Comparative Analysis of Plant-Based Meat Substitutes Across Markets

Thesis Abstract

The rapid expansion of plant-based meat substitutes (PBMS) across diverse markets has not only transformed consumer choices but also raised questions about nutritional adequacy, sensory acceptance, and market viability, especially given cultural, economic, and regulatory differences. This study addresses the problem of limited cross-market understanding of PBMS performance, exploring how consumer perceptions, labeling policies, and competitive dynamics influence adoption, pricing, and perceived value in distinct market contexts. The aim is to compare PBMS across three representative markets—North America, Europe, and Asia—to identify determinants of demand, quality perceptions, and price elasticity, thereby informing manufacturers and policymakers about market-specific strategies. Specific objectives include (i) to assess consumer acceptance and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for PBMS using a multi-country survey (n = 3,000 respondents, 1,000 per market) and conjoint analysis to quantify trait influences on purchase decisions; (ii) to evaluate nutritional perceptions, labeling comprehensibility, and perceived healthiness through a structured questionnaire and 30 focus group discussions (12 per market across urban and peri-urban settings); (iii) to examine supply-side factors—product variety, price dispersion, and retail channel dominance—through retailer interviews (n = 45) and market-level data; (iv) to analyze the impact of regulatory labeling frameworks on consumer trust and product differentiation using policy analysis and event study methods; and (v) to model cross-market discrepancies in demand using mixed-methods integration and a hierarchical linear model to explain variance in WTP and purchase frequency. The methodology adopts a comparative cross-sectional design anchored in the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to link attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and intentions with actual purchase indicators, complemented by the Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) to interpret market penetration dynamics. Data collection combines quantitative surveys (online panels and in-store intercepts) with qualitative insights from focus groups and expert interviews, ensuring triangulation. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis for latent constructs, multiple regression, and multinomial logit models to estimate WTP and choice probabilities, while hierarchical linear modeling will assess cross-market variability. Qualitative data will undergo thematic analysis to extract salient themes on sensory expectations, cultural acceptability, and trust in labeling, supported by a coding framework aligned with the TPB and IDT. The study anticipates that market-specific factors—such as nutritional labeling clarity in Europe, price sensitivity and convenience in North America, and traditional meat-culture considerations in Asia—will differentially shape PBMS adoption. Expected findings include (i) higher WTP in markets with stringent health and sustainability labeling, (ii) greater product differentiation effects in markets with lower price elasticity, (iii) substantial influence of perceived naturalness and texture on acceptance, and (iv) regulatory harmonization gaps that impede cross-border marketing. The study contributes to knowledge by providing a robust comparative model of PBMS diffusion that integrates consumer psychology, nutritional perception, and policy environment across markets, offering a transferable framework for multinational producers. It also offers empirical benchmarks for price setting, product development, and targeted communication strategies. The main conclusion is that market success for PBMS hinges on aligning product attributes with local cultural expectations and regulatory contexts, rather than solely pursuing global standardization. Recommendations include designing market-specific labeling and health claims to enhance trust, tailoring sensory profiles to regional preferences, employing dynamic pricing strategies driven by market elasticity, and engaging with policymakers to harmonize labeling standards that support transparent comparisons across jurisdictions. Further research should extend to longitudinal tracking of market shocks, including supply chain disruptions and evolving sustainability narratives, to examine the durability of cross-market advantages for PBMS.