertising exposure and
24:51
Consumer attitude towards the advertised product.
24:54
To the product, to the advertised product.
25:00
Okay, then you have, if you have the influence on the attitude.
25:06
So it says that the more they are exposed to that advertisement, the more they are, and they have a positive attitude towards them.
25:18
Or it's the other way around.
25:20
Do they discuss that?
25:25
So, we don't know from consumer psychology that we have that selective attention and all those that we have in theory that consumers often just are aware of the advertising of product that they want.
25:42
So, it could be the other way around that the more they like the product,
25:49
the more they are aware of the effort.
25:52
So you have to really have to look and how they did that, how did they find out that?
25:59
Did they make an experiment and?
26:04
They did the quantitative and quantitative.
26:07
So the method that they used in this research, we have both the quantitative and quantitative.
26:17
So in the quantitative and in the qualitative, the head in the interest.
26:30
Okay.
26:33
Please.
26:
Áyna, [20/09/2025 17:01]
33
Okay.
26:34
But you should look whether this really is the, not you have at the beginning, you have a dying beginning.
26:39
Okay.
26:40
It's not that what we are interested in because this could be very different reasons why, but perception of the attitudes.
26:48
or the attitude towards products and to the advertising products, this is something that you should focus on in the research that you identify them, that you really look at the indicators again that they take.
27:07
and then describe the methodology.
27:10
It's the one hand you have quantitative quantitative, but how did they do the quantitative, which of the indicators, which of the variables did they take as dependent and independent variable to look at the perception?
27:24
Can the consumer behavior be a response in this case?
27:33
Can you for edit?
27:34
Can consumer behavior be a response?
27:36
In this case, because the the only purchase first purchase intentions, not purchase very different things, and the other thing is with the purchase intentions, we do not know exactly why, so this...
28:04
It could be that you can say the attitude changed somehow, but you cannot tell the aspects that the attitude changed.
28:16
If you suppose that purchase behavior is an indicator for attitude change, it could be an indicator for different things.
28:26
So if you have an experiment, for example, it is an indicator that
28:30
On the one hand, they are bored with the product or whatever that is.
28:35
So be careful with the interpretation of the purchase intentions in order regarding the attitude.
28:43
It should change if they have an experiment and they find, for example, they have two groups and that or they may be before and after things.
28:54
that I believe that corrected that they can see from purchase behavior that something happened in between.
29:02
But we are more interested in what happened in between.
29:09
OK.
29:11
OK.
29:11
So the first one is how does advertising influence consumer perceptions and attitudes to its productive?
29:21
And then the second one is, what is the impact of advertising on consumer purchasing sanctions and actual purchasing?
29:30
I would skip the last one, the second one.
29:32
Because this is just what you have, what is coming in, what is going on, and people don't know why.
29:39
So the first question is, is it comprehensive enough?
29:43
Yes, but perhaps you have, I do not know how many papers you have.
29:49
Perhaps you take on the second one that substantiates, or perhaps hasn't.
30:00
different results.
30:00
that we have a lot of papers and depending on the country that they do that and depending on a lot of things, the results differ so that we cannot generalize that, have indicated that we cannot generalize that.
30:18
Okay, thank you.
30:20
I suppose we do the rest next Monday.
30:24
So, you're or you can still adjust your ideas if you suppose that, so this is what we do that before, if you suppose that it's not the right one.
30:39
So, fortunately, on Thursday we have a sanction day.
30:43
This means that all those who do not believe in God have still free a free day.
Áyna, [20/09/2025 17:03]
Recording
00:00
Actually, Anna, I feel like the past two rounds of discussion with Professor Simmons were helpful because he provided some really constructive feedback about the topic.
00:33
Because like mine is about trust repair strategy for McDonald's and KFC.
00:40
So it's basically like how they use their
00:44
how they use their communication tools to prevent a backlash after a food crisis happens in China.
00:55
So there were some case studies that were presented.
00:59
So he told me basically to just present the case study, but don't focus too much on the trust because it's something that cannot be measured.
01:09
Like after a food crisis, trust cannot be put.
01:12
Trust cannot be measured, but there are some case studies done, so I should just present that.
01:21
I think you were on mute, Anna.
01:27
And you feel confident about it?
01:32
You feel, you feel, yeah, that?
01:34
Yeah.
01:35
OK, nice.
01:36
Good.
01:37
Very glad.
01:38
What about the rest?
01:39
How are you doing in presentation regards?
01:42
Go for it.
01:46
So Dr.
01:49
Zeman said that my topic, the idea of my topic is basically talk about consumer confusion or food labeling, or like packaging information basically.
02:05
And the only way to do that is find
02:09
not only like study that, because my idea was to find quantitative methods, empirical methods, papers.
02:18
I found several of them, but they are not often matched with the qualitative method with like interview or some kind of,
02:28
qualitative data.
02:31
So my idea was to focus on the quantitative.
02:35
He offered, quantitative empirical is not actually telling you what they are confused about.
02:40
So it's better to find something with qualitative.
02:43
And now I'm having like troubles to find mixed methods, kind of qualitative plus quantitative.
02:48
So maybe I will try to find just one qualitative and one quantitative and then just talk about different.
02:57
Yeah.
02:58
Limitations.
02:59
That sounds very good.
03:00
Yeah.
03:01
But we cannot see that in one study and that is like, I mean, yeah, that's a bummer.
03:07
But that's okay.
03:09
I mean, you mentioned it in your kind of like, you describe it of them.
03:13
You say which are the similarities or what do you think that, what you explain your thought process between them kind of.
03:21
And you say that's part of your limitations also.
03:24
I mean, you're presenting
03:25
Yeah, you can just say that that's obviously you could not find.
03:29
So so far in the literature you didn't find like a good, you can even say a good mixed method paper or relevant, yeah, strong, something like that.
03:41
Yeah, all right, but that's good.
03:43
Good.
03:44
But then.
03:45
Another thing is that basically the structure that he suggested is to, and then basically what we have right in the PPT that like he said with the guidelines is to have also some kind of connection to the class theory, like how it's relevant to the topics that we discussed in the class.
04:09
So my idea is to, I think,
04:12
have a theoretical framework, explain that, and then, my papers will also, share same theoretical models in a way, like, it would be...
04:27
But your papers are also linked to labeling, right?
04:31
Yeah, but they measure, like, confusion, right?
04:36
They try to understand what the sources of confusion on regards to labeling.
04:41
So basically, the idea is to...
04:43
present their theory that they use, for example, and then what we in class discussed and then discuss case like papers as a case study specifically on this theory.
05:00
Will it be enough in terms of like connecting to the class?
05:05
Yes, that is enough.
05:06
You don't have to give a lecture on the theories also, that's for all of you.
05:12
don't have to give again a class.
05:15
You just have to show that you can understand like you've found papers or case studies that are linked to the topics we've been discussing and you can
05:26
You can explain what the paper was about, clearly state what's the objective, what were the methods, if you want to describe them.
05:35
I
Áyna, [20/09/2025 17:03]
mean, what we really want to see is that you can link what you found in the scientific literature with what you've been learning.
05:45
So that's it.
05:47
And you have to give a clear result section.
05:50
And that's mainly so, but please,
05:54
You don't have to explain us the theories again from Cyril.
05:59
Again, it's an introduction.
06:01
You have to give us a background.
06:02
Yeah?
06:03
Okay.
06:05
Okay.
06:05
Thank you.
06:06
Yeah.
06:06
You're welcome.
06:10
Yeah, and the rest?
06:11
How are you guys doing?
06:13
Anyone?
06:18
No?
06:22
Everyone is doing good?
06:23
And one question, did you in the end, because I have not been communicated this, so has anyone decided to do like a group presentation?
06:35
Yes, okay, someone said yes, okay.
06:41
Please send me the ones that have done group, like, please send me an e-mail saying we are this group, we are these people, and I will send you back, we have to put
06:53
create slots for your presentations, yes?
06:56
For everyone's presentations.
06:58
So if there's a group, I need to know.
07:00
And someone wrote something in the chat.
07:03
How could the paper be?
07:07
We found an interesting paper, but it's from 2014.
07:10
Yeah, that's fine.
07:13
I mean,
07:14
As far as you find it, it's still relevant today and it has not been refuted, what you are going to explain.
07:20
That's okay.
07:22
We prefer more recent papers, but you're not going to be purely, I mean, it's 2014, it's 10 years.
07:29
Yeah, it's a little bit on the edge.
07:32
Try to not make it, I mean, it's 11 years, sorry, make it older.
07:39
Yeah, yeah.
07:40
Unless it's something, for example, there was one paper I think I told you about that explained the link between Coca-Cola, like when Coca-Cola started coming out in the market and the link with dissonance theory in terms of sports, you know, that's,
07:58
That was a bit of an older paper, but it's very, very hard on our class, so on our course.
08:05
So that's still okay.
08:07
But it's fine.
08:10
2014 is fine.
08:11
Yeah.
08:11
It's as always, you have to find a man, like you have to give, explain why you're choosing what you're choosing.
08:21
Yeah.
08:22
Anything else?
08:27
Yeah, I wanted to ask when against the deadline to submit our presentations.
08:36
I think Johannes sent that in his PowerPoint when he explains the PowerPoint, like the structure, but let me see.
08:52
It's second of July, it's written there.
08:54
There we go.
08:56
Thank you, Anna.
08:57
OK, but there is no any kind of folder or something to upload.
09:02
He will.
09:04
He will open it.
09:05
Yeah, he will open it.
09:06
should be in the eCampus.
09:09
You will see it as like presentation.
09:12
I think he even makes two.
09:15
The one is for the PowerPoint presentation and the other one is for the.
09:19
The PowerPoint presentation with notes and one without notes.
09:23
But you will see it in Ecampus.
09:25
So it should be with notes, right?
09:27
I mean, one should be with notes, another one should be for presenting.
09:32
Yeah, I mean, if you don't use notes in the end, you don't have to force yourself to do it.
09:38
But yeah, if you have notes, to be very honest, I do not know why he likes to have that.
09:43
Maybe it's just for yourself in case your PowerPoint just...
09:47
doesn't work and then we have that backup.
09:50
I think in the global agriculture food markets and the other module that he's teaching, he grade based on notes also.
09:59
Well, I grade last year and we don't grade based on notes.
10:05
No, we don't look at that.
10:07
No, we focus on the content of your presentation and the type of your presentation.
10:14
Communication, I mean your presentation skills, and on specifically how you developed this, which is what I'm telling you, like how you brought the topic forward, you explained us background, how it's linked to our topics, and you explained the paper clearly, and you give us a good like summary of what you think and what you found with the paper, and for example, in your case, that you acknowledged that you had some limitations, t
Áyna, [20/09/2025 17:03]
hat's fair enough, it's very good to be transparent with those things.
10:43
Yeah.
10:44
But we don't grade it according to notes.
10:48
Yeah.
10:52
So that's it.
10:55
And also what we will have is, I will be digitally, as I said, I will, my colleague will set up the computers with the link already in Zoom and you can bring your presentation with a pen drive to the computer and set it up there.
11:12
The only thing, please, I will send a doodle around.
11:17
Please fill it up as soon as possible.
11:20
And yeah, so we can arrange it.
11:24
And the presentation, you had a deadline.
11:27
Don't ask for an extension.
11:29
Last year, everyone had a deadline and they asked for an extension and he didn't really like that.
11:34
So you still have time.
11:36
And today I'm going to give you more time to work just on that.
11:39
Yeah.
11:40
So you don't have any excuses this year.
11:42
And yeah, that's as far as I go.
11:49
And another thing I wanted to tell you is that you will have, next time we also have a class online, and on Monday you will have a pre-recorded class, yeah, 'cause I had to be in a meeting and I will not be able to attend either way, yeah.
12:07
Sorry for that, but
12:10
Yeah.
12:13
So the presentations will start from 3rd of July or from 7th of July.
12:22
The presentation should start.
12:25
I have it here in the e-campus.
12:27
I think it's on the 1st day here.
12:32
So 14th, no 7th.
12:35
7th is the first one.
12:37
Yeah.
12:39
Because I think Dr.
12:42
Ziman said that maybe we will start earlier because of the amount of people who are still taking the course and registered for the assignment.
12:54
So you will, after registration is over, you said that he will understand how many people and then decide.
13:02
Yeah, but imagine, I mean, if you're submitting on the 2nd of July, you will never be presenting on the 3rd of July.
13:08
That's 100%.
13:10
No, I don't do that.
13:13
That's not.
13:13
If something will happen is that if you see you have the presentations are set for the 7th, the 10th and the 14th.
13:22
And there is in the 17th question and wrap up.
13:26
If we do something, we extend it in there, the questions to wrap up and we can set another like extracurricular time for questions.
13:36
Yeah.
13:38
But it will not be on the 3rd because you're submitting just on the 2nd.
13:42
So no, don't be afraid of that.
13:46
Yeah.
13:46
Okay.
13:47
Yep.
13:49
Okay.
13:52
Any more questions regarding presentations?
13:57
Worries, doubts?
14:01
Just so I know, that there's a group.
14:04
Is there, it's not Sophia just nodded, so I guess Sophia is part of a group.
14:09
Is there, how many other groups are there?
14:12
Anyone else?
14:14
I also have a group with someone else.
14:18
Perfect.
14:19
OK.
14:21
I think Thomas also in the group with someone right who is Nicole.
14:27
OK, good.
14:30
Thank you very much.
14:31
So there's three groups, I think.
14:33
Yep.
14:34
Perfect.
14:35
I think we should be able to do this in three days presentations.
14:40
But we'll see.
14:44
OK.
14:47
Yeah.
14:47
And someone is.
14:51
Hi, just wanted to ask.
14:53
Sorry.
14:54
I just wanted to ask, will you be assigning the
15:00
presentation dates to each student.
15:01
That's why I was asking.
15:03
I know I will assign, I mean, for, I will give you a doodle, you will choose your time.
15:08
So that's why I'm sending you a doodle.
15:11
Please put wherever you want to, which slot you want.
15:14
And obviously the people that have a group, just only one person writes their name.
15:19
Yeah.
15:19
And you will choose some dates and times.
15:24
I mean, slots.
15:24
If you have a date, you have to come.
15:26
Yeah.
15:27
And we highly stimulate everyone to come to all the presentations because we ask questions and it's handier.
15:34
If there's colleagues that ask questions, as always, you can even tell one of your friends, like, hey, maybe ask me about this, because it's less time for us to ask questions.
15:46
So it's always on your favor.
15:47
And as a reminder, there's also going to be Dominic Lemkin and Alina Simonet
Áyna, [20/09/2025 17:03]
ti in there.
15:54
Who again?
15:55
Dominic N?
15:56
Dominic Lemkin, the professor from social economics.
16:00
And Alina Simonetti, she's a postdoc also.
16:02
Alina Simonetti, okay.
16:03
Yeah, she's very nice.
16:05
She likes to ask questions, but she's very nice.
16:07
And she's very fair.
16:10
So, yeah, that's...
16:13
I know, I thought I was, you were laughing.
16:18
No, I'm yoning.
16:20
Sorry.
16:21
All right.
16:22
Okay, guys, then I will let you go.
16:25
If anyone wants to stay and talk about something specifically individually, yeah, just let me know.
16:32
That's it.
16:34
And I also will remind you, please fill in the questionnaire we'll send you to write a course.
16:40
It's on Mr.
16:42
Simmons' special interest.
16:44
So yeah, please do that.
16:47
But I will be sent in two weeks.
16:48
All right.
16:52
Sorry, what questionnaire again about the feedback?
16:55
There is going to be a questionnaire to rate the feedback.
16:58
You have it for all the courses to rate the course.
17:00
Yeah.
17:00
And yeah, he wants to have it.
17:03
So yeah.
17:05
If not, then see you on.
17:07
Before we go, I have a question.
17:10
Yes.
17:11
Sorry, I didn't say.
17:11
Yes.
17:12
So when I was doing my presentation, my main challenge was the first two topics that I suggested.
17:21
Professor Simon said they are not directly related to communication.
17:28
I have a feeling I know what you're talking about.
17:33
All right.
17:33
Yes.
17:34
And
17:35
When I look at the papers that I'm studying, I feel like they are related to communication, since some of them are maybe focusing on nudging and all the topics I've been doing in class.
17:46
Yes.
17:47
And then he also highlighted that in some of the topics that we are choosing, the measurement of perception is not clearly shown.
17:57
Yeah.
17:58
Yeah.
17:59
So I am still not very sure if my paper is now fully addressing that.
18:04
So if you have a strong case, again, I'm telling you this because I've been doing this course and I know how Professor Simmons can be.
18:15
If you are bringing a case and you have a strong, like you have, if you have a strong reasoning of why you think it's linked to communication and some of the theories you've been discussing with Professor Simmons and some of the ones that you've been discussing with me, that is fair enough.
18:35
It's your presentation, and if you're analyzing the paper with that optic, that is also fair enough.
18:43
If you don't feel sure and you prefer to go for another more traditional way, a paper, then change it.
18:52
But we also have, I knew that your topic was about matching, because it's always the case, and we even have internal discussions about it.
19:03
Obviously, our group is very supportive of the role of Nagic, meaning Dr.
19:09
Simonetti and Dr.
19:11
Lemkin, but we're very supportive of, like, not just can be, I mean, our way of communicating.
19:18
We've been discussing them, right?
19:20
And Professor Simmons has another view, more traditional communication in the food sector like this.
19:25
So, again, you
19:28
You will be graded also on how you are presenting your thoughts, your opinion, and how you're fundamenting your choices and explaining the paper.
19:41
So again, I would say if you found an interesting link with knowledge and communication, explain it well and go for it.
19:52
If not, if you're unsure, then change the topic.
19:55
But yeah.
19:57
That's okay.
19:59
Thank you.
20:00
Thank you.
20:02
All right, Yeah.
20:03
Anything else?
20:06
I also have a question.
20:10
Me and Myra are going to do a presentation on the Fair Trade logos and how they can influence the customer's perception of the product.
20:26
how they measured that in the paper is the person's willingness to pay for that product.
20:34
Yes.
20:35
And when we presented the idea to Simmons, he was like, you can't focus on their willingness to pay.
20:43
You have to focus on the perception of the customer.
20:46
But how are we going to measure that?
20:50
Well, then you have to focus.
20:52
Yeah, sorry, continue.
20:54
Yeah.
20:55
I
Áyna, [20/09/2025 17:03]
mean, why do you think Mr.
21:00
Simmons said that you cannot measure perception with willingness to pay?
21:04
Because some people just buy the product without knowing about the label.
21:10
Yeah, right?
21:12
And it's a little bit linked to what Anna was saying before, right?
21:15
The perception, you cannot just measure the perception of a product through the willingness to pay, right?
21:24
So,
21:25
What you can do is look for more literature that specifically looks at perception, like really perception of, I do not know of the brand, like the logo characteristics or the quality of the product or the, for example, it can be the quality, it can be the, how do you call it?
21:51
There is like, for example, there's a lot of work with labels that have to, like with best rated products, for example.
22:00
People are perceiving it as best rated and how much, how are people really actually purchasing this or how are they not?
22:08
And then if you have like a study that explains, okay, we ask the people what do they understand through this logo?
22:15
Then, and the majority reply this or this and this.
22:18
you would have to look for papers that are more paying attention to that, specifically perception.
22:27
But you can do also what Anna is going to do, like just bring your paper, talk about willingness to pay, but then you have to bring, if you really want to talk about perception itself, you have to bring one that looks at it, yeah.
22:41
Okay.
22:43
Yeah.
22:45
If not, you have to change it, I mean, change the uptakes.
22:48
I do not know which paper you're looking at, but you have to think about more what the fair trade is, like another type of study that's still, I don't say take fair trade away, 'cause I think it's a very interesting topic, but really try to focus on, there's a lot of, there has to be a lot of research on fair trade and what are they, what are they exposing the,
23:15
consumers too, and what do consumers think about the logo itself, about the product itself with that logo or without that logo.
23:26
Yeah, maybe take a bit of a deeper look.
23:30
Yeah?
23:31
Okay, thank you.
23:33
Yeah, you're welcome.
23:34
Sounds like very interesting topics.
23:37
I'm excited.
23:39
All right.
23:41
Anyone has more questions, I can stay.
23:50
And if not, the ones that don't, please feel free to go.
23:54
And I repeat, I'll send a doodle.
23:58
The faster you reply, like the faster you reply to me, the faster I can tell you which is your slot.
24:03
Yeah?
24:04
Okay.
24:06
See you guys then.
24:08
Thank you.
24:12
Bye.
Speaker 3
(1:12) What does that mean?
Speaker 1
(1:59) Meet today for the feedback session. (2:04) One is that we give you feedback, more general feedback about the presentation. (2:11) The other thing is that you should give us feedback about the module.
(2:17) To which extent we might be able to improve. (2:29) And then there is opportunity to put some questions if you still have one. (2:33) So I'm responsible for the part that I talk.
(2:37) If you have any questions to the welfare analysis that Monica Hartmann did, please let me know and she will come down and try to explain it once again. (2:47) Okay. (3:00) I can start without the slides.
(3:08) Okay. (3:15) It doesn't work. (3:20) So we have to do that without any slides.
(3:23) The first thing that I want to focus on are your slides. (3:29) As a rule, if you give a talk, the audience normally knows less than you do. (3:38) So the slides are your flagship.
(3:41) They show to which extent you give the impression that you did your research carefully. (3:51) And this is uniform design of the slides. (3:55) So this gives the audience the expression that you did it right.
(4:03) Uniform font, uniform font size. (4:07) All those things may be relevant in order to create the impression that you are an expert. (4:15) You know, the audience normally cannot evaluate whether you are an expert or not.
(4:20) So you have to make them believe that you are an expert. (4:25) And this is the design of the slides. (4:27) I once worked together with a guy from a consultancy, one of the big consulting companies here in Germany.
(4:36) They had a template for their slides and they could not change anything. (4:43) So they had two lines for the headline. (4:47) And if they wanted to have more than two lines, impossible.
(4:51) So uniformity was first in order to create that. (4:56) And perhaps you should think about that if you create your slides. (5:00) Not for us, we are not the soft-skilled educators.
(5:04) We can tell you, we can give you some feedback about that. (5:07) But what is relevant, if you have your graphs with the slides, hey, the font size should be big enough so that even an old guy like me can read it. (5:24) Even if I'm sitting there and have my glasses on.
(5:27) So a lot of you just copied or had a lot of graphs in it, just so small numbers. (5:39) Why do you want to make me angry? (5:42) So this is if I was in the audience or in the assessment center.
(5:47) Picture myself in an assessment center and you want to convince me that I should hire you or fire you. (5:55) So this is really relevant. (5:58) With the graphs, of course, on this side you should have the units for the graphs.
(6:05) And to make the numbers legible and readable, the separator, the sound separator. (6:13) You can do it in different ways. (6:15) Either you have that or if you take the graphs with the data from the FRO, they are normally in a way that you do not need, that there is no confusion with a thousand separator and a decimal separator.
(6:32) So they just leave it out. (6:34) They have one million and there's a one and then six zeros and that's it. (6:40) But you cannot read that.
(6:42) You can copy that, that is much easier. (6:44) We talked about that compared to a situation where you have that from the U.S. database. (6:53) You really have to take care that your Excel reads them in the same way that they need.
(7:01) You normally don't have that problem with the FRO database, but then if you just copy that, take at least the separator or take an easy, divide that by a thousand or by a million and then you have that on the y-axis, very comfortable. (7:23) So, finally, it works. (7:59) I'll just prepare something so I'm not forgetting.
(8:03) So, let's see. (8:14) So, I'm sorry about that. (8:27) It didn't work properly.
(8:30) So we have to wait. (8:31) Okay, here it is. (8:48) Okay, this is it.
(8:51) Design of the slides. (8:51) Uniform design. (8:53) Uniform font and possibly uniform font size.
(8:57) Easily legible graphics. (8:58) No unnecessary information. (9:01) Not you, but just take this as a general rule.
(9:05) If you're a student of a copy and with a copy there's a lot of unnecessary information. (9:12) Hey, why do you want me to read that unnecessary information? (9:19) Again, do you want to make me angry?
(9:22) Or the other thing is, if you have an audience, you are the one who extracts the relevant information and then you put them on the slides. (9:36) So, graphs, axis scaling, font size, the units and the southern separators. (9:45) Any question to that?
(9:47) Short scales, except axis scaling and the units of the axis. (9:55) So this is something that is necessary in the scientific arena. (9:58) Don't do that without.
(10:01) This is what you can call a mistake. (10:04) All the other things are nice to have and it's you. (10:08) It's not that we just say, hey, it's good or bad, but that you should do that.
(10:14) Uniformity means that you should not, you can do whatever you want. (10:21) But think of copying a graph. (10:25) Normally you have the problem that it's not uniform anymore.
(10:30) If you make that yourself, you give the impression that you research very carefully. (10:36) Okay, let's come to the individual presentations. (10:46) It's not the grading now, but just some hints for all of you.
(10:51) You know, if it comes to the uniform, we started with you. (10:56) You had a problem with the units, of course. (10:58) We already talked about that.
(11:01) You had something that you called global trends and then you had one year. (11:05) You already have addressed that. (11:08) So be careful with the words that you have.
(11:12) And whenever you do a market description, you need data. (11:17) Sometimes you can do that qualitatively. (11:20) You have that, if it happens that and that, if it happens, for example, if there was an additional demand, then of course the prices go up and blah, blah, blah, and allocation of the area changes and so on.
(11:35) But this is qualitatively and you should have already learned in your bachelor's somehow. (11:42) The thing is that you should try and we talked about that yesterday. (11:48) For example, you have the models and you have the baseline and then you have the line where you implement the political instrument.
(11:59) And then you have the difference and the difference is allocated normally to the political instrument. (12:05) This is the way that they try to quantify that. (12:07) You cannot run a model here in that context here.
(12:12) And of course, the workload is restricted that you can put in your presentation. (12:18) You have, Monica told me, hey, be a good guy, not only the bad guy. (12:23) So this is, of course, we are much more experienced than you are.
(12:31) We are not more clever than you are, but we do that for decades. (12:36) Whenever you do that for decades, hey, you will be much better than you are, hopefully. (12:43) Okay, what was, you promised to tell us the effect of climate change in your research question as far as I know.
(12:58) You hardly did that. (12:59) What you did is that you explained how it changes when there is, let's say, more the weather conditions and not the climate change. (13:16) So you have to take care, the climate change is the long trend and perhaps the weather conditions that you have in the individual years are part of that long trend.
(13:26) But you have those extreme years and you try to show them what happens then with the supply balance and the reduction and all those things. (13:36) So this is something that I should mention. (13:44) What I wanted to show you, how you could have done it.
(13:51) We have the FRO data. (13:53) You made it very complicated. (13:55) You did that, but you explained that a little bit.
(14:01) It had been so simple. (14:03) You have the, if you have the individual years, you can, I don't know whether how I fit you with X or whether you can construct that with X. (14:13) It doesn't matter.
(14:13) But this is what I already showed you in one of the first lectures that we have, the supply balance. (14:18) With the supply balance you can see on the one hand the production and then you have the imports and you have stock variations. (14:27) And this is what is applicable, what is on the markets and this is used for exports and for domestic consumption.
(14:36) If this is stock variation, if stock variation is on that side, then it means that the stocks at the end of the year are lower than at the beginning of the year. (14:46) If there is additional stocks at the end of the year, you put it on that side. (14:51) And then you can easily compare the different supply balances.
(15:00) You could have done that here, let's say with a five years average. (15:05) And then you have an extreme year and then you can say, come on, compared to the five year average, you see that the production is just two thirds of that. (15:14) They increase the imports but they reduce the exports and the domestic consumption.
(15:19) And you have all the numbers here in. (15:23) The only thing that you, this is olive oil, the only thing that you in addition could have mentioned was, had been the supply balance of olives. (15:36) So we have the olive oil on the one hand, they could have imported possibly a lot of olives.
(15:44) This is the one thing. (15:45) And the other thing, they could have reduced the export of olives that is for food, for direct food. (15:55) So to make it very complete, it had been necessary to look at those both things, the olive oil and the olive weather.
(16:05) Could be that the production here, this is the production of olive oil that is based on imported leaves. (16:16) So this is to make it even more clear how they change it. (16:21) Okay, but you had, it was complicated how you did it.
(16:27) But in the end, you could see that. (16:29) And I suppose you made a lot of graphs yourself, did you? (16:33) You didn't copy that.
(16:34) Unfortunately, they were so small. (16:37) And what perhaps had been, if you really do that so small and you want to do that, it could be helpful to have a uniform scale. (16:48) So you have that Australia or what is it, South America.
(16:53) And it seems South America to produce as much as Spain. (16:57) Don't let Excel make it. (17:03) So it's really, Excel does it in a certain way and don't argue Excel did it that way.
(17:08) Hey, it's you, you are the boss and not Excel. (17:11) And this is perhaps if you do the graphs yourself, you should improve perhaps your skills in Excel. (17:18) How to make Excel do things like you want to do it.
(17:21) I'm not just, I often hear that, hey, Excel did it that way and I did not know how to change that. (17:29) Hey, look yourself in an assessment center. (17:33) I'm telling the guy that wants to hire you and I did not manage to change that.
(17:43) So, okay. (17:48) Kakao, you just copied some of the graphs. (17:52) You know that there are data available, but you did not use that.
(17:58) You have copied that out of one of the scientific papers. (18:02) It started as far as I know the production of 1900 and went to 2010. (18:10) So if you take the FIO data, it's fine.
(18:16) If you start this part at 1961, it's enough. (18:21) You don't have to go back to 1900. (18:25) And it goes up to 2023.
(18:29) You have that Ghana. (18:31) You have the Côte d'Ivoire. (18:34) So you can do it in a way that you want to show the market share that those countries have.
(18:41) You can add them all and then you have the world production. (18:44) So this is what you can show in the graphs. (18:48) And I wanted to make a price graph, but you know that there is the International Côte d'Ivoire Board.
(18:56) They have it like that. (18:57) You can get the prices here, euro per ton or US dollars per ton. (19:03) It starts as early as 2024.
(19:06) It goes back 30 years, monthly data. (19:12) You cannot download that. (19:15) Or I could not download that.
(19:17) So the file that they normally have, it was not possible. (19:23) But it is you and you can type that. (19:26) So you have the data.
(19:28) And then the question is, of course, this is euro per ton. (19:31) And then, of course, you have to define the quality. (19:35) Whether it's already some graded Côte d'Ivoire or Côte d'Ivoire beans.
(19:41) Is that right? (19:44) I'm not quite sure. (19:45) But you have a lot of data there.
(19:47) And you could have used that data. (19:49) And the problem then, what you have, you have a good description of the sector in Ghana. (19:55) And how it is organized.
(19:57) And you combine that with what you already learned with Dominic Lamping. (20:03) And the way that the value chains are organized. (20:09) But this is one thing.
(20:10) The other thing is then you could not, if it comes to the measures and to the fair trade thing. (20:20) So there's a lot of information that you gave. (20:23) But more the qualitative one.
(20:25) But what was missing was the quantitative thing. (20:28) You had that in 2012, I suppose. (20:31) There was a $200 price premium for fair trade cacao.
(20:38) If you look at the prices, it's not really much. (20:45) The question is, is that the producer price? (20:48) Then perhaps it is much.
(20:49) And the question is, what do they have to do in order to get that? (20:55) I did not understand fully your description. (20:59) Is that the whole sector is already certified fair trade?
(21:04) Or is it just some farms that are certified? (21:08) Some cooperatives. (21:10) Some cooperations are.
(21:14) And they said that about 20 or 50% of the production is certified. (21:23) Is that true? (21:29) So no, I mean that 50%.
(21:32) Because I looked at the overall, it was 2012, 30% it should be. (21:43) So we have 70,000 tons. (21:46) And you talked about 24,000 tons of cacao that is already certified.
(21:52) But this is the certified area. (21:56) The question is, do they really sell that as fair trade? (21:59) You know that that's one of the problems in fair trade.
(22:06) And one of the general problems that you have. (22:11) If you give an additional price, somehow it has to be regulated, the volume. (22:18) So if there's a willingness to pay in the international trade for fair trade coffee, that is higher than the volume that they produce, then it's okay.
(22:32) But what if it's lower? (22:34) And then just a certain share of the fair trade coffee or fair trade cocoa can be sold as fair trade. (22:41) And the price premium is not for everyone.
(22:46) So somehow you have to divide that by the overall volume, that is. (22:51) And then the question is, what do they have to do to get it? (22:55) So does it really pay off?
(22:56) Obviously, if they do that, it pays off. (23:00) But still, to which extent those additional profits? (23:11) Yes, so you didn't have any data, so you talked about EU policies, but it was a private standard that are worldwide.
(23:23) I suppose fair trade is still in the US, and it's not the EU. (23:29) But you said that the sector adopts that. (23:37) The question is whether you have any additional data.
(23:43) It was more a spotlight that you had. (23:45) And I suppose it was a report that was made for I don't know what. (23:53) But then normally, again, the data, it's good if you have data in order to substantiate that.
(24:01) Okay, the MRL discussion, it was a little bit confusing. (24:09) You know that you had, on the one hand, of course the MRLs are relevant. (24:15) And, of course, I confirmed that at the weekend because I met Dr. Rudloff. (24:25) So she's the one that had her dissertation, her PhD, on that Codex Alimentarius, on that standard. (24:34) And she told me that there are different standards out there, currently standards that are higher than the Codex Alimentarius standard, as long as no one complains. (24:47) And obviously no one complained.
(24:49) Why ever? (24:50) So this is, you have the higher standards. (24:53) And it could be, we reasoned about that, and it could be that these higher standards, if the WTO refuses to accept that trade barrier, then we have the private standards and the WTO is not engaged in the private standards.
(25:13) So this is, but then it was unclear. (25:20) You had something about the indicator that you took, but you did not really show the results very clearly. (25:26) You had the graph that was unreadable, yes, that you copied in.
(25:32) And the same is for the, we were quite clear with the data from the Cinnamon and from the Malone, how that, which kind of indicator you took, and why you took that indicators and so on. (25:49) So this was the, like the critiques, so that it was more confusing, and that it was not uniform between those three examples. (26:04) Less had to be better.
(26:06) If you had just one example, and really made it very clear how that works, what indicators you took, whether or not you can see something, and you had the indicators, but you didn't, as far as I know, you did not have the import and export flows, did you? (26:27) So how much they imported to Europe, Ecuador and Costa Rica, and whether this changed, and whether the overall import of the EU changed, and those were the first things that I suppose had been a good information in order to see what might have happened. (26:51) So is there really, it could be so that if they cannot adapt to that new standard, that they just change the trade flows.
(27:02) And so those things I would first look at.
Speaker 2
(27:06) I showed it, but I didn't like specifically show you when the MRL change happened. (27:16) And like, so yeah, I didn't indicate it in the graph. (27:20) That's why it was confusing as well, because it was just a graph with no indication when it happened.
Speaker 1
(27:27) But did it really change the trade flows?
Speaker 2
(27:36) Yeah, but it wasn't unclear. (27:39) I mean, we can say that it was COVID.
Speaker 1
(27:44) Yeah, so it wasn't clear. (27:46) There can be very different reasons why.
Speaker 2
(27:48) Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1
(27:49) So, of course.
Speaker 2
(27:51) There was a change, a drop in the flow to Europe.
Speaker 1
(27:56) With bananas to Europe.
Speaker 2
(27:58) Yeah, from both countries, from 2019.
Speaker 1
(28:02) And do you happen to know whether there was another country stepping in?
Speaker 2
(28:06) Yeah, we can say that in the graph there was like an increase in China in these years, in US, and other countries.
Speaker 1
(28:15) So the trade flows?
Speaker 2
(28:17) Shifted a little, yeah.
Speaker 1
(28:19) So this happened. (28:21) So to say, come on, like the graph that they think, not a supply balance, but if you had split the exports before and after, then you could have seen they just changed the trade flows. (28:38) And they ship less to Europe, but more to Asia or whatever it is.
(28:45) So this is more hard data. (28:49) So you have the indicators that you have, the competition indicators. (28:54) They do not make it that clear.
(28:59) Okay?
Speaker 2
(29:00) Yeah.
Speaker 1
(29:03) Okay, that's that. (29:05) And then we have the last one. (29:09) We already talked about that.
(29:10) You did much more than you presented. (29:14) This was in the discussion. (29:15) Yeah, exactly.
(29:16) And you wanted to prove it on your own. (29:23) Yeah. (29:24) Yes, this is what you said.
(29:26) But it had been better if you had, for example, what you already knew, that the baseline and the policy line, and then show the differences. (29:36) And perhaps there are, I do not know whether they are all out of the 2000 up to 2010 or whether there is some updated model. (29:46) I'm not that familiar.
(29:48) But that had been better to, on the one hand, to show how one can do that.
Speaker 3
(0:13) I think you used the traditional one, didn't you?
Speaker 2
(0:20) Yeah. (0:21) I just took it from the site, from the Atlas of Canonic Complexity, it calculates it already, so I just used it. (0:38) I didn't found any other additional data, so I just used the one that I found.
Speaker 3
(0:43) But I do think that's a traditional comparative advantage indicator, probably if you would look it up, it's probably what Mr. Tartik taught you in class. (0:58) And you tried to go beyond that, but it's good to understand what is the advantage regarding that. (1:10) Okay.
Speaker 1
(1:12) We have two different stories, the banana and the nonsense. (1:17) And the first story is, did I understand it to make sure, the EU increased the standard?
Speaker 3
(1:25) Lowered standard.
Speaker 1
(1:29) Increased the standard, but lowered the MRI.
Speaker 3
(1:31) Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1
(1:32) So it increased the standard.
Speaker 3
(1:33) That would be.
Speaker 1
(1:33) Okay. (1:35) And you have no effect on the rejection rates at the border, or you did at least, didn't present any data. (1:44) I cannot see, I cannot read that.
Speaker 2
(1:46) Yeah, of course. (1:47) There is no indication, like in numbers or something. (1:52) But we found this alert systems, notifications, that there was notifications with the serious risks, a couple of them was serious, maybe even more, indicating that there was rejection of the border, basically.
(2:09) But not all of them are rejections.
Speaker 1
(2:13) Yeah, but the question is then, have you before and after?
Speaker 2
(2:18) This is the after. (2:20) This starts from 2020. (2:22) So the first MRL change was 2019.
Speaker 1
(2:25) Okay, but you should have it before and after, whether there was any change in that, because there's always that something is wrong at the shipping.
Speaker 2
(2:34) Yeah, but yeah, no, there was like, there's no correlation. (2:39) We cannot like, kind of compare them, because it's hard.
Speaker 1
(2:42) But then, there should be, it has no impact on the rejection, but obviously on the trade flows.
Speaker 2
(2:49) Yeah.
Speaker 1
(2:49) But this means that they just changed, that they're flexible enough to do that. (2:55) So they're...
Speaker 3
(2:57) But yeah, I also had a problem when I was looking at the trade flows. (3:01) Some of these things were not linked to the time when the stuff was implemented, right?
Speaker 2
(3:06) Yeah.
Speaker 3
(3:06) I mean...
Speaker 2
(3:08) Yeah, there should be someone...
Speaker 3
(3:11) For example, also in the LASA index, already in 2015, where there's nothing to do with that, or here it is also 2015 where we do have the... (3:24) So I was just wondering, is that just...
Speaker 1
(3:28) Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3
(3:29) They have no correlations in trade.
Speaker 1
(3:31) Or could it be that it has something to do with the banana pest? (3:34) So there was some serious banana pest during the last 10 years, as far as I remember, that this biased all the results regarding the residue level.
Speaker 2
(3:44) Yeah, that might be biased towards the residue level. (3:50) I haven't checked the... (3:53) But I should have probably also put the production in, not percentage, but the actual productions that we will see that the production wasn't affected.
(4:02) But the share just changed, basically, in the countries, and for the market shares, and then for the different countries, they differentiated the trade flows to different countries. (4:18) Because this is a percentage only. (4:20) There is no...
(4:21) I should have put the... (4:22) Yeah. (4:22) Also, Tom's...
(4:24) Yeah, maybe.
Speaker 3
(4:25) Maybe. (4:26) And also, checking again, which year... (4:29) Yeah, yeah.
(4:30) I had a presentation before where they had this arrow there.
Speaker 2
(4:33) Yeah, arrows.
Speaker 3
(4:34) So here, where something is happening, where you can see, okay, is that really in that year where the energy change? (4:42) Or is it just the year before? (4:44) But then it cannot be really linked to the planet, I guess.
Speaker 1
(4:48) So, with the cinnamon case, so if you look at the graph that you have, it's not wise just to let it go to zero. (4:58) There must be a way to get zero and then come to something else. (5:05) So, just by looking at that, it's not zero.
(5:10) And just the one thing... (5:12) But the other thing is, as far as I know, I experienced that scandal, but it was at Christmas time in the EU, and we were wondering whether all the Christmas cookies could be sold because of the residues. (5:26) I remember that.
(5:27) And then they did the bargain between the industry and the food safety institutions. (5:37) But, obviously, it has no impact on the overall exports of Sri Lanka, or does it?
Speaker 4
(5:46) No.
Speaker 1
(5:47) So, the question is then, has it had an impact on the exports to the European Union? (5:55) I couldn't see any data about that. (6:00) So, it could be, again, that they had the other...
(6:03) What's that? (6:05) The cassia cinnamon or whatever it is that they just substituted that, and that the European Union increased its import from the less affected kind of cinnamon. (6:18) There were two kinds of cinnamon that were affected, but the one, I do not know exactly what it was.
(6:24) It was more affected than the other one, really, though. (6:27) And then they substitute that for safety reasons and to be on the safe side, but the European Union just changed that. (6:35) You have no data regarding the European Union, or do you?
Speaker 4
(6:39) I have data, but it's like overall cinnamon because they do not really differentiate based on the...
Speaker 1
(6:48) Again, here, the unit is above, but you should have the point, or the comma in English, with the thousands in order to make it so that you can see that. (7:01) And then, these graphs, you know, the scandal was in 2004, but the graph starts in 2007.
Speaker 4
(7:11) Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1
(7:13) So perhaps it would be okay to do that in 2000, to exceed that to 2000, in order perhaps to see the impact of the case. (7:27) And then you have the metals. (7:31) So you have a different thing here.
(7:33) This is adjusting the Honduran sector to the crudex alimentarius standard. (7:41) So this is quite a different thing. (7:44) It's not that there is an increased standard, but there is a lower standard in the developing country, and that by obeying the standard or making that standard mandatory, that they can increase their exports.
(7:57) But this is a different case, again. (8:00) And if I had a closer look at the literature that you cited here, what's especially in the piece of research of Christina Wieck et al., they just show that the adoption time plays a role. (8:17) And this is the adoption time, perhaps, in Honduras.
(8:20) But the other papers, they have some barriers according to technical things. (8:27) And another thing is the private standards, that they might influence. (8:32) I know that the private standards, at least from the German food industry, are much higher than the standard of the European Union.
(8:40) And that perhaps this biases the overall results. (8:46) And perhaps they have no marketing leg anymore. (8:48) Perhaps they do with bananas.
(8:49) I don't know that. (8:51) But with a lot of other things they do. (8:53) And different standards, but this is not the problem that you addressed, but that is addressed in one of the literature that you cited, is that you have different application standards for pesticides in the developed countries.
(9:11) So this is, for example, in Germany, we have a much more stricter pesticide regulation than developing countries or than other countries in the European Union. (9:22) And that leads to different competitive disadvantages. (9:29) For example, this was cited in the U.S. study. (9:33) What is that called? (9:36) There are some sweet cherries. (9:39) There is something, it's called in Germany, that you can spray there in Turkey, but you cannot do that in Germany.
(9:47) But you can import those things. (9:49) And this is the other way that they have lower standards in the pesticide standards in the developing countries, or in some countries, and that they can import their products to those countries with higher application standards for pesticides. (10:06) So this is the other way around.
(10:09) But this is a problem that is in the U.S. thing, that is addressed in the U.S. thing that you cited, and not the other way around. (10:18) So it's more the disadvantage of American farmers, U.S. farmers, due to a stricter pesticide regulation regarding application of residues. (10:28) Okay, that's it.
Speaker 3
(10:31) Thank you.
Speaker 1
(10:31) Thank you.
Speaker 2
(0:22) Hello, good evening, or good afternoon. (0:30) So we want to present you today a project where we want to analyze the impact of the maximum residue level standards of pesticides in different agricultural products on global market, global trade, with selected case studies. (0:47) And we want to see basically whether the MRL standards can be considered as barriers to trade or opportunities.
(0:54) We want to particularly focus on competitiveness and harmonization strategies. (0:59) So our hypothesis was that, of course, some countries will, might have like higher costs to meet MRL standards for like, for making it lower. (1:15) So there will be some declines maybe with the competitiveness, specifically revealed competitive advantage and the market shares.
(1:26) They will make, they will become lower. (1:29) And, but specifically, we thought we thought that maybe developing countries or countries that have like favorable climates or lower labor costs that already had like comparative advantage before the MRL change, even with the compliance costs change, they will still have like, might have a competitiveness increase after the MRL standard compliance.
Speaker 3
(1:57) Maximum residue levels. (1:59) Maximum residue levels.
Speaker 2
(2:01) Maximum residue levels of the pesticides. (2:05) Yeah, so our objective was to basically analyze the trade, the impact of MRL changes, and then identify factors that might hinder or slow, that all might benefit the harmonization. (2:25) And we will support that with the rejection compliance, rejections from the borders, compliance costs, and like information on the trade flows change.
(2:39) Yeah, basically, whether there was some reversion in the different countries because of the MRL change or their difference of the real competitive advantage change. (2:51) So this is a background information, basically maximum residue level as, yeah, as we explained before is they regulate the safety standards for feed and food products. (3:07) And they basically regulate the maximum level of the pesticide residues.
(3:15) And they also kind of regulate right now, there's a discussion about the market access, trade competitiveness that they might influence it and basically the fairness. (3:26) So this addressed, this challenge is addressed by the various international frameworks. (3:31) So the first one, of course, is Codex Alimentarius, what we talked about in the lectures and World Trade Organization Center, FITO Center agreement that helped to harmonize the trade between the countries.
(3:47) But there is a divergence from this global benchmark, Codex Alimentarius, because of different approaches to risks of the pesticides in European Union is a hazard based approach. (4:01) Basically, that means that if there is some evidence that the hazardous substance will affect to the, I don't know, cancer, increase rate or persistent pollutant in the environment, then there is like a proportionate measure that we don't need to allow this hazard based substance in the feed and food. (4:26) And for United States, there's different approach, for example, which is risk based approach, which is basically balance the risk and try to minimize it.
(4:36) So the first case that we will analyze is effect of change of pesticides, MRLs in European Union and that how it affected the Ecuador and Costa Rica exports of bananas. (4:52) They primarily cultivate the Cavendish banana and for that they use various pesticides, of course. (5:01) So this one, the list that basically was affected by the recent European Union MRLs change.
(5:12) So you see the Codex MRL that wasn't like updated as much, US MRL. (5:21) And then you see the already updated European Union MRL and you see the dates when it happened. (5:29) That will help us basically to understand the next slides.
(5:36) For the industry structure, Costa Rica produces for domestic and for exports around 2.5 million tons per year and Ecuador produce 8 million per year also for domestic and for export. (5:53) Costa Rica, they have around 50 percent independent growth, small like small scale farms. (6:00) And another 50 percent is like farms that owned by international companies, major ones.
(6:07) And basically 80 percent of all the production farms, they originate from farms that exceeds 250 acres. (6:15) The production is vertically integrated and they don't have like a segmentation of the market. (6:21) But in terms of Ecuador, 95.6 percent of total production comes from small whole small scale farmers or like medium producers, like small scale up to 30 hectares and small and medium producers up to 100 hectares. (6:39) And they, of course, sell to the also national international companies like in the Costa Rica case as well. (6:50) So first of all, we wanted to see the rejection from the borders. (6:56) But apparently there is like European Union has this site, which is rapid alert system for food and heat.
(7:07) And they alert all the members of the European Union about the different hazards that they like found out in the borders. (7:18) But the check of the shipments are not like they do not check every shipment. (7:25) They do it like randomly.
(7:27) But of course, if there is a previous risks associated with the country or the product, they will do it more frequently. (7:36) So here we see that from January 2020 to September 24, there was 25 notifications related to Ecuador and to banana specifically. (7:49) So different pesticides, different hazards levels or risks levels.
(7:56) And yeah, but still there's like significant number of notifications that this product and the country received. (8:06) And next, we will see the market share obtained from the Atlas of Economic Complexity, Harvard University. (8:16) So from 2013 to 2022, the market share of Ecuador and Costa Rica, basically in 2017, there was still like old residue levels, but there was already like some talks in European Union that they will make it stricter.
(8:33) And in 2018 and 2019, there was like a drop. (8:39) In 2018, there was first residue level that came in place, actually. (8:45) So we see that there is a drop in the market shares that might be affected by this.
(8:52) Of course, there is like in our data that we present here, we cannot like 100% say that this is like come from a residue change, because there might be some different aspects. (9:06) And I will illustrate it further in next slide, basically. (9:11) And I'm sorry that this is a different scale and different color scheme for countries.
(9:17) It would be hard maybe to understand. (9:18) So basically what I wanted to share. (9:23) So here is 2017 for Costa Rica, and they have European Union drop in the exports shares.
(9:31) This is a percentage. (9:33) This is not like so. (9:35) And then they suddenly reverted it to United States.
(9:39) So basically what happened, there is a number of factors. (9:43) First of all, European Union have the trade agreements with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that allowed them to export more bananas and other products. (9:57) So there was increased competition from other countries with Costa Rica.
(10:01) Then also due to the exchange rates, Costa Rican bananas, they were rated in US dollars. (10:10) And due to exchange rates in European Union, there was less competitive than the other, for example, African, Caribbean or Pacific countries. (10:22) And yeah, there was not like a morale change at this specific date.
(10:26) But then if we see 2019, for example, they started to implement something. (10:35) So it's growing steadily. (10:37) So it was not as high as before, but it was growing steadily.
(10:42) Costa Rica, according to what I studied, they started to implement and phase out the pesticides and try to do something. (10:52) But if we turn to Ecuador, so this is the European Union, the orange one now, and this is the United States now, they changed. (11:08) So in 2019, the year when the first pesticide morale change happened, the European Union dropped from 2018 and then the United States started to grow and also other countries.
(11:30) And also we can see here's China also in 2019, they grow. (11:34) So this is like one of the effects on the trade. (11:39) And also we looked at the revealed comparative advantage that also was obtained from the Atlas of Economic Complexity.
(11:47) They use their Balazs definition and calculations. (11:51) So basically, we just gathered it in one chart, how the RCA changed across the same years that we looked for the Costa Rica and Ecuador. (12:04) So we see in 2019, there is a drop for Ecuador, for Costa Rica there is a drop yet, but they kind of grow a little, not as much.
(12:15) And also for Ecuador here is the effect of the Ukrainian war with Russia. (12:25) So the conclusion for this case is mostly like the main ones is that basically the industry difference between the Costa Rica and Ecuador, because Costa Rica has less farmers, they have more larger scale farms and then less smaller scale farmers. (12:47) And the cost of educating growers on the changes of the practices, you need to achieve compliance.
(12:53) They kind of was lower for the Costa Rica than the Ecuador. (12:58) And also Costa Rica has a better integrated pest management system and they have some other availability for alternative pesticides rather than Ecuador. (13:15) And also, it's kind of like one of the factors that might influence the speed of adoption of the safety standards and specifically MRL standards is the basically the scale of the farm in the country.
(13:31) So if it's smaller, there will be and there's like a larger number of small scale farmers, there will be like less, the transition will take time for the for the country, most probably.
Speaker 1
(13:45) OK, now we are coming to the role of harmonization and equivalence in easing trade. (13:53) So the SPS agreement facilitates trade by encouraging the harmonization of sanitary and phytosanitary measures with the international standards from the Codex, the OIE and the IPPC. (14:11) So harmonization promotes global welfare if the benefits exceed switching costs or compliance costs.
(14:20) Alternatively, equivalence also allows countries to recognize each other's standards as achieving comparable protection level, removing trade barriers without requiring adjustment. (14:33) So this mechanism reduce trade barriers, enhance cooperation and support fair and efficient international trade. (14:41) One of the successful harmonization is the Sri Lanka cinnamon.
(14:48) But before I go further, I would like to explain a bit about cinnamon in global trade. (14:54) So there are two main cinnamon. (14:57) The first one is the saline cinnamon or pure cinnamon.
(15:00) And the second one is the cassia cinnamon. (15:04) And for the Sri Lanka case, we will focus more on saline cinnamon. (15:10) Yeah, because it's mainly grown in Sri Lanka.
(15:14) And has more trade values than other cinnamon. (15:20) In this graph, we can see the export quantity of cinnamon from Sri Lanka and Vietnam. (15:29) And this case, I use the data of, it's as code 90611, which is the saline cinnamon.
(15:42) So from this graph, we can see that Sri Lanka has higher export quantity than the Vietnam. (15:51) And in 2018, significant drop because there's no available data in that year. (15:57) I gathered the data from the UN Comtrade Plus.
(16:03) But despite that, from the blue dot line, we can see like the upward line, which show the export of cinnamon gradually increased throughout the years. (16:25) So this is like the comparison of the HS code 90611 and 90620. (16:40) As we can see from Sri Lanka case, the saline cinnamon has more value than the other cinnamon.
(16:49) And in this case, they dominate the share of export in Sri Lanka, which make saline cinnamon become important commodity of Sri Lanka. (17:06) But Sri Lanka faced challenge in 2006, sorry, 2004. (17:14) So in 2005 and 2006, Sri Lanka faced a de facto ban on cinnamon export to the European Union, particularly to Germany.
(17:28) Yeah, as we can see in the graph, I showed from the German import value of cinnamon. (17:34) In 2004 and 2005, there's a stagnant growth of cinnamon import. (17:48) And this is because of the concern of sulfur dioxide.
(17:53) So sulfur dioxide is basically used for fumigation and also bleaching the cinnamon sticks. (18:07) So it will look nicer. (18:10) But the problem is European Union has old listed product of sulfur dioxide, which excluded cinnamon.
(18:22) That's why they kind of banned, not really banned, because we cannot ban the cinnamon export from Sri Lanka. (18:33) But in 2006, Sri Lanka raised this issue to the Codex to initiate the MRL standard of sulfur dioxide in cinnamon process. (18:50) Yeah, and in 2006, Codex established an international standard setting the minimum SO2 residue level of 150, which helped also import of cinnamon from Sri Lanka in 2016 increase.
(19:21) Yeah, and then at the end, at the 2010, European Union adopted this Codex standard. (19:33) So this is the overall European Union import volume of cinnamon throughout the years between Sri Lanka and Vietnam. (19:45) Yes, I want to show that Sri Lanka is one of the most important trading partner of cinnamon, which we can see, Sri Lanka has higher trade volume than Vietnam in this case.
(20:08) Yeah, but it's still also fluctuation, which also show that the fluctuates, sorry, the fluctuation of trade not only influenced by MRL standards, but also other factors. (20:34) So like MRL standard is not the only reason of the fluctuation. (20:43) But if we look at the comparative advantage, Sri Lanka has higher index score than other countries.
(20:53) And especially after the period of Codex established of MRL standards in 2009 and 2012, Sri Lanka decreased, sorry, increased the index score into 6.30 and then keep increasing afterwards. (21:16) And this is another score index, which is the additive, additive refilled comparative advantage, which also show consistent result in Sri Lanka, where Sri Lanka is the dominant, the most competitive cinnamon exporter in the world market. (21:44) And in addition, for information, in 2022, Sri Lanka also received the PGI, which is Protected Geographical Indication for their cinnamon, which is Ceylon cinnamon.
(22:07) And another case, successful case is Honduras melon, where the trade impacts of the adaptation of the Codex Guardian's document for Honduran melon exports are illustrated for cantaloupe and honeydew and watermelon export to Honduras. (22:26) Three largest trading partners, which is U.S., Canada and European Union. (22:33) But before 2015, Honduras was relatively small player in the U.S. market for melon. (22:42) But however, in 2016, three years after 2012, adaptation of the Codex guidelines, Honduras export increased from 49.73% to 65.92%. So this is because of the adaptation of Codex guidelines on Honduran melon export. (23:25) So if you look at those study case, there are implications for trade and competitiveness. (23:34) First, the barriers for exporters.
(23:38) So stricter MRL standards force exporters to adapt production practices, conduct agnostic testing and segregate crops for different markets. (23:50) And there is also winner and loser in global trade, where larger exporters absorb compliance costs, access premium market and maintain competitiveness. (24:00) Meanwhile, the smaller producers struggle with higher compliance costs and diverse market requirements.
(24:08) So to ensure that country views are taken into consideration when developing food safety standards, it is important that countries participate actively in the work of Codex and express any difficulties in meeting the standard. (24:23) It happens with Sri Lanka, where they reported the difficulties to meet European Union standards. (24:32) And it is also important for countries to submit data when scientific evaluations are being carried out to ensure that their situations are correctly reflected.
(24:43) Furthermore, countries need to harmonize their standards with international standards. (24:47) And in case of specific national conditions that justify a more stringent requirement, this should have a clear scientific justification with the risk assessment carried out, which needs to be documented. (25:04) And the last, it is important to avoid the duplication.
(25:10) It is important to eliminate conflicting standards from multiple authorities to prevent confusion and facilitate trade agreement. (25:21) And to enhance the trade through recognition agreement, there is significance of recognition agreement that countries can do. (25:35) First, establish the partnership with key trade partners, use MOU, certificates and recognition agreements to streamline pre-product controls, and national and international collaboration with national level, coordinate across ministries to ensure food safety and quality before product release, and at the international level, work with overseas governments to ensure compliance.
(26:07) We also found the challenge in developing countries. (26:10) Most of our studies are from developing countries. (26:14) The first is the burden in efficiencies, multiple agency duplicating tests or uncoordinated clearance, risk of non-compliant goods entering due to weak inter-agency coordination.
(26:30) And the second is the need for a streamlined system. (26:35) First, implement a single window system for better efficiency. (26:39) Second, define clear roles and protocols through formal agreements.
(26:44) And our conclusion, first, adaptation and long-term benefit despite initial challenges. (26:52) First, the government often adapts to importing market standards over time, leading to higher productivity and quality with standards acting as catalysts for long-term growth and competitiveness. (27:05) And second, harmonization with international standards.
(27:08) When importing market standards align with international benchmarks, such as ISO or IEC, the negative impact on developing countries' export is reduced or even reversed. (27:25) And the third, trade facilitation through standards. (27:31) In some sectors, standards promote trade by reducing information asymmetries between producer and consumer and credibly signaling product quality.
(27:43) So that's the end of our presentation. (27:47) Thank you very much for your attention.
Speaker 4
(27:53) Do you have to go at 4 o'clock?
Speaker 3
(27:56) I should, but I need to stay.
Speaker 4
(27:58) I just saw your first book.
Speaker 3
(28:00) No, but I will stay.
Speaker 4
(28:01) Okay.
Speaker 3
(28:03) But anyway, no, I think you guys should go first. (28:10) No. (28:11) No, I cannot leave before.
(28:13) Before it's done. (28:14) Before the closing session. (28:17) So we all have to go first.
(28:18) Okay. (28:21) Nobody has a question? (28:27) I was just wondering.
(28:29) First of all, thank you. (28:30) And also, if I did see that correct, a lot of slides that you created yourselves again. (28:37) It was not always easy to see.
(28:39) I could not always really I needed to look at my at my computer in between. (28:45) But I was wondering, in your presentation, you used three different competitive indicators. (28:52) You started with one and then in your presentation there were another two.
(29:02) Maybe you could explain why you did use different ones. (29:06) Maybe you could also explain to us how you interpret the indicators because here you use the NRCA. (29:15) I think it's differently defined than what we used in class.
(29:21) So why you might have taken probably you took sort of a final focus on how it was in your presentation.
(20:17) Who is the... (20:21) Hm?
Speaker 8
(20:27) Who is the MRL? (20:31) Okay.
Speaker 6
(20:49) Okay. (20:50) We can click, right?
Speaker 8
(20:55) No, no, no, no, no!
Speaker 2
(20:58) Okay, we click from here. (21:00) Yes. (21:04) I'm sorry.
(21:06) So yeah, this is Lee. (21:08) And I just wanted to probably explain what we want to look at. (21:13) Can we forget something what we already researched?
(21:16) Or, like, explain more about our approach?
Speaker 1
(21:20) Perhaps, if it is short, then perhaps.
Speaker 2
(21:23) Yeah.
Speaker 1
(21:24) Yes, just to see what I wrote here. (21:29) I don't know exactly where I should go to. (21:32) Yeah.
Speaker 2
(21:33) Sorry, we, in our proposal, we didn't exactly explain what, how we want to assess the input of European MRLs to global market, right? (21:48) I mean, European Union and Mercosur market. (21:52) So, yeah, basically, we will do mostly secondary research, meaning that we will assess data and information from reports, articles, policies, and what we found.
(22:10) The list of literature that you see is not specifically final. (22:15) It's just overall that we found so far. (22:20) And yeah, what we want to specifically see is the assessment of compliance costs and farming practices.
(22:31) How this changed, basically, for European market, for farmers there, and for Mercosur markets. (22:40) And then, yeah, as the trade volume changes. (22:46) So, this is two factors that we are interested.
(22:49) And, basically, also, what we why we wanted to do this topic because of the European Union and Mercosur free trade agreement that is currently discussed and debated. (23:05) And why we also wanted is, initially, we were thinking about non-trade barriers, right, and how they impact the developing countries. (23:17) And we discussed deforestation, but we understood that deforestation was kind of a new topic, very new, there is not as much data.
(23:25) So, we switched to SPS stuff, and we wanted to understand the difference between MRLs of, like, globally for Codex, right, and the other, the European Union. (23:44) Like, there is a difference. (23:45) And there's a variance of MRLs across the world, basically, right?
(23:49) So, there is, mainly, because of the difference, the difference is because of the approach. (23:57) MRLs in European Union, they are mostly hazard-based approach, and the other one is risk-based approach. (24:04) That's what was we found, and Deborah can explain more on the specifics that we found.
Speaker 6
(24:14) We found study, for example, the impact to the farmers, specifically in the European Union, and it caused loss in specific commodities, like wheat, potatoes, and fine, which also impact to the competitiveness of European Union commodities to global market. (24:41) And we also found, that's for the European Union market, and we also found, oh, sorry, yes, this MRLs between Mercosur and European Union, and the study stated that different MRLs from there can have, say, trade barriers between countries. (25:10) This is interesting finding.
(25:14) They also found about the confidence of... (25:23) ... (25:26) ...
Speaker 1
(25:29) ... (25:35) ... (25:36) ...
(25:36) ... (25:36) ... (25:37) ...
(25:38) MRL. (25:42) This is about the different application methods on residues. (25:47) And this has not really direct impact on the trade, so they say, c'mon, what happens if you do it in hand, if you do that computer, or whatever it is, on the residues.
(25:59) So this is not really trading maximum, so this is to avoid residues. (26:04) The second paper that you have Glyphosate ban will have economic impacts on European agriculture. (26:10) This is compliance costs but this is not directly, has not directly something to do with international trade.
(26:17) It may have to do with international trade if it changes the competitiveness. (26:21) So if the ban of Glyphosate here makes it more expensive than to produce in other countries and then impacts the exports of the EU. (26:33) But we still don't have a Glyphosate ban until now so you cannot do that empirically.
(26:41) The free trade agreement, its impact on agriculture is the EU-Mezuco free trade agreement. (26:48) This is more a general thing and this should have something to do not so much with MRLs but it should have to do with tariffs and especially with preferential access to the EU markets. (27:02) And then the next paper again is about the consequences of a ban.
(27:10) What could be, and this paper that you cite here, this has to do with private standards. (27:20) You know that the international level is defined by the Codex Alimentarius and the EU is not allowed to make any ban if a product is in line with the Codex Alimentarius.
Speaker 9
(27:35) If there is scientific evidence it can.
Speaker 1
(27:38) It can but then it has to face the retortion measures.
Speaker 3
(27:45) If there is scientific evidence it can.
Speaker 1
(27:48) Yeah but there is nothing, there is nothing like that. (27:51) So we don't have any scientific evidence obviously and there is no case at the WTO level. (27:58) So normally the level is the Codex Alimentarius.
(28:02) But the private companies, they have totally different standards. (28:08) And it could be that this paper addresses the private standards. (28:15) And then it might have an impact.
(28:17) So the private standards do not just refer to maximum residue levels but they refer to documentation and transparency and all those things. (28:32) And this makes it very difficult for developing countries to get access to the market here. (28:39) Because even if the products are in line with the Codex Alimentarius maximum level, the EU cannot forbid the import.
(28:49) But companies don't have to do that. (28:53) And I suppose I told you that the German companies have, that they accept the maximum residue level that is far below the legal standard. (29:05) So much, much less.
(29:07) And the standard is much higher. (29:09) So this could be that this paper addresses that. (29:12) Does it?
(29:13) Do we have a female? (29:17) That you have to string the standards back to the current countries?
Speaker 2
(29:20) Not, I think, specifically enough.
Speaker 6
(29:58) Thank you.
Exporting countries
EU deforestation regulation as NTB
→ coffee affected?
→ difficulties for following the regulations
→ capacity to follow → impact on deforestation
change the trade flows
Palm Oil ↓ cause of Bio regulations
coffee
EU deforestation regulation not a NTB guite (?guide?)
So we import soybean from US
→ oil
→ meal
German scientific advistory board
→ deforestation regulation
(development impact to developing countries)
Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Beim BMEL
second round topic propose again our topic
create a story
Speaker 1
(0:00) So there is no way to put it more preferential for Ghana or for the, for other countries. (0:08) So this is why, I suppose, I'm pretty sure that there is no, I looked it up, I do not know exactly whether I got it right, but there is no tariff on cocoa anyhow. (0:22) I know that in the partnership agreement, the Ghana preferential assess for agricultural products that have a tariff, and I can tell you.
(0:34) In the partnership agreements, they either reduce the tariff or they give certain cocoa. (0:39) But this is not for cocoa. (0:43) The second is, I think very much, I suppose not, because this is something that we can't do.
(0:53) The other thing is, when you look at the quality standards, the, I suppose, as far, and what you should have learned, that the public standard should be defined by the codex of the companies. (1:06) So the only thing that you can refer to is the private standards. (1:09) And it could be that the private standards are different, are higher than the public standards, and this could have an impact on the trade flows.
(1:19) It's, I suppose, difficult to identify. (1:23) And then, do we have any idea, so this is the subsidies research influence, are there any projects that really address the sustainability things in Ghana and in the Ivory Coast? (1:44) If you address that Horizon 2020 program, the first thing is, are there some projects that are really dealing with that?
(1:53) And the second thing is, do they already have an impact on the overall production? (2:04) So normally you have that research project, the research project goes, I don't know, research projects in the 2026, I see.
Speaker 9
(2:20) So projects are what I need to think about.
Speaker 1
(2:22) Yes, so how long will they last?
Speaker 9
(2:25) 2026, I see.
Speaker 1
(2:26) 2026, and so they are just in that infant phase, but they should not have any, maybe that they have no impact on the overall production. (2:43) So, it could be that it's very poor what you can do with it. (2:49) It's not if you do that with private standards.
(2:53) It could be that there is some literature about private standards. (2:57) First of all, you have to verify whether it is true what I say. (3:02) That's the first thing.
(3:02) And then private standards, it could be that there is a difference, that it has an impact on the organization of the value chains. (3:13) It could be that, as far as I know, that they are not able to really separate all the Kokoa value chains, but they have to do that by book and claim. (3:30) Those things you could address and whether this really has an impact on the trade flows should be difficult if you just have the two exporting countries to allocate that to those effects.
(3:47) There are so many other effects. (3:49) So, yeah, it seems that you should adjust it. (4:01) I'm not sure whether you have something with private standards.
(4:06) Of course, we can first describe how the value chains work and that there is, as far as I know, there are some big companies that collect the Kokoa beans and that they refuse to segregate the volumes and all those things. (4:24) And then, in spite of that, it might have an impact on fair trade or duty. (4:31) Duty is there, I suppose.
(4:33) It's the other thing that...
Speaker 8
(4:37) Yes.
Speaker 1
(4:50) Any additional comments from your side? (4:58) Okay.
Speaker 8
(5:00) I have an additional question.
Speaker 7
(5:14) So, when you talk about empirical papers, which we could base our presentations on, are we only limited to ones that show clear quasi-intimidation shifts?
Speaker 1
(5:28) If you want to do that, if you have your research and you want to know how private standards influence, then, of course, it has to be somehow empirical cause and effect. (5:44) But the problem is that often you cannot isolate the effect or the cause exactly. (5:51) This is true.
(5:52) If you have some papers that do that, at least you can say they state that this is the cause and effect, but it's not that clear. (6:02) So, they try to do that, but they cannot really allocate the effect to the cause. (6:10) Okay.
Speaker 3
(6:11) So, I do think there's a low-lettering on Kokoa. (6:15) I see that very well. (6:17) It's really small.
(6:19) I think it's below 10 percent. (6:21) So, it's... (6:22) For those which I like, it's a...
Speaker 7
(6:26) Can you make sure it's 10 percent? (6:28) Less than 10 percent. (6:30) That's what I'm finding right now.
Speaker 3
(6:34) Below 9 percent. (6:36) So, it's a maximum. (6:38) Processed Kokoa is 9 percent.
Speaker 1
(6:41) So, you have to look at... (6:43) You know that from the... (6:45) You know that harmonized system.
(6:48) And there is a database from the EU. (6:51) A way you can look at the current tariffs. (6:55) So, you have to look at the numbers.
(6:56) It's 1800, I suppose, the age. (7:00) As number and stock is 1800. (7:04) And then you have the six digits that may refer to the processing level.
(7:09) And it could be that there is a... (7:15) We call that tariff escalation. (7:18) That it's part of tariff escalation.
(7:20) This leads to the fact that it is more profitable to export the Kokoa beans instead of the processed product. (7:30) Because for the companies, it is cheaper for the German and European countries to import the beans. (7:37) And it could be that there is a tariff escalation.
(7:40) I just looked at the Kokoa beans. (7:43) If there is a tariff escalation, that there is some preferences in the EPRs for the other coasts in Ghana regarding these tariffs. (7:57) So, you really have to look at the tariff structure.
(8:00) And you have to look at the annexes of the European partnership agreements. (8:06) I once told you there are hundreds of pages. (8:09) But you have to search for the 1800.
(8:16) And then you find in the annexes the exact routes for Kokoa and Kokoa products. (8:23) Whether there is something different from the MFN.
Speaker 3
(8:26) But the general question for me also when I was reading through that, there are so many different things you want to look at. (8:33) I think that also refers a little bit to what you have mentioned. (8:37) I mean to look at the tariffs on the one hand.
(8:41) To look at quality standards. (8:42) So, maybe it would be also a good thing to focus on one of those things. (8:49) I think we have already had enough to do.
(8:52) Because I think especially in Krakow, there are also social standards. (8:57) Not governmental, but as Mr. Ziegler said, private standards. (9:04) So, maybe it adds to focus a little bit.
(9:08) It's just a little project. (9:10) It's not a big master's thesis or even more.
Speaker 1
(9:14) This is especially true for the last point that you have global trade unification. (9:19) Middleweight health policies influence trade patterns, trials and sustainability efforts globally. (9:26) It's a fact.
(9:29) It's a fact. (9:30) I definitely think that's a master's thesis. (9:33) Yes.
(9:34) I'm going to do a PhD thing out of that. (9:37) Okay. (9:37) Thank you.
(9:38) Thank you.
Speaker 3
(9:54) Set up. (10:16) Did you also send something? (10:19) Okay.
(10:20) So, this is for Dr. Werner. (10:22) Okay.
Speaker 5
(10:30) We are presenting on the impact of organic farming on the EU markets. (10:39) So, we realize that organic farming has been a support to the EU. (10:45) And we just want to see the dynamics in the EU.
(10:49) So, we first want to examine the effect of organic farming on the environment. (10:57) And we want to also investigate the socio-economic barriers to organic farming adoption in the EU. (11:07) And probably also to evaluate consumer preferences and market trends influencing the growth of organic farming in the EU.
(11:16) And we also look at some scholarly definitions about organic farming. (11:26) But that one I have not added to that one. (11:29) It's just a place where I've added to it.
(11:31) Some definitions of organic farming by some scholars. (11:36) We look at the underlying literature. (11:40) So, here we review some empirical work here.
(11:46) The growth and market trends in organic farming. (11:50) So, according to Wheeler and Leonard, 2019. (11:56) They say organic farming sector in the EU has...
(11:59) You should not read what I'm talking about. (12:01) Okay.
Speaker 4
(12:01) So, let me just briefly state some points. (12:05) So, we are seeing effects from the point of view of market. (12:09) From consumers and from environment.
(12:13) So, we are taking these three factors. (12:16) And we will be having a data which will show the growth of organic agriculture land. (12:27) And some policies which EU has implemented for its organic food production.
(12:38) And then we are also focusing on consumer behavior. (12:42) That how consumers are behaving. (12:43) So, this is the percentage of people who consume organic food.
(12:51) We are seeing that they are just the younger generation. (12:54) With the high disposable income. (12:56) They are consuming more of the organic goods.
(12:59) And we are also seeing that economically organic goods are more expensive. (13:06) But it has a low yield. (13:09) They are contributing a very good percentage for the economy.
(13:16) And, yes, basically, we will be using some data sources.
Speaker 1
(13:24) Yes. (13:31) In general, we have a very comprehensive view. (13:37) Consumers have various things.
(13:42) But what is missing is the match to the global food markets. (13:47) So, this is the problem with that presentation. (13:52) In your proposal, you describe which kind of consumers do that.
(13:58) But this is contrary to the global market. (14:01) This is not interesting. (14:02) You could perhaps look at the overall growth in the world of organic farming.
(14:07) You could look at trade flows or those things. (14:11) But this is not the effect of organic farming on the environment. (14:20) Nobody knows that.
(14:22) A lot of people state that it is positive. (14:25) But if you need more land, perhaps it is not sustainable. (14:29) If you need more feed for the animals, perhaps it is not sustainable.
(14:33) Or, at least, it is a lack of sustainability or disadvantages compared to conventional farming. (14:41) But this is not of interest in our course here.
Speaker 4
(14:47) You could use global markets.
Speaker 1
(14:49) Yes.
Speaker 4
(14:50) You could use global markets.
Speaker 1
(14:52) With respect to what?
Speaker 3
(14:56) Organic. (14:57) Yes. (14:57) There is not a lot of literature.
(15:00) I was checking a bit. (15:04) But certainly, if you could link organic to the global market in some way, that could be an option. (15:11) But right now, it is not.
Speaker 1
(15:14) But it should be more than just describing the volumes. (15:19) It could be that this organization from Switzerland has some data about the global organic markets. (15:30) There is a study on the world of organic agriculture.
Speaker 3
(15:36) But again, FEEBL is one of the authors. (15:40) Yes. (15:40) That is a relative level of trade.
(15:45) So, one needs to find enough stuff. (15:48) There are little statistics on organic. (15:52) It is so difficult to separate that.
(15:55) So, it is often not really shown in the global food statistics. (16:01) So, as you know, you probably don't then find data to trade. (16:05) So, the topic is interesting.
(16:07) You might have really difficulties to find data for that. (16:14) That would be our worry. (16:16) So, what you are planning to do by itself would be interesting, but not really fitting.
Speaker 1
(16:23) What could be interesting, but I don't know whether you dare dealing with that. (16:29) You know that we have the EU regulation regarding organic farming. (16:34) And there is just one definition.
(16:35) That is organic. (16:37) Changes over time. (16:39) But we have our standards here in the EU.
(16:42) And if you have that standard, you can grow a product. (16:46) And we have equivalence agreements with other countries. (16:50) So, what is organic in the US can be sold here, even though the standards are different.
(16:56) And perhaps if you dare. (17:00) I am not sure whether it is too difficult. (17:02) But if you could look at that, what is the role of equivalence agreement in order to facilitate trade.
(17:10) This could be interesting. (17:11) And what is the difference between. (17:13) I know that this is a difficult one.
Speaker 4
(17:16) Quality standards are you talking about?
Speaker 1
(17:18) And production standards. (17:20) Processing standards. (17:21) You know, organic has as a rule no product standards.
(17:28) But just process standards. (17:31) And some things that are allowed in the US are not allowed here. (17:35) But they have agreed on equivalence.
(17:38) And some products are excluded from this equivalence. (17:43) So this could be, or it should be with China. (17:46) Whether they have equivalence agreements.
(17:49) Because a lot of ginger comes from, I think all the ginger comes from China. (17:54) Yes, and perhaps control of those things. (18:00) How they control the value.
(18:03) This could be interesting. (18:05) But I am not sure whether you have enough. (18:11) For me it is not so difficult a topic.
(18:13) But perhaps it is for you. (18:15) Because I am older than you. (18:16) So do you want to start with meat?
Speaker 2
(18:19) Yes. (18:21) Because GM, they use GM, genetically modified meat.
Speaker 3
(18:27) What? (18:29) Because in European Union they produce a lot of meat also. (18:34) Ah.
(18:35) Just a lot of meat and exports.
Speaker 2
(18:40) But still, this report still says that there is a lot of pesticides in use still. (18:50) So there is still not full harmonization. (18:55) At least not okay for free trade agreement.
Speaker 1
(19:00) So we come to presentation. (19:02) Hey, all of you are happy now. (19:06) Dancing on the floor.
(19:09) Like they see. (19:23) Ok. (19:43) This is the PPT version, right?
(19:49) I gave it to him. (20:03) I know. (20:07) Yes.
(20:07) We don't actually have to worry about that. (20:11) I have a question. (20:15) Okay.
Guidelines. Academic writing
4. writingeconomics copy.pdf
161.4 kB
1. guidelines_academic_papers_ilr_2018_06.pdf
176.2 kB
2. Template_Academic_Papers_ILR_2018_06 copy.docx
744.5 kB
Template SNUT PPT (1).pdf
384.5 kB
Don’t know where to start exploring that new topic? I gotcha ✨ Try this 4 step workflow to get started 🫶
Like, save&share this with your friend
1) look into your topic, start with: google scholar, library search & elicit;
2) connect & map the literature: research rabbit, connected papers and Litmaps;
3) investigate & chat with your papers: askPDF, SciSummary, Humata
4) for writing, editing and referencing try: Yomu (NAYNAY30 for 30% off) and Zotero
Visualizing my research just got so much easier with illustrae.co
Actually, the biggest myth is that lit reviews are boring and tedious. You can get super creative with them and it’s the challenge of writing an interesting review that makes the work fun.
Also, it’s been a hot minute since I’ve been on here. Life’s been a bit… crazy. Experiencing some massive changes. But anyway that’s for a different time lol
Here is the extracted text from your images:
Image 1 (photo_1_2025-09-20_23-04-31.jpg):
Lit Review Myths You Should Stop Believing
Image 2 (photo_2_2025-09-20_23-04-31.jpg):
Myth: “A lit review is just a summary of studies.”
Summaries are important for lit reviews, yes. But they are your raw material, not the finished product. They need to be processed and put into conversation with each other to generate insights and make inferences.
Image 3 (photo_3_2025-09-20_23-04-31.jpg):
Myth: “The purpose of a lit review is to find the research gap.”
A good lit review does not just point out what’s missing. It builds narrative, frames debates, and constructs an argument.
Image 4 (photo_4_2025-09-20_23-04-31.jpg):
Myth: “Only sources less than 10 years old are worth including in your review.”
Older work can and do carry foundational ideas. And besides, relevance >>> recency. Good ideas don’t have expiry dates.
Image 5 (photo_5_2025-09-20_23-04-31.jpg):
Myth: “There is only one right way to structure a lit review.”
Thematic, methodological, chronological – these are tools, not templates. The structure of your lit review should serve you, not the other way around.
Image 6 (photo_6_2025-09-20_23-04-31.jpg):
Myth: “You have to include everything ever written on your topic.”
Your lit review is not meant to act as an encyclopaedia. Be selective about what you include: relevance matters more than exhaustiveness.
Image 7 (photo_7_2025-09-20_23-04-31.jpg):
Myth: “The lit review comes before the research.”
Lit reviews evolve with your project. You rewrite it as your question changes.
Over time, academia has aligned itself more closely with the logics of the market: competition, financialisation, efficiency, performance metrics. It is now an institution that serves the capitalist system, adopting the neoliberal rationalities that underpin it.
If you’re thinking, ‘how does academia serve capitalism?’, let me explain in 4 points.
1st, think about what role universities have undertaken. They train students to serve businesses and industries, producing graduates as value-providers for the current economy as it stands. 2nd, research funding follows similar patterns: work that cannot generate financial return, especially in the arts, humanities, and much of the social sciences, receives less support. Many people avoid certain disciplines entirely, not because they lack interest, but because they cannot make a living there.
3rd, the knowledge we produce is also commodified. Academic publishing giants lock research behind paywalls, selling it back to the very institutions that produce it. Not long ago, Wiley sold a vast archive of research to AI companies for a substantial sum. It all feeds the same system. And finally, universities themselves operate increasingly like businesses: students as “customers” & education as a product.
All this being said, the capitalist character of academia does not mean all academics share capitalist values. Many resist and despise the system they work within, even as they participate in it. These contradictions are not only a fact of academic life, they are a fact of the human condition.
For many, there is no alternative: academia remains, historically and traditionally, the only formal institution that supports the sustained pursuit of knowledge, education, and learning. This is why critiques of academia so often come from academics themselves.
Yet many also shy away from such critiques. Some enjoy the privileges of wealthy institutions, rarely encountering the system’s harsher conditions. Others hold to an idealised vision of academia as a sanctuary because to see it otherwise would make the work unbearable.
[continued in comments]
Continuation of caption:
But I would ask: do you wish to preserve academia only for yourself — safe in your privilege — or do you wish to create an academia that is truly conducive to all who seek to learn and know?
To critique academia is not to destroy it but to care for it, preserve what works, rebuild what doesn’t, & imagine otherwise.
This post (and caption) was inspired by a recent essay I co-authored called ‘The Scholar Manifesto’ for The Scholarly Letter. If you want to read it, the link is in my bio.
It’s strange how rarely we talk about talking when it comes to scholarly work. We talk about writing, yes. We deeply value reading, of course. Even “thinking” gets its fair share of reverence. But we seem to forget that conversations - not just ones in journal articles and books - are crucial for identifying which ideas are worth looking into and, ultimately, researching.
And yet, some of the most generative moments in research begin in dialogue: an idea spoken out loud before it’s fully formed, a question that has far more value in its asking than in its answer, and even those pauses and hesitations that gesture toward something not yet said.
‘Thinking in the open’, as my PhD supervisor once put it, means letting go of the need to be polished or certain. It means sharing half-formed thoughts, inviting feedback, and listening closely. It is by paying attention to those ‘in-between’ moments that we can find the beginning of new ideas.
I’ve always been ‘that’ person who asks for permission to record meetings first thing. Even now, when my co-author and I brianstorm for The Scholarly Letter, we always record our conversations. So discovering the PlaudNote Pin - which is a wearable notetaker - has been exciting. It’s a thoughtful way to revisit conversations, reflect on and explore them by asking suggestions from Plaud, and build on the ideas that emerge in real time. I think the biggest advantage for me is that I also just get to be fully ‘present’ in the conversation because I know that I’ll be able to return to the details later and dig deeper.
If you’re curious to try it too, Plaud has shared a discount code with me – PDM20 – which I’m passing on.
I recently read A Scholar’s Quest by James G. March, and it reminded me why we learn, think, and research in the first place.
The essay came to me at the right time, especially as my own relationship with the university has felt a little uncertain since finishing my PhD.
March’s vision of the university as a temple dedicated to knowledge and human spirit of inquiry, instead of a market, resonated deeply.
While it felt familiar, it also felt a bit lost, and so, worth recovering.
The spoken words in this video are drawn directly from his essay. I hope they move you as they did me and that they remind you, too, of the deeper spirit behind the scholarly places that our universities are supposed to be.
.
Virginia Woolf’s essay ‘How Should One Read a Book?’ actually starts with a declaration: that it is an interrogation, not a definitive answer.
She writes that while an answer on the ‘right’ way to read might be possible, it’s likely misguided, as what works for one reader might not for another. Accordingly, the only advice one can give another about reading is:
“Take no advice, to follow your own instincts, to use your own reason, to come to your own conclusions.”
It is only after recognizing the importance of ‘independence’ in reading that the individual might indulge in taking onboard ideas and suggestions for how they could read. And it is in this vein that Woolf offers the above thoughts on how one ‘might’ read.
P.S. while her essay is titled, ‘How Should One Read Book’, there is no reason why her thoughts cannot be applied to the reading of any text or literature which is not just a book.
I recently watched a couple of interviews with Noam Chomsky where he talks about education and being educated and they were some of the most inspiring things I’ve seen in a while.
It’s become so common to think of education as a transaction: you exchange time and money for a degree, which you then trade for a job. More broadly, it’s also become framed as a GDP booster, something that props up governments, markets, and economies. But in all of this, the meaning of being educated often gets lost.
Chomsky, drawing on Wilhelm von Humboldt (the founder of the modern higher education system) offers a different view. He says that the core requirement of a fulfilled human being is the ability to inquire and create constructively, independently, and without external control. That, he argues, is what education is meant to cultivate: intellectual freedom and creative autonomy.
It’s a view which really resonated with me. Because it reminds us that true education isn’t about institutions or degrees. You can hold a piece paper which is your degree certificate and still not be educated. The real point is the ability to ask your own questions, follow your own inquiries, and form your own path.
And perhaps that’s the relationship we need to focus on more: not between education and the economy, but between education and inquiry. Between education and creativity. Between education and the freedom to think, to question.
How to find a gap is the wrong question. Most of the time pre-existing gaps just waiting to be filled don’t exist, which is why it’s hard to “find” them.
To ‘create’ a research gap that your research can fill, here’s what you can do:
1. Once you broadly know what you’re interested in researching, do some broad reading of the literature around your interest. Don’t go in-depth. Focus on understanding the broad theoretical/conceptual perspectives of relevant existing research.
2. Next, examine what each of these various approaches are saying about your area of interest. What you need to look for is how these different understandings approach your research interest.
3. Develop a critique using the different approaches you’ve come across for evaluating what each of these approaches do and don’t for understanding the topic. Don’t say “this is good” or “this is bad”, but rather how do these approaches allow us to understand the topic. At this stage, you can start looking at methods and findings.
4. As you evaluate these approaches, you should then try to figure out how component parts work together. Justify integrating some of these approaches, put different elements (theory/methods) together to form a new coherent or functional whole. Reorganize elements into a new pattern or structure. Justify your proposed structure by developing your arguments from your understanding of the literature.
Make sure that you accompany these steps with writing. You will find that you’ve created research gaps as you go over your own critical notes!
pt.4 of why your lit review sucks
It’s overwhelming to realise how much research may be published on your topic. There is a lot you could engage with, but this is a gentle reminder that you don’t have to include everything ever written (because that’s not what a lit review is).
It all comes down to the purpose of your literature review and the specific argument you are making: all the literature that gets a mention in your final review should be relevant to the objective of the lit review.
pt.5 of why your lit review sucks:
Being critical is not the same as saying “the paper does X well but Y badly”, it’s about examining why the authors have made the arguments the way they did.
Relying too much on your own assumptions or already existing position when reading (i.e. what you expect) can lead to dogmatic rejection of previous work. Conversely, allowing your understanding to be shaped or challenged too easily (i.e. what you accept) can lead to unquestioning acceptance. This is why finding a balance between what you expect vs what you accept is so important.
This is the last part of this series. But this is not to say that there are only 5 parts to doing a good literature review.
While an endless listicle of what makes a good literature review can be spun out, I think sometimes it is just best to figure things out for yourself rather than getting lost in things you ‘should’ do.
Just do it, and try to have some fun along the way :)
Developing research topics becomes a lot simpler once you start visualizing the ideas and concepts you come across in literature.
For me personally, just reading page after page of literature and making only textual notes feels very one-dimensional. This is why I prefer to work with ‘visual’ representations of the things that I read – drawing, sketching, and actually physically making connections.
is a great software which can help with visualizing your research. I only talked about the mind-mapping capabilities it has but there are so many other cool ways that you can use it to visualize your research. It’s got all sorts of other diagram and chart drawing capabilities. You can even use it to draw charts, graphical abstracts, and figures. Highly recommended because of its versatility
You can check out EdrawMaxx by heading to the link in my bio ~ad~
There are some resources which just do not get the credit that they deserve.
Recent PhD Theses:
It’s impossible to fit all that one reads during their PhD into a single thesis document but that doesn’t stop many from trying. PhD theses are incredibly detailed, and they will generally discuss the overall topic from many different angles - so you are bound to get some inspiration for your own research topic. The author could have identified potential questions that need more investigation, or discussed and referenced literature, theories or data that you have not yet come across yourself.
Conference Calls/Proceedings:
Conferences exist for bringing academics together to discuss cutting edge research, which means they are a seriously good way to keep an eye on emerging research. The organisers will have identified areas that conference submissions should consider focusing on, which gives you a direct insight into what these experts in thier field think are under-developed topics. A lot of the times, individual streams will also suggest lists of questions that submissions can address, so again, they’re perfect to get you thinking about the kind of questions your research could develop. Alternatively, you could also look for the previous proceedings of recent conferences and see what topics were actually discussed to build on them further.
Oxford’s Very Short Introductions To….
This is something every PhD student should know about! It’s a series of books published by which - as the name suggests - provide short introductions to various different subjects, topics across disciplines. Currently, 756 topics have been covered by this series, and they’re a really good way to familiarise yourself with a topic when you first start out. The best part is that while it’s written academically, it’s in fairly simple language so its especially useful for when you’re trying to understand a complex topic.
Thank you for this genius invention 🌞
The research log has saved me so many hours of work in the past years that I just needed to share it on here with you guys. I know this video is a long one, but I feel like the content is worth the length 🫢
If you have any thoughts or questions and want me to go more in depth on certain aspects of the work process lmk and I’ll get right to it 🤓🙂↕️
Currently, I am still so wrapped up in MA-work that there is little time for screenwriting currently, but I already have some really fun and interesting ideas lingering in the back of my head, just waiting for me to develop them. More on that in a later video😌🤭
I hope you guys are doing well, take care and don’t forget to do some writing today🤗✍🏼💻
Academic work
term paper
(deadline 15.2.)
1. Research
2. Literatur choice
3. Technical and
methodological
competencies
• Structure of the academic
argumentation
• References
• Citation
• Presentation of technical and
methodological competencies
1. Develope academic issue and
topic....
2. Research...
3. Narrow down and set a topic ...
4. Set up a timetable. ...
5. Create a structure ...
6. Structure and study references
Term paper The term paper is one of the most common forms of examination. According
to academic methodology, a topic is to be worked on, that is limited in focus
and directly related to the subject matter of the course. The term paper
requires a preliminary survey of the state of research: research of relevant
secondary literature using subject-specific aids (bibliographies), a review of
the secondary literature, and correct excerpting. The aim is to develop a line
of argumentation with respect to a central question, using methodological
tools and supported by references. The term paper does not require the
development of 'new' knowledge, but implementing a methodically guided
process of the state of knowledge on the topic in question. The special value
of the term paper results from the fact that the state of knowledge on the
subject is adequately prepared and presented and meets professional
requirements. Term papers that are longer in scope require good self-
organisation and work discipline (technical, methodological and self-
organisational competence).
Project /
Seminar paper
Through project work and presentations, students are expected to
demonstrate their ability to work in a team, and to develop and present
different concepts. They should show that they are able to define goals,
develop solutions and concepts, and implement these within the framework
of a larger task. If the work takes place as group work, the contribution of the
individual must be clearly outlined and assessable.
Tutorials Tutorials often accompany a lecture or take place on their own. They can
require the completion of practical exercises as a form of preliminary,
examination work. Once completed, the student acquires admission to the
written exam. Some tutorials are designed as group or home exercises. Group
exercises are created to promote interactions as a group so that participants
arrive at solutions together, whereas home exercises are designed for
individuals to develop solutions on one’s own. (technical competence, social
competence)
Presentation Presentations focus on a specific work topic that is then presented in the
course, either alone or together with other students. The criteria for
evaluation should be announced in advance, e.g. the grading of clarity,
structure, and content, etc. (technical, methodological, social and self-
competence).
A) Formal requirements for written work (assessment criteria)
Sorting of frequently used criteria, assignment to categories, subcategories and sample criteria
Table 93
CATEGORIES
SUBCATEGORIES
EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE CRITERIA
Linguistic style and expression
Comprehensibility, clarity, conciseness, eloquence of expression, technical language (appropriate use of technical vocabulary), independent formulations, factual, fluent and precise expression, interesting presentation, text density, no 'spoken language'
Correct language
Spelling (orthography), sentence structure (grammar), punctuation, formally correct expression
Language – Opposite spelling
Gendered spelling (variants: Binnen-I; asterisk, gender gap, in combination with other language variants; coordinate with teachers)
Dealing with sources
In the text
Uniform correct citation (verifiability, completeness— all citations and theses documented)
In the list of sources
Correct, complete, standardized list of sources (bibliography)
Working with figures and tables
In the text
Complete graphics and tables, labeling of figures, list of figures if applicable. Explanation, informative illustrations that meaningfully complement the text, pictures
In the list of figures and tables
Correct, complete, standardized list of illustrations and sources
Formal structure of the work
Cover sheet, outline, formally correct table of contents, introduction, summary, conclusion, bibliography, correct cross-references
External impression, layout
Uniform design, clarity, accuracy, text structuring (= font size and type, line spacing, margins)
There are no rows in this table
B) Content requirements for written work (assessment criteria)
Sorting of frequently used criteria, assignment to categories, subcategories and sample criteria
Table 92
CATEGORIES
SUBCATEGORIES
EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE CRITERIA
Content structure
- Clear, plausible, balanced, complete structure
- Internal stringency (‘red thread’), connection of the chapters
- Working draft, coherent concept (also for empirical investigations), thematic clarification, delimitation
Content
Quality of the technical terms, technical language
- Use and appropriate processing of technical terms
- Non-judgmental, neutral, formal language
- Ability to present complex content in an understandable way
- Argumentation skills
Content
Dealing with sources used
- Quality, seriousness, relevance and topicality of the sources used
- Scope of the literature used
- Selection of quotations, cited with appropriate frequency, degree of familiarization with the literature, selection content relevant to the topic (from literature), quality of the scientific and theoretical work
- Literature research, processing of specialist literature, the recommended additional processing, independently researched specialist literature
Self-related competencies
- Independence, personal contribution, commitment
- Constructive use of suggestions
- Creativity
- Ability to reflect
There are no rows in this table
Note: For each criterion, different formulations may be present (e.g. “clear, plausible, balanced, complete structure” represents a list of different formulations for the criterion “structure”).
Page 4
Question / topic of the work
Contents quality of content differentiated according to individual components of the work. Introductory part:
Main part:
Concluding part:
Professional reference
Special criteria for papers with an empirical part
Special criteria for work with a practical part
2. Written exams
20121127-Roloff-SchriftlPruef-1 en-US.pdf
314.4 kB
Exam A written exam serves the more or less standardized inquiry of basic
knowledge, which is why it is mainly used in introductory courses. The aim is
to answer either openly formulated questions in essay form or closed
questions in a multiple-choice test within a fixed time frame. The exact design
and level of difficulty is determined by the lecturers. Sometimes several
questions are asked, of which only one or some need to be worked on.
Whether aids are allowed and which aids are allowed is often announced
before the exam. (technical and methodical competence)
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.