The bunch of sustainability labels – Do consumers differentiate?

Janßen, Dilani; Langen, Nina

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.171

Cited by 116 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study two consumer segments were identified ("Sceptical" and "Mindful") who despite similar sociodemographic profile differed significantly in their buying behaviour and attitudes towards sustainable products, labels and producers. These results are in line with current observations in consumer segmentation regarding sustainable food choices [10,39,40]. Verain et al identified four segments of consumers ('unsustainers', 'curtailers', 'product-oriented consumers', and 'sustainers') according to sustainable product choices and behaviour [37].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…According to Janßen et al consumers have different associations and opinions with certain sustainability labels what determines their choices and WTP. Three identified consumer segments ('the price sensitives', 'the price conscious label discriminators' and the 'label choosers') assessed differently the credence attributes of labels related the same and other pillars of sustainability [10]. Furthermore, the results confirm that consumers weigh labels against other characteristics during the stage of product evaluation in their decision-making process [40,41].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…They are often in the form of a logo and/or a statement on the product that tells the consumer that the food meets the standard of that scheme, e.g., the food is produced in a certain geographic region, is organically produced, is produced with respect to the local economy (e.g., prevents poverty) or in accordance to additional requirements relating to animal welfare [6]. Over the last few decades such labels have become an important market-oriented instrument in European Union policy for a healthy diet and environment [9,10]. It reduces the presence of asymmetric information, supports creating market transparency and allows consumers to feel confident about their everyday food choices [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The European Commission survey in 2012 identified 129 different sustainability label-related food standards [13]. The Ecolabel Index (2016) indicated that there were 148 public and private sustainability standards and quality assurance schemes for food and beverages available at the EU or national levels what points to a gradual increase in their number [10,14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Impact of Food Sustainability Labels on the Perceived Product Value and Price Expectations of Urban Consumers

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable labelling is an important tool in raising awareness and informing potential buyers regarding environmental, economic and social issues. This study provides insights into consumers’ value of food sustainability labels through the exploration of the impact of logos on their purchasing decisions (willingness to buy (WTB)) and readiness to pay (willingness to pay (WTP)) a higher price for sustainability-labelled products. Data was collected via an online survey among a sample of 423 adult city dwellers in Poland. The structured questionnaire beside sections concerning consumer buying behaviour and perception of the food labels consisted of a behavioural choice experiment (CE), where two categories of plant products: fresh (apples or bananas) and non-perishable (rice or beans) varied by type of labelling (logos: Euro-leaf, PGI, Fair Trade or without logo) and by price. Cluster analysis revealed two consumer groups (named “Sceptical” and “Mindful”) that had varied opinions and perceptions of sustainable labelled food and buying behaviour. The research results indicate that when the logo is poorly-known even consumers with positive attitudes towards sustainability do not use it as a cue when shopping for food. Moreover, urban consumers were very price sensitive and showed a restrained desire to pay a higher price for sustainability labelled products.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Impact of Food Sustainability Labels on the Perceived Product Value and Price Expectations of Urban Consumers

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Politically motivated media reports have made claims that competing seafood imports may be associated with environmental and social concerns, and the EU should be seeking to import less, in favour of promoting growth in European aquaculture. This aligns with current consumer interests in consuming Blocal^food as a lifestyle choice (Janßen and Langen, 2016). However, as trade becomes more globalised, and competition for resources increases, raw materials for livestock production are increasingly sourced on a global basis, which inevitably result in environmental trade-offs .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Mapping the impacts of farmed Scottish salmon from a life cycle perspective

Newton

Little

2017

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The European Union relies on seafood imports to supply growing demand that European production has failed to meet. Politically motivated media reports have denigrated competing imports in favour of local production. While life cycle assessment (LCA) measures global impact of value chains, it often fails to contextualise them. Using LCA, this article takes farmed Scottish Atlantic salmon as a case study of Blocal^production to identify and map the contributions to global environmental impact. Methods Data on the Scottish salmon value chain were collected by structured survey from a large international feed mill, six farms and a major processor. Secondary data were collected from available literature on feed ingredients and background data from EcoInvent2.2. A mid-point CML2001 approach was adopted focussing on global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential, ozone depletion potential, photo-chemical oxidation potential, consumptive water use and land use. Results were displayed as contribution analyses of materials and processes and mapped geographically using area plots. Results and discussion Far from being a Blocally^produced commodity, nearly 50% of the feed ingredients were sourced from South America and less than 25% originated in the UK.It was found that over 90% of the impact to farm-gate was embodied in feed, apart from eutrophication potential which was high at the farm from direct nitrogenous emissions into the marine environment. The majority of impacts do not occur in Scotland, particularly for land and water use, which occur at a more geographically significant level than GWP or AP, which are more global or regional impacts, respectively. High GWP emissions from vegetable-based ingredients were related to soil management and energy intensive processes such as wet milling to produce gluten from wheat and maize, sunflower and rapeseed oil processing. Conclusions The results show that in an age of globalised commodity trading, concerns around Blocal^production are often misleading. As consumers try to make more responsible purchase choices, they may be misled over the global impacts their choices are having. There are clearly trade-offs between different feed ingredients, especially regarding substitution of marine ingredients with those of vegetable origin. While marine ingredients perform comparatively well, they are highly limited, and biodiversity impacts of different ingredients are less clear and difficult to compare.

show abstract

Information and consumer demand for milk attributes: Are redundant labels an effective marketing strategy?

Ufer

Ortega

Wolf

2021

Applied Eco Perspectives Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Product labels communicate the presence of valuable traits to consumers but, when a single label represents multiple traits, communication can be hindered by consumer misinformation. Redundant labels can address this problem by explicitly indicating included qualities within a comprehensive label. We use data from a field experiment on willingness to pay for redundant labels in the US organic fluid milk market when consumers are either uninformed or informed of the redundancy. Market share simulations demonstrate the market impacts and effectiveness of introducing a redundant label as a response strategy to recapture market share lost to increasingly prevalent individual labels.

show abstract

The bunch of sustainability labels – Do consumers differentiate?

Cited by 116 publications

References 57 publications

Impact of Food Sustainability Labels on the Perceived Product Value and Price Expectations of Urban Consumers

Impact of Food Sustainability Labels on the Perceived Product Value and Price Expectations of Urban Consumers

Mapping the impacts of farmed Scottish salmon from a life cycle perspective

Information and consumer demand for milk attributes: Are redundant labels an effective marketing strategy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About