Multi-level labelling: too complex for consumers?

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractAs more food labels enter the retail market, it is becoming increasingly difficult for consumers to review the underlying standards of products. The most common labels communicating ethical values tend to be binary. However, many attributes, such as animal welfare, are of a continuous nature and are not binary. One solution to communicate differentiated information about the process or product standards is through the use of multi-level labels, which indicate various levels of standards. This way, consumers might realize the differences in the production or process qualities more easily. However, since multi-level labels are more complex, the impact on consumers' comprehension is not clear. The objective of this paper is to test whether a multi-level labelling approach is comprehensible for consumers and could therefore be an effective tool to communicate information about standards and thus enhancing willingness to pay. The results show that when an explanation about the levels of the label is provided, there is an increasing willingness to pay for products with higher standards of animal welfare. Hence, a multi-level label can work if information is provided.

How green is your packaging—A comparative international study of cues consumers use to recognize environmentally friendly packaging

“…Past research has already stressed the importance of providing specific knowledge about eco‐labels besides general environmental knowledge (Taufique, Siwar, Chamhuri, & Sarah, ) and in the packaging context, Magnier and Crié () have pointed out that logos can only be fully understood in combination with more detailed verbal information. We think that a multilevel label as suggested by Weinrich et al () would help to provide differentiated information while keeping complexity for consumers low, since past research has pointed out the problems of over‐burdening the consumer with too complex labels (Olander & Thogersen, ). However, using an eco‐label can also have negative effects for companies, as consumers’ perception of product efficacy may suffer, since at least, a part of the population tends to believe that green products and packaging exhibit a lower performance regarding other criteria (Weinrich & Spiller, ; Wood et al, ).…”

“…Sustainable purchasing choices are highly complex decisions (Moisander, ) causing ‘information overload’ (Weinrich & Spiller, ); however, the typical mode of thinking available for making everyday decisions does not support the cognitive effort that complex decision‐making calls for (Biel & Dahlstrand, ). So it is not surprising that research has identified both time pressure and cognitive overload together with a lack of willingness to process more information (Weinrich, Franz, & Spiller, ; Weinrich & Spiller, ) as factors limiting consumer selection of environmentally friendly packaging (Biel & Dahlstrand, ; Sheth, Newman, & Gross, ). In past studies, consumers have also expressed concern about their ability to judge packaging solutions (Lindh, Olsson, & Williams, ).…”