Paper Type
Complete
Abstract
Digital Food Product Passports (DFPPs) are emerging as data infrastructures for transparency in food value chains, but which traceability data categories should be included remains unclear. This study compares beekeepers’ (data providers) and consumers’ (data users) perceptions of the importance of traceability data categories for honey DFPPs. We conducted two surveys in Poland involving 949 beekeepers and 1,006 consumers. Respondents rated 21 traceability data categories using a five-point Likert scale. Mann–Whitney U tests with Holm correction and Cliff’s δ show that beekeepers generally assign higher importance to these categories, whereas consumers prioritize them more selectively. Twelve categories showed statistically significant differences, mainly within beekeeper- and apiary-related categories, while beekeeping practice-related categories were more often convergent. A shared high-importance set suggests a compact Top-11 DFPP baseline, including honey type, laboratory-quality testing, awards and certificates, beekeeping practice type, beekeeping experience, region, coarse location, harvesting, bee feeding, diseases and treatments, and distribution channel. Jointly low-priority categories include beekeeper age, formal education, and app/device use. We discuss the implications for actor-centric DFPP design, highlighting layered disclosure and verifiability as design considerations for supporting credible transparency.
Paper Number
1215
Recommended Citation
Ziemba, Ewa Wanda; Grabara, Dariusz; and Maruszewska, Ewa Wanda Mrs, "Traceability Data for Digital Food Product Passports: Beekeepers’ and Consumers’ Perspectives in Honey Value Chains" (2026). AMCIS 2026 Proceedings. 1.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2026/sig_green/sig_green/1
Traceability Data for Digital Food Product Passports: Beekeepers’ and Consumers’ Perspectives in Honey Value Chains
Digital Food Product Passports (DFPPs) are emerging as data infrastructures for transparency in food value chains, but which traceability data categories should be included remains unclear. This study compares beekeepers’ (data providers) and consumers’ (data users) perceptions of the importance of traceability data categories for honey DFPPs. We conducted two surveys in Poland involving 949 beekeepers and 1,006 consumers. Respondents rated 21 traceability data categories using a five-point Likert scale. Mann–Whitney U tests with Holm correction and Cliff’s δ show that beekeepers generally assign higher importance to these categories, whereas consumers prioritize them more selectively. Twelve categories showed statistically significant differences, mainly within beekeeper- and apiary-related categories, while beekeeping practice-related categories were more often convergent. A shared high-importance set suggests a compact Top-11 DFPP baseline, including honey type, laboratory-quality testing, awards and certificates, beekeeping practice type, beekeeping experience, region, coarse location, harvesting, bee feeding, diseases and treatments, and distribution channel. Jointly low-priority categories include beekeeper age, formal education, and app/device use. We discuss the implications for actor-centric DFPP design, highlighting layered disclosure and verifiability as design considerations for supporting credible transparency.
When commenting on articles, please be friendly, welcoming, respectful and abide by the AIS eLibrary Discussion Thread Code of Conduct posted here.
Comments
SIG GREEN