As for Russian private certification bodies a couple of them could be mentioned, but “Vitality Leaf” is the most famous not only in Russia but also worldwide, as the first and only internationally recognized system of voluntary environmental certification of goods, works and services which are based on their life cycle analysis (http://ecounion.ru/en/vitality-leaf-program/). It was developed and approved in 2001 by non-commercial partnership “Ecological Union”. The mission of the “Vitality Leaf” ecolabel, as stated by the Union, is “to assist the development of green economy in order to supply high quality of life and save the healthy environment for future generations” (Ibid.). In order to receive this label the whole controlling process of production in correspondence with rules written in the document the “Standard of organic agricultural food production and processing” should be done by special Commission. In the base of those rules again Codex Alimentarius, IFOAM norms, European regulations and current governmental standards. As in the case with Bioland, these norms are more detailed and in some aspects stricter than governmental regulations what make consumers be more aware of organic origin of a product with this particular label. One more example of private ecological certification in Russia is the program “Chistie rosi”, which is also marked with a special label, developed by non-commercial partnership “Agrosofia” on the base of the European Union Regulation № 2092/91/EEC (http://xn--80agpxakiz4h.xn--p1ai/?page_id=37). There were also some attempts from the side of LavkaLavka farmer's cooperative to introduce their own standards for those farmers who want to sell their products under their trademark and it still works (http://lavkalavka.com/expertize). For the purpose of farm's preparation for international certification, LavkaLavka provides the system of internal certification and labeling based on private regulations, published on the official webpage of cooperative (Ibid.).

As many of German consumers refer to the private labels when were asked about choosing between organic products these private labels are more trustworthy than governmental ones in terms of requirements for production. In order to put these label producers need to meet stricter criteria. And as it is almost impossible to counterfeit these labels German consumers tend to rely on them more than on the governmental one. The same goes for Russian consumers, but it might be the case that private organic label for them is the only available national one due to the lack of any governmental sign and because they know that this particular label “Vitality Leaf” could hardly be faked due to the very work of this organization with which they are most personally familiar.

To summarize, it is possible to say that both in Russia and Germany there are governmental regulations of organic production, in the case of Germany both on the EU-level and national level. In general, they define an organic product as produced with correspondence to the rules of organic production, which are described in respective documents concerning every type and stage of the production chain, and not of the least importance labeled as organic. Along with governmental regulations some private standards could be found in both countries and which are usually stricter and more detailed than governmental regulations. Nevertheless, the main differences between German and Russian regulatory standards are the presence of the national organic label and controlling authority in Germany, which does not present in Russia. Moreover, the misleading of consumers by means of false labeling or absence of organic logo on organic food are punished by German law, while in Russia organic certification is fully voluntary practice and given false labels do not prosecute by the law.

To conclude, it is possible to say that German market is better organized in terms of governmental regulations in comparison to Russian one; organic production in Germany is better controlled and labels on items are considered to be always justified and trustworthy as no one would counterfeit them and use any words which can make consumer think that the product is organic while in reality, it's not because it's just unprofitable. The same goes for private labeling initiatives which are even stricter than the governmental one. The cases of forgery are severely punished, precisely, with enormous fines what makes no sense for producers to cheat. It is known that those producers who once break this law are cleaned from the market completely and have no way to come back. And it could be suggested that this very fact makes German consumers trust in their labels. It's rarely the case in Russia. Russian legislation does not presuppose any kind of punishment for groundless usage of these signs, at least for now. In turn, it might make producers free in manipulation with the signs, labels, and different kinds of the declaration on their products to make the false impression on consumers and sell their production with higher prices.

The very problem, as it was stated during the roundtable on the problem of “greenwashing” which took place on the 4th of April in the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia, is the lack of knowledge among Russian consumers concerning organic labeling. They should be informed about how real labels should look like and how to distinguish real signs from self-declarations and “greenwashing”. What is more, the express survey was conducted in association with the “Ecological Union” in St. Petersburg in April 2016 which main aim was to understand the current situation on organic labeling in St. Petersburg. The results show that quite a big number of products are declared as organic and only a tiny part has internationally recognized signs of organic certification. Definitely, these declarations are hardly possible to be checked and it makes Russian consumers more vulnerable in terms of labeling. This fact in addition to the lack of Russian national ecological label makes Russian consumers still base their on labels but only on one come from Europe. It is supported by the fact that during the interviews Russian consumers usually recall European labels as they are more controlled and guarantee the organic origin of a product. To conclude it is necessary to say that Russian and German consumers tend to rely on labels because they could hardly be counterfeited but only if these labels are European both governmental and private.

Nevertheless, it is reasonable to state that the standards for organic food production, distribution and labeling could hardly be analyzed without taking into account what are the main characteristics that a product should have in order to meet consumer's expectations and thereby support their trust. Five characteristics were defined as the basic qualities a product should possess in order to be called organic and satisfy consumer's motives for buying it. They are safety, nutrition, quality, ethics and value for money. The fact is that without control from the third parties, whether it is a governmental body or private certification organization, it is hardly possible to identify when a product correspond these requirements or not. Moreover, the labels on a product which aim to guarantee its organic origin are always supposed to prove that those rules written in normative documents were followed by producers. Thus, European, and especially German, standards are stricter and regulate the process of organic production stricter and more detailed in comparison to Russian legislation. They describe the very tiny step of production and make consumers be sure that at the end they will get a safe product which is ready to satisfy their nutritional and sensorial needs, and, moreover, will provide them an opportunity to safe nature and contribute to the overall economic development. So, this very fact makes consumers in both countries rely on European organic food labels when choosing an organic item.



Conclusion

In the final section of the paper, it is necessary to come back to the questions outlined throughout the thesis. A brief overview of the obtained empirical results in their connection to research findings and theoretical concepts outlined in the first chapter will be provided. Moreover, the limitations of the research will be discussed in addition to some ideas for future research.

The research seeks to provide a comparative analysis of the consumer trust in organic food formation on the German and Russia markets. The investigation is based on the theoretical framework organized around two major concepts: organic food and consumer trust. With respect to the former concept recent work demonstrates the complexity of such notion as organic food as it is based on a range of different characteristics. However, as based on the current literature three basic approaches to explaining this term could be found which are mostly based on the differences between organic and conventional food at different stages of production and consumption process. First, the process-oriented approach, which was not found as the fundamental one for consumers, emphasize that organic food should be understood as the fresh food with minimal, careful and sustainable processing what allow at the end to keep as many useful compounds in a product as possible, and also not to harm those, who take part at the processing stage. Second, the agro-ecological approach is based on the idea of organic agriculture which is based on environmentally- and animal-friendly techniques in order to preserve natural resources, such as soil, water, air, etc., as well as biodiversity. Following the rules of organic agriculture, no chemicals or only a few allowed could be used; soil should be free from pesticides and other harmful substances; production waste has to be utilized with no harm to the environment; animals should be kept under the special conditions. All in all, it means that all the stages of growing correspond to the requirements of organic production. Finally, product quality-oriented or consumer-oriented approach highlights those benefits that could be obtained from the very process of consuming organic products. It is connected with such characteristics as nutritional value, bioactive compounds, health impact, safety, and taste. The last two approaches were revealed to be the foundational for consumer understanding of organic food both in Russia and Germany. Moreover, standards defined by the Codex Alimentarius and IFOAM complement these approaches by stating that an organic product could be called organic only if it was certified and carries an ecological label on it. Based on this argumentation, generally, we define organic food as one produced by environmentally - and animal friendly techniques, which allow to preserve natural resources and biodiversity; as a consequence associated with naturalness and freshness; which is undergone minimal, careful, and sustainable processing what in turn guarantee its higher nutritional value, positive effect on consumer health and characterized by better sensory attributes.

The second theoretical concept used in the theoretical framework for the research is consumer trust. Our definition of trust was based on two basic sociological approaches which are rational and sensual. The former one sees trust as a product of rationalization which is not groundless and inborn but based on some calculations; actors try to predict the outcomes of each other's actions based on some computations. The latter, conversely, understand trust as the element of faith; actors based their trust on feelings and beliefs that familiar things will remain stable. However, when talking about market relations and consumer trust it is necessary to say that these approaches could be implemented simultaneously and that's how the notion of critical trust appears. It means that consumers base their trust both on feelings and calculations when undertaking their actions on the market. Generally, consumer trust was defined as a bet about the future fulfillment of expectations in a situation of uncertainty, caused by other human's actions and underpinned by a lack of important information, based both on rational calculations and people's beliefs. In the case of organic food, this uncertainty connected with the fact that consumers can hardly know whether the product is really organic or not in terms that it is not always possible how it was grown and processed by the actors of the production chain and the access to this information is usually hindered. At the same time, expectations are strongly depend on consumer's definition of organic food and their motivation to buy it. In order to define the level of trust in organic food among consumers the methodology proposed by a group of Danish authors (Kj?rnes et. al. 2007) was used. Thus, 5 key factors that reflect basic characteristics and consequently consumer's expectations from organic food were distinguished (safety, nutrition, quality, ethics, and value for money); on the base of consumer's level of agreement with the statements about the presence of these qualities the trust index was calculated.

However, grounds for trust could be different and on the organic food market, they strongly depend on the information sources where consumers get knowledge about ecological products. In these regards, institutional and network approach were used to compare whether personal contact or institutions are considered by consumers to be the most trustworthy sources of information about trust. In this case recommendations from other consumers were considered as personal contacts, while labels, brands, content, mass media and advertisement were defined as institutional arrangements. In regard to these grounds for trust such categories as thin interpersonal trust, thick interpersonal trust, and institutional trust were used to describe the results. Thus, respondents were asked how often they pay attention to these different sources of information during the process of purchasing a product starts with the very decision to start. Later the dependencies between these two variables: trust level and the frequency of paying attention to different sources of information were calculated when trust index is dependent variable. The results of the survey were also complemented by structured interviews with organic food consumers.

Turning now to the empirical findings it is necessary to remind that the main research question of the thesis was: how consumer's trust in organic food is constructed on the market? And the main aim was to prove that despite numerous differences between the Russian and German organic food markets, there is a high level of trust in these products, underpinned equally by interpersonal communication between consumers and institutional regulations on both of them. The results show that consumers in both countries have high level of trust in organic food what is proved by trust in organic food indexes which are 4, 10 and 4, 29 for Russian and Germany correspondingly. On the scale from absolute distrust to absolute trust, it could be interpreted in general as trust. Moreover, it was also found out that interpersonal communication and institutional arrangements have a big influence on consumer trust in both countries. However, consumer's trust on the market is formatted gradually and is influenced by different factors on every stage which could be stated as the decision-making process, choosing process, and the very act of purchasing. That's why it is possible to view trust, not as a stable phenomenon, and it should be analyzed in the process of its formation. Nevertheless, by fulfilling the specified tasks the hypothesis formulated at the beginning were partly proved.

First of all, it was assumed that personal communication among consumers related to organic food consumption positively affects consumer's trust in these products both in Russia in Germany. This assumption was partly proved due to the fact that personal communication plays the most important role during the process of decision making both in Russia and Germany and positively correlated with the level of trust, but do not have much influence during others stages. It slightly influences only Russian consumers during the choosing process and highly depends on whom exactly they communicate with, namely, experts in the field of organic or at least those who possesses more knowledge about these matters. On the base of the survey results underpinned by the information obtained from the interviews, it is possible to state that generally, people decide to start buying organic food and base the initial trust impulse exactly on their personal communication. Approximately half of the respondents for the first time received information about these commodities my means of so-called “World of mouth”. It refers both to the people with whom people are known to have strong connections, for example, family members. But also connected with just other consumers, for example, those with whom consumers communicate in social networks. That's why this stage is characterized by thick and thin interpersonal trust.

Secondly, it was presumed that institutions regulating Russian and German organic food market influence consumer's trust in these products. This hypothesis was proved completely: institutions have strong influence on consumer's trust and more than that they increase its level during the stages of choosing and purchasing. Importance of institutional regulations is explained by the fact that consumers are not able to recognize whether a product corresponds to the basic requirements of being organic, but controlling bodies on the base of laws and regulations are able to detect those qualities on every stage of production process. For example, whether production process is not harmful for the environment, how animals are treated, which additives a product contains. However, institutional arrangements that increase the level of trust on each stage vary. Thus, labels play the most important role during the process of choosing both for Russian and German consumers. Strong correlation between trust index and the labels was found out. Nevertheless, as it was revealed from the interviews, not just the presence of label matters but what is behind the labels, precisely, laws and regulations which regulate the process of organic production.

Moreover, it is necessary to mention the fact that European labels could hardly be counterfeited because it is unprofitable for producers to do so: punishment for these actions is rather severe. That is why when speaking about Russian market, where the lack of national legislation and national organic labels could be noticed precisely European labels are the base for trust. At the same time German consumer tend to rely on their national labels more than on their European analogs what indicates a high level of confidence on national regulating systems. In comparison to self-declarations about organic qualities made by producers on the Russian market, which are pretty often groundless, European labels are more trustworthy because they are better controlled and it allows saying that Russian consumers trust more in European controlling institutions but not in national ones. Simultaneously, German consumers also highlight the difference between governmental and private labels and tend to rely more on the latter, because this labels usually presuppose stricter rules for production. However, the lack of trust towards national labels among Russian consumers demonstrate the absent of trust towards state controlling bodies and the national way of organic certification in general. It in turn shows pretty low level of trust towards national institutional system.

Surprisingly, it was also revealed that mass media influences consumer's trust in organic food but oppositely in Russia and Germany. As it turned out mass media serves as the trustworthy source of information and in general increases the level of trust in these products among German consumers: the more they pay attention to mass media the higher their level of trust is. It is the other way round when considering Russian consumers: strong negative correlation was found out between mass media and trust. Generally, this difference could be explained by the fact that German mass media covers the topic of organic food more often and usually focuses on positive aspects of the topic. On the contrary, organic food in Russian media is discussed only occasionally and is put in more negative light with constant emphasis on its unreasonably high prices, permanent cases of forgery, and so on. At the same time, German media often pay attention to such issues as control in the sphere of organic production, strengthening of rules and regulations.

Finally, during the last stage, namely, the very process of purchasing the most attention is paid by consumers to the information about the content that they can find on the packaging. Thus, 52% of German respondents and 54% of Russian respondents named information about the content on the packaging of the product as the decisive factor in the choice of organic products. It could be explained by the fact that some norms allow the usage of particular additives to the product, which might be unacceptable for them or have a bad impact on the health. Reasons could be different and need further investigation. However, this is also what is reasonable to call institutional trust as long as what can be written on a packaging is also controlled by corresponding legislations and regulatory bodies.

A key limitation of the research as could be stated for now is the inability to make the investigation which covers the whole markets in general. Nevertheless, even if the current study is limited by organic food systems which include only several actors of the market, it is reasonable to say that they could be applied to the whole German and Russian organic food markets in general. Even the very fact that these markets are rather different makes the results of the research rather disputable, but, nevertheless, the cases of analysis were chosen in a way to be as similar as it possible in order to cope with this problem. Moreover, some methodological limitations should also be mentioned, such as, for example, the difficulty of trust measurement. It is known that trust is a complex phenomenon and could hardly be studied in quantitative techniques. However, the attempt undertaken in this work allows making necessary calculations in order to create the general picture of trust. Moreover, structured interviews also reduce the amount of information that could have been gathered by means of semi-structured interviews. However, investigation of trust problem by means of structured interviews help to avoid the abundance of unnecessary information connected with the specificity of the subject.

To conclude, it is important to express some ideas for future research which could be realized in further studies. It would be interesting to concentrate attention particularly on the first target of trust, namely labels and content. It could be supposed that these arrangements could be regarded also as secondary targets of trust as long as labels are issued by certification bodies and to trust in labels it is necessary to trust in these bodies. The same goes for the content as long as to trust information written on the packaging it is important to trust those who provide this information and control this process. What is more, the problem of trust in organic food was studied here from the point of consumers, while it would be great to enrich the results by researching producers and other actors of the market in order to get complete picture of the problem. In general, it is possible to say that results of the work could be considered as applicable for those who are interested in the further development of the organic food market in Russia and Germany.



Bibliography

1. Ahvenainen, R., Autio, K., Helander, I., Honapдд, K., Kervinen, R., Kinnunen, A., et al. (2014) VTT research programme on minimal processing. http://eurekamag.com/research/003/607/vtt-science-programminimal-processing-final-report.php

2. Ahvenainen, R., Matilla-Sandholm, T. & Ohlsson, T. (1994) Minimal processing of food, VTT Symposium 142, Espoo.

3. Akerlof, G. (1970) The Market for «Lemons»: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84 (3): 488-500.

4. Akerlof, G. (1983) Loyalty Filters, American Economic Review, 73 (1): 54-63.

5. Anisimova, T. & Sultan, P. (2014) The Role of Brand Communications in Consumer Purchases of Organic Foods: A Research Framework, Journal of Food Products Marketing, 20 (5):511-532.

6. Baker, B.P., Benbrook, C.M., Groth, E., Benbrook, K.L. (2002) Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown and organic foods: insights from three US data sets, Food additives and contaminants, 19 (5): 427-46.

7. Baraсski, M., Srednicka-Tober, D., Volakakis, N. (2014) Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses, The British Journal of nutrition, 112(5): 794-81.

8. Baranski, M., Srednicka-Tober, D., Volakakis, N., et al. (2014) Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses, British Journal of Nutrition, 112(5):794-811

9. Barber, B. The Logic and Limits of Trust. (1983) New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

10. Barroilhet, S. (2012) The Difference between Conventional Farming and Organic Farming. https://www.hivehealthmedia.com/difference-conventional-farming-organic-farming/

11. Beck, A, Kretzschmar, U. & Schmid, O. (2006) Organic Food Processing: Principles, Concepts and Recommendations for the Future, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL)

12. Beck, A. (2004) Appropriate technology, Underlying Principles in Organic and Low-Input Food Processing, Literature Survey: 32-35.

13. Beck, A. (2014) Code of Best Practices for Organic Food Processing, EU project No. 50635 Quality of Low Input Food. http://orgprints.org/7032/

14. Berg, L., Kjaernes, U., Ganskau, E., Minina, V., Voltchkova, L., Halkier, B. & Holm, L. (2005) Trust in food safety in Russia, Denmark and Norway, European Societies, 7 (1): 103-129.

15. Bernacchia, R., Preti, R. & Vinci G. (2016) Organic and conventional foods: differences in nutritients, Italian journal of food science, 28 (4): 565-578.

16. Bratanova, B., Vauclair C.-M., Kervyn N., et al. (2015) Savouring Morality. Moral Satisfaction Renders Food of Ethical Origin Subjectively Tastier, Appetite, 91 (1): 137-149.

17. Brcic-Stipcevic, V. & Petljak, K. (2012) An empirical analysis of consumer awareness and trust in organic food legislation in Croatia, Scientific Journal of Logistics, 8 (3): 247-256.

18. Bruschi, V., Shershneva, K., Dolgopolova, I., Canavari, M. & Teuber, R. (2015) Consumer perception of organic food in emerging markets: evidence from Saint Petersburg, Russia, Agribusiness, 31(3): 414-432.

19. Business life newspaper [Electronic newspaper]: http://bs-life.ru/rabota/zarplata/srednyaya-zarplata2016.html

20. Buskens, V. Social Networks and Trust. (2002) Springer.

21. Cencic, A. & Chingwaru, W. (2010) The role of functional foods, nutraceuticals, and food supplements in intestinal health, Nutritients, 2(6): 611-25.

22. Codex Alimentarius, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods. GL 32-1999. Adopted 1999. Revisions 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2007. Amendments 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012 (2001, rev. 2012). http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1385e/a1385e00.HTM

23. Coleman, J. Foundations of social theory. (1990) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

24. Conner, M.T. (1993) Understanding Determinants of Food Choice: Contributions from Attitude Research, British food journal, 95 (9): 27-31.

25. Dangour, A. D., Lock, K., Hayter, A., Aikenhead, A., Allen, E., & Uauy, R. (2010). Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: systematic review, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92: 203-210.

26. Earle, T.C. & Cvetkovich, G.T. Social Trust: toward a cosmopoliten society. (1995) Praeger.

27. Eisinger-Watzl, M., Wittig, F., Heuer, T. & Hoffmann, T. (2015) Customers Purchasing Organic Food - Do They Live Healthier? Results of the German National Nutrition Survey II, European Journal of Nutrition & Food Safety, 5(1): 59-71.

28. Fukuyama, F. Trust: The sociological virtues and the creation of prosperity. (1995) New York, NY: The Free Press.

29. Fulton, E.A., Smith, D.M.A., Smith, D.C., Johnson, P. (2014) An Integrated Approach Is Needed for Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management: Insights from Ecosystem-Level Management Strategy Evaluation, PLoS ONE, 9(1).

30. Gallmann, P.U. (2000) All Natural and Convenience Products: a Contradiction? The Impact of Food Technology. Proceedings 1st International Seminar “organic Food Processing”, IFOAM 2000, by Brigitte Stucki and U Meier, IFOAM 2000.

31. Ganskau, E., Minina, V., Voltchkova, L. (2004) Changing Conditions for Consumer Trust in Food in Russia: Development of Food Distribution and Shifting Responsibilities for Safety and Quality (unpublished report).

32. Giannakas, K. (2002) Information Asymmetries and Consumption Decisions in Organic Food Product Markets, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50 (1): 35-50.

33. Giddens, A. The consequences of modernity. (1990) Cambridge: Polity Press.

34. Gil, M.I. & Allende, A. (2012) Minimal processing, Gуmez-Lуpez, V. (Ed.), Decontamination of Fresh and Minimally Processed Produce, Wiley & Son, Oxford, UK: 105 (Chapter 6).

35. Gill, D. (1995) Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity by Francis Fukuyama, review [Electronic resource]. http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/faith-work/documents/FukuyamaF.Trust.pdf

36. Gomiero, T., Paoletti, M.G. & Pimentel, D. (2008) Energy and Environmental Issues in Organic and Conventional Agriculture, Critical Reviews In Plant Sciences, 27 (4): 239-254

37. Good, D. (1988) Individuals, interpersonal relations, and trust, in: D. Gambetta (ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Oxford: Basil Blackwell: 31-48.

38. Gottschalk, I. & Leistner, T. (2013) Consumer reactions to the availability of organic food in discount supermarkets, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37 (2): 136-142.

39. Gottschalk, I. & Leistner, T. (2013) Consumer Reactions to the Availability of Organic Food in Discount Supermarkets, International IJC, 37 (2): 136-142.

40. Gracia, A. & De-Magistris, T. (2016) Consumer preferences for food labeling: What ranks first, Food Control, 61: 39-46.

41. Granovetter, M. (1973) The Strength of Weak Ties, American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6): 1360-1380.

42. Granovetter, M. (1985) Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3): 481-510.

43. Griffith, W., Curl, C.L., Fenske, R.A., Lu, C.A., Vigoren, E.M., Faustman, E.M. (2011). Organophosphate pesticide metabolite levels in pre-school children in an agricultural community: within- and between-child variability in a longitudinal study, Environ Res, 111 (6): 751-756

44. Hamzaoui-Essoussi, L., Sirieix, L. & Zahaf, M. (2013). Trust orientations in the organic food distribution channels: A comparative study of the Canadian and French markets, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20 (3): 292-301.

45. Hardin, R. (1991) Trusting persons, trusting institutions, in: R. J. Zeckhauser (ed.), Strategy and Choice, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press: 185-209.

46. Hemmerling, S., Canavari, M., Spiller, A. (2016) Preference for naturalness of European organic consumers: First evidence of an attitude-liking gap, British food journal, 118 (9): 2287-2307.

47. Henryks, J., Pearson, D., Anisimova, T. & Sultan P. (2013) The Labeling of Organic Food: Understanding consumer perceptions. [Electronic resource] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261474678_The_Labeling_of_Organic_Food_Understanding_consumer_perceptions

48. Hodgson, G.M. (1998) The Approach of Institutional Economics, Journal of Economic Literature, 36: 166-192.

49. Hughner, S., Mcdonagh, P., Prothero, A., Ii, C. J. S. & Stanton J. (2007) Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food, Journal of consumer behavior, 6: P. 11-17.

50. Janssen, M. & Hamm, U. (2010) Consumer perception of standards and labels for organic food, Berichte Uber Landwirtschaft, 88 (1): 86-102.

51. Janssen, M. & Hamm, U. (2012) Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos, Food Quality and Preference, 25 (1): 9-22.

52. Janssen, M. & Hamm, U. (2012) Product Labelling in the Market for Organic Food: Consumer Preferences and Willingness-to-Pay for Different Organic Certification Logos, Food Quality and Preference, 25 (1):9-22.

53. Janssen, M. & Hamm, U. (2014) Governmental and private certification labels for organic food: Consumer attitudes and preferences in Germany, Food Policy, 49 (2): 437-448.

54. Kahl, J., Alborzi, F., Beck, A. & Zaікcka, A. (2014) Organic Food processing: A framework for concept, starting definitions and evaluation, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 94 (13): 2582-94.

55. Kahl, J., Alborzi, F., Beck, A. & Zaікcka, A. (2014) Organic Food processing: A framework for concept, starting definitions and evaluation, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 94 (13): 2582-2594.

56. Kahl, J., Baars, T., Bьgel, S. & Zaі?cka, A. (2012) Organic food quality: A framework for concept, definition and evaluation from the European perspective, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 92 (14): 2760-5.

57. Kahl, J., Zaікcka, A., Ploeger, A., Bьgel, S. & Huber, M. (2012) Functional Food and Organic Food are Competing Rather than Supporting Concepts in Europe, Agriculture, 2: 316-324.

58. Karstens, B. & Belz, F.-M. (2006) Information asymmetries, labels and trust in the German food market: A critical analysis based on the economics of information, International Journal of Advertising, 25 (2): 189-211.

59. Karstens, B. & Belz, F.-M. (2015) Information asymmetries, labels and trust in the German food market: A critical analysis based on the economics of information, International Journal of Advertising, 25 (2): 189-211.

60. Khodyakov, D. (2007) Trust as a Process: A Three-Dimensional Approach, Sociology, 41 (1): 115-132.

61. Kjжrnes, U., Harvey, M. & Warde, A. Trust in Food: A Comparative and Institutional Analysis. (2007) Palgrave Macmillan, London.

62. Kjaernes, U., Harvey, M. & Warde, A. Trust in Food: A Comparative and Institutional Analysis. (2007) New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

63. Kolchevnikova, O. & Ayala, D. (2013) Development of a National Standard for Organic Products in Russia. Washington, D.C.: GAIN Report, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.

64. Kouba, M. (2003). Quality of organic animal products, Livestock Production Science, 80: 33-40.

65. Kristensen, N.H. & Beck, A. (2004) Sustainable processing, Underlying Principles in Organic and Low-Input Food Processing, Literature Survey: 27-31.

66. LavkaLavka Gazeta [Electronic resource]. http://lavkagazeta.com/

67. Luhmann, N. Trust and Power. (1979) New York, NY: John Wiley.

68. Mc. Combs, M.E. & Shaw, D.L. (1972) The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media, The public opinion Quarterly, 36 (2): 176-187.

69. Mc. Combs, M.E. (2003) The Agenda-Setting Role of the Mass Media in the Shaping of Public Opinion [Electronic resource]. http://www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/mccombs01.pdf

70. McCluskey, J. & Swinnen, J. (2011) The media and food-risk perceptions, Science & Society Series on Food and Science, 12 (7): 624-629.

71. Meixner, O., Haas, R., Perevoshchikova, Y. & Canavari, M. (2014) Consumer Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behavior in the Russian Market for Organic Food, International Journal on food system dynamics, 5 (2): 110-120.

72. Meixner, O., Haas, R., Perevoshchikova, Y. & Canavari, M. (2014) Consumer Attitudes, Knowledge and Behavior in the Russian Market of Food, Proceedings in System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks 2014: 185-196.

73. Meyers C. & Chodil, K. (2011) Feeding the Debate: A Framing Analysis of the News Media Coverage of Organic Food [Electronic resource]. http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/saas/files/2011/02/Meyers.pdf

74. Misztal, B. Trust in Modern Societies: the Search for the Basis of Social Order. (1996) Cambridge: Polity Press.

75. Mueller, C.E. & Gaus, H. (2015) Consumer Response to Negative Media Information About Certified Organic Food Products, Journal of Consumer Policy, 38 (4): 387-409.

76. Nestorowicz, R. (2014) The information asymmetry and the social responsibility on the food market, International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 7 (2): 59-68.

77. North, D Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. (1990) New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

78. Palupi, E., Jayanegara, A., Ploeger, A. & Kahl, J. (2012) Comparison of nutritional quality between conventional and organic dairy products: a meta-analysis, Journal of the science of food and agriculture, 92 (14): 2774-81.

79. Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D. & Seidel, R. (2005) Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems, BioScience, 55 (7): 573-582.

80. Poortinga, W. & Pidgeon, N.F. (2004) Trust, the asymmetry principle and the role of prior beliefs, Risk Analysis, 24 (6): 1475-1486.

81. Poulter, S. (2015) Is organic food tastier? No, it's all in the mind: “Moral satisfaction” of eating items produced in an ethical way means you're more likely to enjoy it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136716/Is-organic-food-tastier-No-research-finds-s-mind.html

82. Radaev, V.V. General approaches to the market analysis (2008) http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/059/699/1219/part_1.pdf (in Russian)

83. Rampl L.V., Eberhardt, T., Schьtte, R. & Kenning P.H. (2012) Consumer trust in food retailers: Conceptual framework and empirical evidence, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40 (4): 254-272.

84. Rehder, L.E. & Le, A. (2014) Organic Food Retail [Electronic resource]. https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Organic%20Food%20Retail_Berlin_Germany_1-31-2014.pdf

85. Rehder, L.E. (2016) Organic Food Retail 2016 [Electronic resource]. https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Organic%20Food%20Retail%202016_Berlin_Germany_1-6-2016.pdf

86. Rousseau, S. & Vranken, L. (2013) Green market expansion by reducing information asymmetries: Evidence for labeled organic food products, Food Policy, 40: 31?43.

87. Rozin, P. (1996). Sociocultural Influences on Human Food Selection, Capaldi, E.D. (ed.): Why we eat what we eat: The Psychology of eating Washington, USA: The American Psychological Association

88. Scheufele, D.A. & Tewksbury, D. (2007) Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models, Journal of Communication, 57: 9-20.

89. Schmid, O. & Beck, A. (2004) Development of organic agriculture and organic food processing, Underlying Principles in Organic and, Low-input Food Processing, Literature Survey, 17-22.

90. Schneider, F.A., Stolze, M. A., Kriege-Steffen, A. B., Lohscheidt, J .B. & Boland, H. B. In: Millar, K.; West, P. H., Nerlich, B. (2009) Ethical futures: bioscience and food horizons. (2009) Wageningen Academic Publishers: 271-276.

91. Schumacher, E.F. Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered (1973) HarperPerennial. London.

92. Seligman, A. The problem of trust. (1997) Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

93. Shepherd, R. (1990) The psychology of food choice, Nutrition & Food Science, 90 (3): 2-4

94. Simmel, G. The philosophy of money. [1900] (1978) London: Routledge.

95. Smed, S., Mшrch Andersen, L., Kжrgеrd, N. & Daugbjerg, C. (2013) A Matter of Trust: How Trust Influence Organic Consumption, Journal of Agricultural Science, 5 (7): 91-106.

96. Smith, A. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. (2002) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

97. Smith-Spangler, C., Brandeau, M.L., Hunter, G.E., et al (2012) Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: a systematic review, Annals of internal medicines, 157(5): 348-66.

98. Њrednicka-Tober, D., Baraсski, M., Seal, C. Composition differences between organic and conventional meat: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, The British Journal of Nutrition, 115 (6): 994-1011.

99. Њrednicka-Tober, D., Baraсski, M., Seal, C. et al. (2016) Composition differences between organic and conventional meat: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, The British Journal of nutrition, 115 (6): 994-1011.

100. Sultan, P., Pearson, D., Henryks, J. & Anisimova, T. (2013) Marketing communications for organic food products: development and validation of two models leading to purchase intent. [Electronic resource] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261474691_Marketing_communications_for_organic_food_products_development_and_validation_of_two_models_leading_to_purchase_intent

101. Sztompka, P. Trust: a sociological theory. (1999) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

102. Van Overbeke, I., Duchateau, L., Zutter, L.D., Albers, G. & Ducatelle, R. (2006) A comparison survey of organic and conventional broiler chickens for infectious agents affecting health and food safety, Avian diseases, 50 (2): 196-200.

103. Vega-Zamora, M., Parras-Rosa, M., Murgado-Armenteros, E.M. & Torres-Ruiz, F.J. (2013) A Powerful Word: The Influence of the Term «Organic» on Perceptions and Beliefs Concerning Food, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 16 (4): 51-76.

104. Veselov, Y. Trust and justice: moral grounds of modern economic society. (2011). Moscow: Aspect Press.

105. Veselov, Y., Sinyutin, M. & Kapustkina, E. Trust, Morality, and Markets: Rethinking Economy and Society via the Russian Case. (2016). PL Academic Research.

106. Vittersш, G. & Tangeland, T. (2015) The role of consumers in transitions towards sustainable food consumption. The case of organic food in Norway, Journal of Cleaner Production, 92: 91-99.

107. Williamson O. Markets and Hierarchies. (1975) New York: Free Press.

108. Wood, R., Lenzen, M., Dey, C. & Lundie, S. (2006). A comparative study of some environmental impacts of conventional and organic farming in Australia, Agricultural Systems, 89: 324-348.

109. Zagata, L. & Lostak, M. (2012) In Goodness We Trust. The Role of Trust and Institutions Underpinning Trust in the Organic Food Market, Sociologia Ruralis, 52 (4): 470-487.

110. Bild newspaper [Electronic resource]. http://www.bild.de/

111. Bioland Standards for organic production. Version of 14th March, 2016 [Electronic resource]. http://www.bioland.de/fileadmin/dateien/HP_Dokumente/Richtlinien/Bioland_Standards_2016-03-14.pdf

112. Codex Alimentarius International Food Standards [Electronic resource]. http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/en/

113. Commission regulation (EC) №889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation № 834/2007 [Electronic resource]. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/889/oj

114. Commission regulation № 271/2010 [Electronic resource]. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:084:0019:0022:EN:PDF

115. Council Regulation No 834/2007/EC of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation № 2092/91/EEC [Electronic resource]. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:189:0001:0023:EN:PDF

116. Demeter standards for organic labeling [Electronic resource]. http://www.demeter.net/sites/default/files/di_labelling_stds_demeter_biodynamic_16-e.pdf

117. Demeter standards for organic processing [Electronic resource]. http://www.demeter.net/sites/default/files/di_processing_stds_demeter_biodynamic_16_-_e.pdf

118. Demeter standards for organic production [Electronic resource]. http://www.demeter.net/sites/default/files/di_production_stds_demeter_biodynamic_16-e.pdf

119. Ecological Union standards for organic production and processing [Electronic resource]. http://sozrf.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Standart_ecounion.pdf

120. Federal State Statistic Service of Russian Federation [Electronic resource]: http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/en/main/

121. Federal Statistical Service of Germany [Electronic resource]: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Startseite.html

122. Food and agriculture Organization of the United Nations [Electronic resource]. http://www.fao.org/home/en/

123. German certification organization for biodynamic agriculture Demeter [Electronic resource]: http://www.demeter.net/

124. German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. https://www.bmel.de/EN/Homepage/homepage_node.html

125. German organic food association Bioland [Electronic resource]: http://www.bioland.de/start.html

126. GOST P 56104-2014 on organic food products: terms and definitions [Electronic resource]. http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200113488

127. GOST P- 56508-2015 on organic products: rules of production, storage and transportation [Electronic resource]. http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200121688

128. GOST Р 57022-2016 on organic production and the procedure of voluntary certification of organic production [Electronic resource]. http://protect.gost.ru/document1.aspx?control=31&baseC=6&page=6&month=8&year=2016&search=&id=204644

129. Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods. CAC/GL 32-1999 [Electronic resource]. http://www.fao.org/organicag/doc/glorganicfinal.pdf

130. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements [Electronic resource]: https://www.ifoam.bio/

131. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements EU group [Electronic resource]: http://www.ifoam-eu.org/en/node

132. News portal Deutsch Welle [Electronic resource]. http://www.dw.com/en/top-stories/s-9097

133. News portal RIA news [Electronic resource]. https://ria.ru/

134. News portal Rossiya 24 [Electronic resource]. http://www.vesti.ru/onair/

135. Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety. http://www.english.vkm.no/

136. Official website of European Commission on agriculture and rural development [Electronic resource]. https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en

137. Organic vs non-organic food. http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/news/2015/10/organicvsnon-organicfood/

138. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL [Electronic resource]: http://www.fibl.org/en/homepage.html

139. Russian newspaper Arguments and Facts [Electronic resource]. http://www.aif.ru/

140. Russian newspaper Gazeta.ru [Electronic resource]. https://www.gazeta.ru/

141. Russian newspaper Izvestia [Electronic resource]. http://izvestia.ru/

142. Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda [Electronic resource]. http://www.spb.kp.ru/

143. Spiegel newspaper [Electronic resource]. http://www.spiegel.de/

144. Taz.de newspaper [Electronic resource]. http://www.taz.de/!p4608/

145. The IFOAM norms for organic production and processing. Version August, 2014 [Electronic resource]. http://www.ifoam.bio/sites/default/files/ifoam_norms_july_2014_t.pdf

146. The Local.de Germany's news in English [Electronic resource]. https://www.thelocal.de/

147. The Organic Farming Act - ЦLG [Electronic resource]. http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Agriculture/OrganicFarming/Organic-Farming-in-Germany.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

148. Vedomosti newspaper [Electronic resource]: https://www.vedomosti.ru/newspaper/last



Appendix I. Research program for empirical study

I. Topicality and problem statement

It is obvious that nowadays a market for organic food in Europe, and especially in Germany, is constantly growing (European Commission). The same trend can be also observed in Russia (Bruschi V et.al. 2015). Despite of numerous differences between German and Russian organic food markets there is one common problem which is typical for both. This is the problem of information asymmetries. Organic products are often even called credence goods because the information about the nature of the product is asymmetric: while producers know whether the product is really organic or not, in most cases the presence or absence of the organic characteristics are not detectable by consumers even after purchase and use of the product (Giannakas K., 2002). Consumers generally cannot distinguish organic products from conventional ones by their appearance or taste. More than that, it is hardly possible to say if the product organic or not even after the consumption (Schneider F., et.al. 2009). In other words buyers do not really sure if the product is organic unless they are told so. Of course, this issue is relevant for any market in general, whether it is the automobile, insurance, credit or labour markets (Akerlof G., 1970) and for the food market in particular (Nestorowicz R., 2014). This is explained by the fact that producers from the very beginning possess more information about goods they offer. We can't but agree with this but at the same time for the organic food market this problem becomes even more important due to the peculiarity of traded goods which will be covered below.

From the one hand, reasons for purchasing organic food are seem to be very altruistic. Thus, originally organic farming has been emerged as an alternative production system to help preserve the environment , and reduce the negative impact on natural resources such as soil, air and water (Vega-Zamora M., et.al. 2013). This goes along with the striving for rural economic development (Ibid.). On the other hand, motifs for buying such products are also rather egoistic. Individual health and food safety together with the quality and flavor are in the spotlight for many people (Ibid.). However, in both cases commodities, which are purchased by people who claim themselves as organic food consumers, are endowed with a bigger value. It is difficult to argue that a person would choose organic product instead if it's conventional counterpart without having a strong reason. And this very strong reason makes organic food and organic food market unique. In order to satisfy particular needs of consumers it is important for them to be sure that money is invested in a truly ecological product. For this reason, information provision can affect consumers' willingness-to-pay for environmental goods (Rousseau S., 2013). And this confidence can't be totally full until the problem of information asymmetries is solved.

...