How new consumers’ consumption patterns caused changes in food
distribution channels in Croatia
Sanda Renko, Faculty of Economics & Business, University of Zagreb1
1
Sanda Renko, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics & Business Zagreb, J. F.
Kennedy 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia, Phone: +385 1 238-3374, fax: +385 1 233-5633
E-mail: srenko@efzg.hr
Introduction
During the past decade, some trends in food distribution channels became evident in Croatia:
the proactive role of modern places of purchase such as supermarkets, and hypermarkets,
technological advances, increasing stringent regulations, growing mergers, etc. Reasons for
these trends are changes in the sociodemographics of the Croatian population which have led
to an increasing demand for convenience foods, ready-to-serve meals and food products in
smaller packaging units. Additionally, a significant number of events affecting food market
(e.g. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy – BSE in the meat industry, genetically modified
food in the fruit and vegetables industry, etc.) increased consumer concern relating to the
place of food purchase and the food purchasing habbits as well.
Those new consumers` preferences are especially evident in meat purchasing and meat
consumption patterns. In the pre-transition era (prior to 1990), Croatia was the part of
Yugoslavia, characterized with the planned economy. Croatian consumers mostly focused on
the kinds of meat that were common in the region of their origin. Geographically, Croatia
could be divided into three clearly distinguishable regions: Mediterranean, Mountainous and
Panonian region. Mediterranean region (Istria and Dalmatia) is the coastal zone on the south,
influenced by the Mediterranean climate. Mediterranean region had a tradition of seafish,
lamb, goat and poultry consuming. Mountain region (Lika, Banovina, etc.) is the mountain
zone that occupies the central part of Croatia and had a tradition of lamb, goat and venison
consumption. Due to their windy climate and high temperature oscillations, both regions are
familiar with the smoke-drying processing of meat. The third Croatian region, Panonian
region, is the main agricultural area and the largest Croatian meat production is made there.
There is a widespread practice that involves pig slaughtering, processing, and butchery of pig
meat and making ham, bacon, and various sausages. Moreover, this region characterized
large-scale poultry production. In that era, channels of fresh meat distribution included: a)
small farms which supplied relatives or friends with meat which was cut manually; b) direct
sale on open market area; b) local stand-alone butcher shops which co-operate with some
farms offering their meat there; c) chains of butcher shops. Processed meat and dried meat
snacks were mostly prepared and distributed by butchers in their own stores. Additionally,
large meat producers such as Gavrilovic meat industry and Sljeme placed their products on
the shelves of supermarkets these days.
The period of transition towards a market-oriented economy has caused substantial changes in
the meat consumption patterns and distribution channels on the Croatian market. Urban
population increased, while small farms population decreased. With the entry of foreign
companies, like Western consumers (Veeck, 2010), Croatian consumers have been exposed to
an increasingly diverse selection of foods. Those trends affected consumers` preferences and
meat consumption patterns as well. Other factors affecting meat purchasing include
sociodemographic changes in the Croatian society such as increasing number of working
women, longer working-hours, off sets by food consumed away from home, etc. Accordingly,
meat producers and retailers induced some changes in their offers. They have become more
concerned about health and meat quality, labelling, packaging and about offering more
convenience to their consumers. The main goal of the paper is to find out whether new
consumption patterns of Croatian consumers affects the way of butchering and choice of the
distribution channels in the case of Croatian meat market. The fact is that meat processed
products are mainly purchased in supermarkets and hypermerkats, while fresh products are
bought in traditional stores and open markets, but in a smaller extent than before. A meat
store within a supermarket or a hypermarket is a new concept, widely accepted in the meat
distribution on the Croatian market. Regarding slaughtering and butchering, a large portion of
animal slaughtering and butchering is still being carried out in small slaughterhouses.
The paper begins with the review of the relevant literature to provide a preliminary
understanding of consumer choice in relation to channels of distribution. Thereafter, we report
the results of a series of focus group interviews which sought to explore issues of channel
choice. Based on these and the results of the literature review, conclusive remarks on Croatian
consumers’ meat outlet preferences were drawn.
Rising consumer income, changing demographics and lifestyles, and shifting preferences due
to new information about the links between diet and health all contribute to new demands for
foods (Jensen, 2006). Moreover, consumers have experienced the benefits in lower
commodity food prices and wider product choice (Manning et al, 2007). Rivera et al. (2010)
argue that today`s food service consumers are dramatically different from previous
generations because of two-income families, increased discretionary income and lack of time.
On the example of American consumers, the same authors (Rivera et al., 2010, p. 21) point
out that consumers` fast-paced lifestyle has led to their dramatically changed eating habits
where they eat out more than they eat at home, and that their food preferences include prompt
service, convenience, brand names, healthy alternatives, variety and high quality. Among
various types of food, meat consumption and meat distribution have undergone major changes
and have been a much-debated issue in the agricultural economics literature (Becker et al.,
2000).
Literature review comprised issues such as meat supply chain, consumer perceptions relating
to safety and quality of meat, the importance of meat packaging, the impact of some socioeconomic factors on consumers` meat preferences. However, there is a lack of literature and a
small number of studies on changes in consumers` purchasing decisions and sales outlet
preferences. There is the worth mentioning work of Kizilaslan et al. (2008) who found out
that socio-economic factors such as age, household size, place of residence, status of the
mother, income, price difference, quality difference, hygiene, freshness and the seller’s image
affected the Turkish consumers’ meat outlet preferences. Vignali et al. (2001) focused on
consumer purchasing behaviour regarding meat, fish, vegetables and processed food within
the Spanish food industry. De Melo et al. (2011) found out relation between lifestyle, attitudes
and values of pork and pork products’ consumers and the consumption of these products in
Brazil. The objectives of the research of Buzamat et al. (2009) were to evaluate the frequency
of meat and meat products consumption in Romania and their preferences for meat types and
products. Moreover, this research identified the place where Romanian consumers purchase
meat and meat products from. Lakner and Reti (2006) analyzed relationships between the
members of the Hungarian meat distribution channel.
The consumer behavior literature has addressed the issue of distribution channel choice but
often as a more peripheral topic, usually with attention focused on the choice of retail outlet
which is then analyzed using conventional models of consumer behavior (Black et al., 2002,
p. 161). A common assumption that is made in many writings in the area of distribution is that
the choice of channel can be seen in the same conceptual framework as choice of products
(Black et al., 2002, p. 162). McEachern and Schroder (2004) have an interesting approach to
the area of distribution channels in meat industry. They discussed about reduced consumer
confidence in the fresh meat sector and offered value-based labeling communications as the
way for reestablishing consumer confidence. The development in the agri-food industry (meat
industry presents an important component of the agri-food industry) is lagging behind
changes in consumers` life styles and their purchasing habits (McEachern and Seaman, 2005).
In order to develop and sustain long-term consumer loyalty, producers and agencies acting on
behalf of producers must accurately identify consumer needs, concerns and understanding of
the food production environment to ensure future market competitiveness. A fundamental prerequisite of good marketing performance is that of awareness of the customer, and their needs
(Leat and Revoredo-Giha, 2008, p. 398). Mousavi et al. (2002) and Quintavalla and Vicini
(2002) discuss tools and techniques to improve the production process in handling and cutting
meat portions suitable for end users. Clemons and Row (1993) investigated the impact of IT
on interactions between manufacturers and retailers in the consumer packaged goods industry.
Petrak (2007) argued that we can talk about the evolution of meat packaging and of meat
outlets: from carcasses hanging from the hooks in open marketplaces, sides of beef or whole
chickens wrapped in white butcher paper, case-ready packages of fresh meat and poultry
unloaded and set into retail displays, hot entrees placed into recloseable containers at selfservice bars, to frozen meats sold in zippered, standup pouches and processed meats piled in
exact weights into recloseable tubs, sold in every type of store.
During numerous studies Grujic et al. (2012) have tried to change the current image of meat
and meat products which are not the best for human health. Thus, the improvements that have
been made throughout the production chain must continue to obtain a product increasingly
healthy, without antibiotic residues, drugs and anabolic steroids and with less fat and
cholesterol, nutritionally rich and with high protein value (Bender, 1992). Zaboj (2002) dealt
with the problem of choosing the distribution channel for meat production the Czech Republic
market and considered four possible distribution alternatives: distribution through own retail
selling units; distribution through trans-national retail chains (supermarkets, shopping
centres); distribution by using small independent retail units; and distribution through retail
units net (retail co-operative). Each of meat distribution alternatives was analyzed related to
factors such as: the sale control, the cost of distribution, the affect the final sale price, the
number of potential consumers and the affect the cash-flow. The complexity of meat
distribution channels was recignized by Leat and Revoredo-Giha (2008) because it includes
the breeders and finishers of animals, marketing organisations (including livestock auction
markets, where animals are sold on a liveweight basis, and marketing co-operatives, agents
and dealers), primary processors (slaughtering, meat-cutting and packing), secondary
processors (catering butchers and meat product producers) and distributors (wholesalers,
traditional butchers, multiple retailers and food service companies).
Although the research focused on the meat distribution channels in Croatia, the analysis of the
exiting literature revealed the gap in the literature about consumer meat preferences and meat
distribution channels in Croatia. Namely, we can almost conclude that there has been no
research interest in the topic of meat distribution channels and consumer preferences in the
case of Croatia at all. We found only the work of Gajcevic et al. (2007) who conducted the
research on the sample of respondents from the Croatian region Slavonia and concluded that
consumers mostly opt for buying and consuming chicken meat produced by domestic
producers and that they mostly produce chicken meat in their households. Shopping centers
and butcher shops were on the second, and on the third rank respectively. There are some
researches about the importance of packaging in meat industry. Bratulic et al. (2012)
investigated sustainability of fresh turkey meat packed in modified atmosphere. According to
Plazonic et al. (2010) modified atmospheric packaging of meat has been expanded and
improved with the arrival of new technologies and increasing demands of buyers.
Croatian meat market
In Croatia, meat production, distribution and consumption estimations are areas in which the
official statistics are the most problematic. Namely, significant portion of the Croatian meat
market is involved in „grey market“. Therefore, data presented in this chapter are not
completely reliable and should be taken with caution.
According to the analysis of Trade Council of Denmark (2007, p. 21), there are three periods
of africultural development in Croatia. In the period between mid eighties and mid nineties
there was a significant reduction in livestock production, which was followed by the increase
in livestock production, especially beef production, since mid nineties. However, global crisis
in 2008, affected Croatian meat market as well. Thus, after 2008, significant decrease in meat
production appeared. According to data in Table 1, an improvement in the production in 2011
was evident, and it is estimated to grow.
-
Insert Table 1 -
The latest available data, shown in Table 2, show that farms production accounts for the
largest portion of meat production (except poultry production). With the approaching the EU,
Croatian meat industry is under pressure to comply with the standards of the EU and to
modernize its facilities. At the end of 2011, there were 181 companies in the meat and meat
processing industry (http://www.jatrgovac.hr , 2012). Few of them transformed themselves
from state-run agricultural cominates to private-owned companies. However, the current
domestic production of meat satisfies only 50 percent of meat consumption.
-
Insert Table 2 -
Croatians consume most poultry (Table 3) and pork. Per capita consumption figures stand at
18.8kg of poultry, 16.5kg of pork and 9.9kg of cattle per year. Also, there are 15.4kg of
processed meat per household member in 2011. Accordingly, annual average per capita meat
consumption are 62kg.
-
Insert Table 3 -
Figure 1 clearly suggests that Croatian meat consumption follows meat consumption trends in
EU, where meat consumption has been stagnant in the last few years. Comparing the EU meat
market and the Croatian meat market, some interesting results were found (Table 4).
-
Insert Figure 1 -
-
Insert Table 4 -
According to data in Table 4, the average EU consumer spends almost twice as much meat
than the Croatian consumer. The difference between them is especially evident in the pork
consumption.
Channels of meat distribution in Croatia
In general, channels of meat distribution in Croatia include: a) direct sale on open market
area; b) local stand-alone butcher shops which co-operate with some farms offering their meat
there; c) chains of butcher shops; d) supermarkets and hypermarkets; e) the channel of Horeca
(hotels, restaurants, snack bars).
Nowadays, the harmonization of vertical integration in the meat supply chain (including
farms, meat processors, distributors and trade) is the key for gaining competitiveness of the
Croatian meat market. Croatian meat producers realized that outputs should be adapted to
changed market preferences, such as:
- Retailing –requiring convenience, ready to cook meat, strong meat brands, etc.,
- Butcher shops –preferring large chops and packages,
- HoReCa channel members – asking for institutional customers` adjusted offer.
There are several very strong meat processing companies with their own network of retail
stores and whole distribution centers. Some of the most important Croatian meat producers
are “Meat industry Braca Pivac”, “PIK Vrbovec”, “Belje”, “Podravka Danica”.
As there is no official data about meat sale per particular distribution channel, only data about
the Croatian retail market structure can be given. Table 5 shows the retail market structure
related to retail formats, while table 6 gives the insight into top grocery retailers in Croatia.
-
Insert Table 5 -
Supermarkets are leading retail format and they account for 40% of value of grocery retail.
Croatian top retailer Konzum accounted for a 9.4 per cent of the Croatian market share in
2002, while it reached almost 30 per cent in 2012 (Croatian Competition Agency, 2012). It
operates a variety of formats from convenience stores, supermarkets, hypermarkets and
Internet. Its market success is mainly due its central position in the vertical system, where few
leading national food producers (such as meat producers “Belje” and “PIK Vrbovec”) are
incorporated. It should be pointed out that in order to improve insights into the Croatian meat
distribution channels, step-by-step analysis of retail structure per particular Croatian town was
conducted. In such a way, only 405 meat stores were found. However, there were some towns
with no registered meat store, suggesting that this data cannot represent the Croatian retail
meat market.
-
Insert Table 6 -
Methodology
The objective of this study is to understand how changing demographics and lifestyles caused
changes in meat distribution channels in Croatia. Therefore, given the exploratory nature of
the research it was felt that a qualitative approach,using focus group inteviews, was
appropriate. Focus groups produce the qualitative data necessarry in an exploratory study,
where scientific explanations are desirable and the researcher is uncertain of the nature of the
construct to be employed (Black et al., 2002, p. 164). Kennedy et al. (2004) point out that
studies of meat have tended to use quantitative methodologies providing a wealth of detailed
statistic information, but little in-depth insight into consumer perceptions of meat.
In this study six exploratory focus groups were executed from November 2012 to February
2013 in a way that half of them comprised meat distribution channel members (meat
producers, the meat-section managers in larger stores as hyper- or supermarkets, the owners
of the butcher shop or traditional butchers), and and half of them comprised five to six
consumers responsible for meat purchasing within their household. Group participants were
recruited on the basis of pre-specified criteria of being derived from three Croatian regions.
Consumers involved in the research were selected based on the personal judgement of the
interviewer.
Finally, research design was organized as follows:
Focus group 1. Members of meat distribution channel from the Mediterranean region,
Focus group 2. Members of meat distribution channel from the Mountainous region,
Focus group 3. Members of meat distribution channel from the Panonian region,
Focus group 4. Meat consumers from the Mediterranean region,
Focus group 5. Meat consumers from the Mountainous region,
Focus group 6. Meat consumers from the Panonian region.
Accordingly, two different research instrument were used for this study. Questionnaires for
the members of meat distribution channel were adapted from Lakner and Reti (2006) and Leat
and Revoredo-Giha (2008) and included strategy of distribution, observations regarding
consumers and consumers` preferences, the attituted towards new channels of meat
distribution, future expectations concerning Croatia`s acession to the EU, etc.
Questionnaires for the meat consumers were adapted from Becker et al. (2000), Kennedy et
al. (2004), Resurreccion (2003) and Rimal (2002) and included the frequency of meat
consumption in the households, consumers`stated changes in meat consumption and the place
of purchase (if any), consumer perceived indicators of meat quality, consumers’ preferences
for meat types and products, etc.
Using an approach similar to that of Liefeld (2005) and Kemp et al. (2010), we asked
participants ‘‘When you were shopping for (item X), what did you consider or take into
account?’’ Respondents were probed for more factors (i.e. ‘‘anything else?’’) until their list
was exhausted.
Each group session lasted on average about 30 minutes and was transcribed verbatim, and
thematically content analyzed.
Results and discussion
Results of the focus group of meat distribution channel
In general, discussants` agree that changing demographics, increasing health concerns and
restructuring techniques have made an influence on consumers` purchases in recent years.
Traditional butcher shop has still a high market share, although some consumers purchase
meat from less traditional outlets. There is a growing trend of butcher shop located inside the
supermarket/hypermarket. In some case, the point is that local stand-alone butcher shop cooperate with the large retailer. But, in some cases there is the meat department of the retailer.
Comparing the data across three regions indicated some differences in strategies of meat
distribution. The favoured place of purchase for Mediterranean region is the traditional
butcher shop. It provides information about how the meat was produced, and it is regarded as
being more convenient. Participants in the first group point out that Mediterranean region
foster more traditional values and butchers` shops seem to make a better quality policy. They
agree that consumers prefer to have their „own butcher“ who is adding the personal touch in
their buyer-seller relationships and to have confidence in them.
A butcher from Split (town in the Mediterranean region of Croatia) with more than 20 years
experience in meat industry:
„My whole family is involved in meat business. I enjoy getting to know all my customers and
their meat preferences. They come in, ask me questions, look for some advices and know that
they can trust us.“
Similar notions were expressed in the group two. Discussants pointed out that venison (which
is very familiar among consumers in the Mountainous region) requires a local butcher. Also,
small family farms with the tradition of own meat production are still very important channel
of meat distribution. New distribution channels, which include supermarkets or hypermarkets,
are not developed equally in this region as in other parts of Croatia.
The meat-section manager in a supermarket in Delnice (small town in the Mountainous region
of Croatia):
„Our offer is very limited because consumers do not use to purchase meat there. Moreover,
due to bad weather conditions, in some periods of the year, we have problems with the
supply.“
Considerable discussion on the same issue appeared in the group three. With the emergence of
large supermarkets and hypermarkets, and changing consumers` lifestyle patterns, small
traditional butchers' shops buying the beef from farmers in the local countryside started to
loose their market share. They point out restructuring techniques as the new moment in meat
industry which influenced the decision about a place of purchase. Restructured meats are
prepared using less tender cuts of meat resulting in, for example restructured beef roasts. It
provides meat to be served and packaged for convenience to the consumer and to be self
served in supermarkets and hypermarkets. Vacuum packaging is also important for the
development of new meat distribution channels development. Vacuum packages are easy to
handle and to store. However, this region is characterized by large number of small family
farms where small production units dominate and which supply relatives or friends with meat
which is cut manually.
It is interesting that all participants consider Croatia`s accession to the EU (European Union)
as the real challenge. They believe that Croatian products are recognized as healthy, nutritious
and less dangerous than meat from some other countries like Brasil (one of the largest meat
exporters), and that consumers of EU will find Croatian fresh meat as good quality meat
derived from healthy animals raised in a healthy environment.
Results of the focus group of meat consumers
Consistent with the earlier researches (Verbeke and Vackier, 2004), in this study butchers
were the preferred supplier of fresh meat, followed by supermarkets. Discussants pointed out
that at the time of purchase, traditional butchers shops allow them to judge products on smell
and appearance. The fact is that freshness is an indicator for safety in the case of meat, as
suggested from the focus group analysis. Consumers agree that they could see the meat better.
Some of comments are as follows:
„The meat I get at the butcher looks fresher and nicer, and it is possibly better quality.“
„There is a big difference between the meat bought in butcher shop and the meat from
supermarkets. You cannot see everything you want at the meat from supermarkets.
Supermarkets offer wrapped and packaging meat that are often arranged in a way not to
show each side of the meat.“
Debate on the issue about the safety of meat evolved in all three groups, but consumers from
the Mediterranean and Mountainous regions were less concerned about the safety of meat.
They prefer to purchase fresh meat at their local butchers because they trust their local
butchers. They know them for a generations. Also, there were increasing media campaigns
about the safety and healthness of the meat. The salient concerns coming out of the focus
groups were: antibiotics, BSE (for beef), hormones, salmonella and fat/cholesterol, and
respondents mostly believe that they can find the meat with antibiotics on the shelves of some
supermarkets/hypermarkets rather than in the butcher shops.
Discussants in all groups pointed out that demographics influence the place for purchasing
meat. Similar to findings of Kizilaslan et al. (2008) and Vignali et al. (2001), as age descends
and work status rises, more respondents prefer hypermarkets. Moreover, as age increases and
work status decreases, traditional butcher shops are preferred. When specifically directing the
discussion towards consumers’ preferences for meat types and products, and the frequency of
meat consumption, respondents agree that they purchase meat not so often and that the
majority of meat consumed is red meat. However, poultry consumption has grown rapidly.
Respondents in group six pointed out a widespread practice of rural families that involves pig
slaughtering, processing, and butchery of pig meat with the final outcomes such as ham,
bacon, the sausages. But, for urban families, new channels of distribution (like supermarkets
and hypermarkets) have the same importance in consumers` meat supply as local butcher
shops.
Respondents in all focus groups consider that results could not be generalized due to the fact
that consumption patterns and meat preferences of urban consumers differ from those of rural
consumers. They suggest to expand the research using the questionnaire conducted on the
sample of respondents recruited on the basis of pre-specified criteria: a) to be rural meat
consumers and urban meat consumers; b) to originate from diverse Croatian regions.
Conclusion
This paper investigates the Croatian meat market which has got different tradition of the meat
preparation and the processing of meat. The paper focuses on meat distribution channels and
changing trends in meat consumption as consumers have less time for home-prepared meals.
Relying on the results of the secondary data analysis, it could be concluded that Croatian
consumers prefer one-stop shopping and large-scale retailers due to their variety of
merchandise offered. At the same time, ready-made meals are not very popular, but it is
reasonable to expect that they will also acquire a market due to the increase of urban
population and extended working hours. Relying on the results of the qualitative research
among consumers and meat distributors in three Croatian regions the study find out that
changing demographics, increasing health concerns and restructuring techniques have made
an influence on consumers` purchases in recent years. Demographics influence the place for
purchasing meat. As age descends and work status rises, more respondents prefer
hypermarkets. Moreover, as age increases and work status decreases, traditional butcher shops
are preferred. There are also changes in the meat distribution channels, as small traditional
butchers' shops buying the beef from farmers in the local countryside started to loose their
market share. It is interesting that consumers from the Mediterranean and Mountainous
regions were less concerned about the safety of meat as they prefer to purchase fresh meat at
their local butchers and they trust them.
As meat industry presents the area of strategic importance for Croatian economy (due to its
relationships with other industries, such as trade and tourism), the findings of this study can
give some directions for improvements to be made in the meat production anddistribution as
well. Additionally, as the main limitation of this study lies in the lack of data about the sale
obtained via various distribution channels, future researches should conduct more extensive
research which could lead to reliable and accurate meat market data.
References
Becker, T. (2000), Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: a framework for analysis,
British Food Journal, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 158-176.
Becker, T., Benner, E. and Glitsch, K. (2000), Consumer perception of freash meat quality in
Germany, British Food Journal, Vol. 102, No. 3, pp. 246-266.
Bender, A. (1992), Meat and meat products in human nutrition in developing countries, Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, available at:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0562e/T0562E00.htm#Contents, accessed 19.01.2013.
Black, N. J., Lockett, A., Ennew, C., Winklhofer, H. and McKechnie, S. (2002), Modelling
consumer choice of distribution channels: An illustration from financial services, The
International Journal of Bank Marketing; vol. 20, no. 4/5, pp. 161-173.
Bratulic, M., Cukon, N., Kozacinski, L., Custic, M. and Hafner, S. (2012), Research on
sustainability of fresh turkey meat packed in modified atmosphere, Meso, vol. 14, no. 3, pp.
259-262.
Buzamat, G., Pet, E. and Grigoroiu, E. (2009), Marketing Researches Regarding Meat
Consumer’s Behaviour in the Western Part of Country, Bulletin UASVM Horticulture, 66(2),
pp. 80-83.
Clemons, E.K. and Row, M.C. (1993), Limits to Interfirm Coordination through Information
Technology: Results of a Field Study in Consumer Packaged Goods Distribution, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Summer, 1993), pp. 73-95. Of the
Republic of Croatia.
Croatian Bureau of Statistics (2012), Statistical yearbook, Zagreb.
Croatian Bureau of Statistics (2010), First release, no. 4.2.1/4.
De Melo Saab, M.S., Fava Neves, M. and De Barcelos, M.D. (2011), Food Consumer
Behavior: a Study about Pork, VIII INTERNATIONAL AGRIBUSINESS PAA-PENSA
CONFERENCE – “The Multiple Agro Profiles: How to Balance Economy, Environment and
Society, Nov/Dez. 2011, Buenos Aires, Argentina: PENSA.
Gajcevic, Z., Kralik, I., Tolusic, Z., Kralik, G. and Tolusic, M. (2007), Consumer`s
perception of chicken meat quality, Krmiva, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 103-108.
Grujic,R., Grujic, S. and Vujadinovic, D. (2012), Functional Meat Products, Hrana u zdravlju
i bolesti, vol. 1, no. 1, pp.44-54.
Kemp, K., Insch, A., Holdsworth, D.K. and Knight, J.G. (2010), Food miles: Do UK
consumers actually care?, Food Policy, vol. 35, pp. 504–513.
Kennedy, O.B., Stewart-Knox, B.J., Mitchell, P.C. and
Kizilaslan, H., Goktolga, Z.G. and Kizilaslan, N. (2008), An analysis of the factors
affecting the food places where consumers purchase red meat, British Food Journal, Vol. 110,
No. 6, pp. 580-594.
Lakner, Z. and Reti, A.(2006), Bargaining power, supplier-reseller networks practice: a case
study of the hungarian meat distribution system, Society and Economy, vol. 28, no. 2, pp.
137–145.
Leat, P. and Revoredo-Giha, C. (2008), Building collaborative agri-foodsupply chains: The
challenge of relationship development in the Scottish red meat chain, British Food Journal,
Vol. 110, No. 4/5, pp. 395-411.
Liefeld, J. ( 2005), Consumer knowledge and use of country-of-origin information at the point
of purchase, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 4, pp. 85–96.
Manning, L., Baines, R. and Chadd, S. (2008) Benchmarking the poultry meat supply chain,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 148-165
Manning, L., Baines, R. and Chadd, S. (2007),Trends in the global poultry meat supply chain,
British Food Journal, Vol. 109, No. 5, pp. 332-342.
Manning, L. and Baines, R.N. (2004), Globalisation. A study of the poultry meat supply
chain, British Food Journal, Vol. 106, No. 10/11, pp. 819-836.
McEachern, M. G. and Seaman, C. (2005), Consumer perceptions of meat production:
Enhancing the competetiveness of British agriculture by understanding communication with
the consumer, British Food Journal, vol. 107, no. 8, pp. 572- 583.
McEachern, M. G. and Schroder, M.J.A. (2004), Integrating the voice of the consumer within
the value chain: a focus on value-based labellingcommunications in the fresh-meat sector,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 497-509.
Mousavi, A., Sarhadi, M., Lenk, A. and Fawcett, S. (2002), Tracking and traceability in the
meat processing industry: a solution, British Food Journal, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 7-19.
Nielsen Q1 Reports, 2012
Petrak,L. (2007), The future of meat packaging, National Provisioner, Oct., available at:
http://www.beefretail.org/CMDocs/BeefRetail/articles/NationalProvisionerTheFutureOfMeat
PackagingOct07.pdf, accessed 12.01.2013.
Plazonc, S., Miokovic, B. and Njari, B. (2010), Modified atmosphere packaging of meat,
Meso: prvi hrvatski časopis o mesu, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 45-48.
Quintavalla, S. and Vicini, L. (2002), Antimicrobial food packaging in meat industry, Meat
Science, vol. 62, pp. 373-380.
Rimal, A.P. (2002), Factors Affecting Meat Preferences Among American Consumers,
Family Economics and Nutrition Review, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 36-43.
Rivera, D. Jr., Burley, H. and Adams, C. (2010), A Cluster Analysis of Young Adult College
Students` Beef Consumption Behavior Using the Constructs of a Proposed Modified Model
of Planned Behavior, Journal of Food Products Marketing, vol. 16, no. 1, pp.19-38.
Resurreccion, A.V.A. (2003), Sensory aspects of consumer choices for meat and meat
products, Meat Science, vol. 66, pp. 11-20.
Trade Council of Denmark (2007), Food & retail market in Croatia, Prepared for
Landbrugsraadet, Royal Danish Embassy Zagreb.
Veeck, A.(2010), Encounters with Extreme Foods:Neophilic/Neophobic Tendencies and
Novel Foods, Journal of Food Products Marketing, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 246-260.
Verbeke, W. and Vackier, I. (2004), Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh
meat, Meat Science, no. 67, pp. 159–168.
Vignali, C., Gomez, E., Vignali, M. and Vranesevic, T. (2001), The influence of consumer
behaviour within the Spanish food retail industry, British Food Journal,vol. 103, no. 7, pp.
460- 478.
Zaboj, M. (2002), Choosing the distribution channel for meat products, Zemedelska
Ekonomika Agricultural Economics, vol. 48, no.7, pp.327-331.
http://www.jatrgovac.hr , accessed 19.09.2012.
Table 1 Review of agricultural development
(livestock and poultry production, '000)
Meat (in kg)
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Cattle
Pigs
Sheep
Poultry
467
1348
646
10053
454
1104
643
10015
447
1250
619
10787
444
1231
630
9470
446
1233
639
9523
Source: Croatian Bureau of Statistics, Statistical yearbook 2012, p. 256.
Table 2 Domestic production of meat
Meat
% produced in companies
% produced in family farms
Beef
Pork
Sheep
Poultry
24.0
30.9
1.4
75.8
76.0
69.1
98.6
24.2
Source: Trade Council of Denmark, 2007, p. 21.
Table 3 Quantities of meat consumed in households
(annual average per household member in kg)
Meat (in kg)
2009
2010
2011
Beef, veal
Pork
Mutton, goat, lamb
Poultry
Game and rabbit
Horse meat
Edible offal
Dried, smoked and salted meat, salami and pate
Other preserved or processed meat
11.1
15.8
1.3
18.2
0.4
0.1
0.9
15.7
0.6
10.5
19.8
1.0
19.1
0.3
0.0
1.0
15.4
0.7
9.9
16.5
0.8
18.8
0.3
0.0
0.8
15.4
0.6
Source: Croatian Bureau of Statistics, Statistical yearbook 2012, p. 192.
Table 4 Distribution of meat consumption in Croatia and EU
(annual average per household member in kg)
Meat
EU
Croatia
Index EU/Croatia
Beef
Pork
Sheep
Poultry
17.4
42.7
17.2
2.8
9.2
16.2
18.9
1.1
1.9
2.6
0.9
2.5
Total
80.1
45.4
1.8
Source: Croatian Bureau of Statistics, First release 2010.
Table 5 Retail market structure in Croatia
Retail format
Hypermarkets/supermarkets
No.
4,8%
Value
55,0%
Large groceries
9,7%
21,0%
Medium groceries
27,1%
15,0%
Small groceries
25,6%
6,0%
Kiosks
25,9%
1,0%
Gas stations
6,6%
1,0%
13.017
Total number
Source: own table according to data in Nielsen Q1 Reports, 2012.
Table 6 Top grocery retailers in Croatia (market share, %)
Retailer
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Konzum
Kaufland
Mercator
Plodine
Lidl
Billa
9.4
1.8
1.1
n/a
4.4.
15.1
3.0
3.1
n/a
5.0
19.5
4.8
2.1
1.8
5.0
21.2
5.4
2.4
2.9
6.7
21.5
6.0
4.1
3.9
0.2
7.7
22.6
7.4
5.8
4.2
2.7
6.6
24.3
7.3
5.4
4.6
4.1
5.7
25.8
7.7
5.4
5.3
5.2
Source http://www2.hgk.hr/en/depts/t rade/dist ribut ivna_t rgovina_2010_web.pdf , accessed 20.8.2011
Figure 1 Fluctuation of annual average per household member in kg
%
Source: Croatian Bureau of Statistics, Statistical yearbook 2012, p. 192.