HEALTHY FOOD ENVIRONMENTS: ASSESSING THE HEALTHINESS OF FOOD RETAIL PROMOTIONAL OFFERS

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

Introductıon and objectives
Across the Northern Ireland concern about the perceived cost of achieving a healthy
diet for consumers has risen with the main barrier to eating a more healthy diet being
price1
. In response consumers have adopted sophisticated shopping strategies whereby
food retail promotional offers dictate their shopping2
. Policy makers have recognised
the importance of retail food promotions in consumers’ food purchasing behaviour
and have committed to encouraging and enabling food retailers to “consider reducing
point of sale placement of foods which are high in fat, salt, sugar and increasing
exposure to promotion of healthier foods” as part of an obesity prevention strategy for
Northern Ireland - A Fitter Future for All: Framework for Preventing and Addressing
Overweight and Obesity in Northern Ireland 2012-20223
. The aim of this research
was to investigate the balance of healthy versus less healthy food retail promotions
among food retailers.
Research methods
A survey was designed to record information on food promotions. The survey
collected the following information on food items sold on promotion including: brand
name, pack size, promotional prominence, number of SKU’s on promotion,
promotional type, promotional price, pre-promotional price, and nutrition information
(Front of Pack labelling, Energy in kJ, Energy in kcal, Carbohydrate in grams, Sugar
in grams, Fat in grams, Sat Fat in grams, Salt in grams. Data collection was carried
out over two phase periods (pre and post-Christmas) in 48 stores across 8 retailers.
Data was collected through a survey using Hand held computer Aided Personal
Interview devices (HAPI) by fieldworkers from a marketing company. This software
utilised 3G technology, enabling the data to be uploaded immediately onto a server.
All data was inputted into the software package SPSS v.22 for analysis. A total of
6781 products were assessed based on the prominence, type of promotion (e.g.
BOGOF) and healthiness of each product item. Each product item was assigned
an individual nutrient (energy, sugar, fat, saturated fat and salt) from 1 to 3 [i.e. high
(red) =1, moderate (amber) =2 and low (green) =3] according to the FSA front of pack
(FOP) nutrient labelling methodology4
.
Conclusions
For all stores combined, the most significant site offering in-store promotions was the
‘end of aisle’. The main types of promotional offers with used were ‘price reductions’,
‘standalone offers’ and ‘multibuys’. Results reported a balance of healthy versus less
healthy nutritional quality (52.5% categorised as amber/green and 47.5% of products
categorised as red). Our results show that NI retailers are currently achieving a
balance in the healthiness of food retail promotions (red versus amber/green FOP
categories) however all parties agree that this should continue in the interest of
consumers by making the healthier choice the affordable and easy choice.
References
1. British Retail Consortium. (2009) British retailing: a commitment to health.
London: British Retail Consortium.
2. Mintel (2012) Pricing and promotions in food and drink. London: Mintel.
3. Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (2012) A fitter future for
all: framework for preventing and addressing overweight and obesity in Northern
Ireland 2012-2022. Belfast: Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
4. Food Standards Agency (2014) Food Information Regulations 2014: Summary
guidance for food business operators and enforcement officers in Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland. Available from: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/firguidance2014.pdf
[Accessed 25/08/15].

Conference

Conference International Research Conference on Business Management (IRCBM)
CountrySri Lanka
CityColombo
Period23/11/1724/11/17
Internet address

Fingerprint

Food
Amber
Fats
Northern Ireland
Obesity
Salts
Social Work
Ireland
Health Services
Costs and Cost Analysis
Wales
Nutritive Value
Scotland
Marketing
Administrative Personnel
Research
Health Personnel
Software
Hand
Eating

Cite this

@inproceedings{4d5e6427637044aa805396a19b2b2703,
title = "HEALTHY FOOD ENVIRONMENTS: ASSESSING THE HEALTHINESS OF FOOD RETAIL PROMOTIONAL OFFERS",
abstract = "Introductıon and objectivesAcross the Northern Ireland concern about the perceived cost of achieving a healthydiet for consumers has risen with the main barrier to eating a more healthy diet beingprice1. In response consumers have adopted sophisticated shopping strategies wherebyfood retail promotional offers dictate their shopping2. Policy makers have recognisedthe importance of retail food promotions in consumers’ food purchasing behaviourand have committed to encouraging and enabling food retailers to “consider reducingpoint of sale placement of foods which are high in fat, salt, sugar and increasingexposure to promotion of healthier foods” as part of an obesity prevention strategy forNorthern Ireland - A Fitter Future for All: Framework for Preventing and AddressingOverweight and Obesity in Northern Ireland 2012-20223. The aim of this research was to investigate the balance of healthy versus less healthy food retail promotionsamong food retailers.Research methodsA survey was designed to record information on food promotions. The surveycollected the following information on food items sold on promotion including: brandname, pack size, promotional prominence, number of SKU’s on promotion,promotional type, promotional price, pre-promotional price, and nutrition information(Front of Pack labelling, Energy in kJ, Energy in kcal, Carbohydrate in grams, Sugarin grams, Fat in grams, Sat Fat in grams, Salt in grams. Data collection was carriedout over two phase periods (pre and post-Christmas) in 48 stores across 8 retailers.Data was collected through a survey using Hand held computer Aided PersonalInterview devices (HAPI) by fieldworkers from a marketing company. This softwareutilised 3G technology, enabling the data to be uploaded immediately onto a server.All data was inputted into the software package SPSS v.22 for analysis. A total of6781 products were assessed based on the prominence, type of promotion (e.g.BOGOF) and healthiness of each product item. Each product item was assignedan individual nutrient (energy, sugar, fat, saturated fat and salt) from 1 to 3 [i.e. high(red) =1, moderate (amber) =2 and low (green) =3] according to the FSA front of pack(FOP) nutrient labelling methodology4.ConclusionsFor all stores combined, the most significant site offering in-store promotions was the‘end of aisle’. The main types of promotional offers with used were ‘price reductions’,‘standalone offers’ and ‘multibuys’. Results reported a balance of healthy versus lesshealthy nutritional quality (52.5{\%} categorised as amber/green and 47.5{\%} of products categorised as red). Our results show that NI retailers are currently achieving abalance in the healthiness of food retail promotions (red versus amber/green FOPcategories) however all parties agree that this should continue in the interest ofconsumers by making the healthier choice the affordable and easy choice.References1. British Retail Consortium. (2009) British retailing: a commitment to health.London: British Retail Consortium.2. Mintel (2012) Pricing and promotions in food and drink. London: Mintel.3. Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (2012) A fitter future forall: framework for preventing and addressing overweight and obesity in NorthernIreland 2012-2022. Belfast: Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.4. Food Standards Agency (2014) Food Information Regulations 2014: Summaryguidance for food business operators and enforcement officers in Scotland, Wales andNorthern Ireland. Available from: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/firguidance2014.pdf[Accessed 25/08/15].",
author = "L.E. Hollywood and Sin{\'e}ad Furey and U McMahon-Beattie, and Amy Burns and RK Price",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "23",
language = "English",
booktitle = "International Research Conference on Business Management (IRCBM)",

}

Hollywood, LE, Furey, S, McMahon-Beattie, U, Burns, A & Price, RK 2017, HEALTHY FOOD ENVIRONMENTS: ASSESSING THE HEALTHINESS OF FOOD RETAIL PROMOTIONAL OFFERS. in International Research Conference on Business Management (IRCBM). International Research Conference on Business Management (IRCBM), Colombo , Sri Lanka, 23/11/17.

HEALTHY FOOD ENVIRONMENTS: ASSESSING THE HEALTHINESS OF FOOD RETAIL PROMOTIONAL OFFERS. / Hollywood, L.E.; Furey, Sinéad; McMahon-Beattie, U; Burns, Amy; Price, RK.

International Research Conference on Business Management (IRCBM). 2017.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

TY - GEN

T1 - HEALTHY FOOD ENVIRONMENTS: ASSESSING THE HEALTHINESS OF FOOD RETAIL PROMOTIONAL OFFERS

AU - Hollywood, L.E.

AU - Furey, Sinéad

AU - McMahon-Beattie,, U

AU - Burns, Amy

AU - Price, RK

PY - 2017/11/23

Y1 - 2017/11/23

N2 - Introductıon and objectivesAcross the Northern Ireland concern about the perceived cost of achieving a healthydiet for consumers has risen with the main barrier to eating a more healthy diet beingprice1. In response consumers have adopted sophisticated shopping strategies wherebyfood retail promotional offers dictate their shopping2. Policy makers have recognisedthe importance of retail food promotions in consumers’ food purchasing behaviourand have committed to encouraging and enabling food retailers to “consider reducingpoint of sale placement of foods which are high in fat, salt, sugar and increasingexposure to promotion of healthier foods” as part of an obesity prevention strategy forNorthern Ireland - A Fitter Future for All: Framework for Preventing and AddressingOverweight and Obesity in Northern Ireland 2012-20223. The aim of this research was to investigate the balance of healthy versus less healthy food retail promotionsamong food retailers.Research methodsA survey was designed to record information on food promotions. The surveycollected the following information on food items sold on promotion including: brandname, pack size, promotional prominence, number of SKU’s on promotion,promotional type, promotional price, pre-promotional price, and nutrition information(Front of Pack labelling, Energy in kJ, Energy in kcal, Carbohydrate in grams, Sugarin grams, Fat in grams, Sat Fat in grams, Salt in grams. Data collection was carriedout over two phase periods (pre and post-Christmas) in 48 stores across 8 retailers.Data was collected through a survey using Hand held computer Aided PersonalInterview devices (HAPI) by fieldworkers from a marketing company. This softwareutilised 3G technology, enabling the data to be uploaded immediately onto a server.All data was inputted into the software package SPSS v.22 for analysis. A total of6781 products were assessed based on the prominence, type of promotion (e.g.BOGOF) and healthiness of each product item. Each product item was assignedan individual nutrient (energy, sugar, fat, saturated fat and salt) from 1 to 3 [i.e. high(red) =1, moderate (amber) =2 and low (green) =3] according to the FSA front of pack(FOP) nutrient labelling methodology4.ConclusionsFor all stores combined, the most significant site offering in-store promotions was the‘end of aisle’. The main types of promotional offers with used were ‘price reductions’,‘standalone offers’ and ‘multibuys’. Results reported a balance of healthy versus lesshealthy nutritional quality (52.5% categorised as amber/green and 47.5% of products categorised as red). Our results show that NI retailers are currently achieving abalance in the healthiness of food retail promotions (red versus amber/green FOPcategories) however all parties agree that this should continue in the interest ofconsumers by making the healthier choice the affordable and easy choice.References1. British Retail Consortium. (2009) British retailing: a commitment to health.London: British Retail Consortium.2. Mintel (2012) Pricing and promotions in food and drink. London: Mintel.3. Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (2012) A fitter future forall: framework for preventing and addressing overweight and obesity in NorthernIreland 2012-2022. Belfast: Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.4. Food Standards Agency (2014) Food Information Regulations 2014: Summaryguidance for food business operators and enforcement officers in Scotland, Wales andNorthern Ireland. Available from: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/firguidance2014.pdf[Accessed 25/08/15].

AB - Introductıon and objectivesAcross the Northern Ireland concern about the perceived cost of achieving a healthydiet for consumers has risen with the main barrier to eating a more healthy diet beingprice1. In response consumers have adopted sophisticated shopping strategies wherebyfood retail promotional offers dictate their shopping2. Policy makers have recognisedthe importance of retail food promotions in consumers’ food purchasing behaviourand have committed to encouraging and enabling food retailers to “consider reducingpoint of sale placement of foods which are high in fat, salt, sugar and increasingexposure to promotion of healthier foods” as part of an obesity prevention strategy forNorthern Ireland - A Fitter Future for All: Framework for Preventing and AddressingOverweight and Obesity in Northern Ireland 2012-20223. The aim of this research was to investigate the balance of healthy versus less healthy food retail promotionsamong food retailers.Research methodsA survey was designed to record information on food promotions. The surveycollected the following information on food items sold on promotion including: brandname, pack size, promotional prominence, number of SKU’s on promotion,promotional type, promotional price, pre-promotional price, and nutrition information(Front of Pack labelling, Energy in kJ, Energy in kcal, Carbohydrate in grams, Sugarin grams, Fat in grams, Sat Fat in grams, Salt in grams. Data collection was carriedout over two phase periods (pre and post-Christmas) in 48 stores across 8 retailers.Data was collected through a survey using Hand held computer Aided PersonalInterview devices (HAPI) by fieldworkers from a marketing company. This softwareutilised 3G technology, enabling the data to be uploaded immediately onto a server.All data was inputted into the software package SPSS v.22 for analysis. A total of6781 products were assessed based on the prominence, type of promotion (e.g.BOGOF) and healthiness of each product item. Each product item was assignedan individual nutrient (energy, sugar, fat, saturated fat and salt) from 1 to 3 [i.e. high(red) =1, moderate (amber) =2 and low (green) =3] according to the FSA front of pack(FOP) nutrient labelling methodology4.ConclusionsFor all stores combined, the most significant site offering in-store promotions was the‘end of aisle’. The main types of promotional offers with used were ‘price reductions’,‘standalone offers’ and ‘multibuys’. Results reported a balance of healthy versus lesshealthy nutritional quality (52.5% categorised as amber/green and 47.5% of products categorised as red). Our results show that NI retailers are currently achieving abalance in the healthiness of food retail promotions (red versus amber/green FOPcategories) however all parties agree that this should continue in the interest ofconsumers by making the healthier choice the affordable and easy choice.References1. British Retail Consortium. (2009) British retailing: a commitment to health.London: British Retail Consortium.2. Mintel (2012) Pricing and promotions in food and drink. London: Mintel.3. Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (2012) A fitter future forall: framework for preventing and addressing overweight and obesity in NorthernIreland 2012-2022. Belfast: Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.4. Food Standards Agency (2014) Food Information Regulations 2014: Summaryguidance for food business operators and enforcement officers in Scotland, Wales andNorthern Ireland. Available from: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/firguidance2014.pdf[Accessed 25/08/15].

M3 - Conference contribution

BT - International Research Conference on Business Management (IRCBM)

ER -