TY - JOUR

T1 - Welcome to the (label) jungle? Analyzing how consumers deal with intra-sustainability label trade-offs on food

AU - Isabel Sonntag, Winnie

AU - Lemken, Dominic

AU - Spiller, Achim

AU - Schulze, Maureen

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors

PY - 2023/3

Y1 - 2023/3

N2 - Sustainability labels provide consumers with information about the production process, but the number of specialized labels is increasing rapidly. Different label combinations on one product can lead to trade-offs for consumers since sustainability dimensions, e.g., animal welfare and climate impact, may conflict. Consumers may face a combination of sustainability labels where not all characteristics are positive. The likelihood of a combination of positive and negative labels is particularly high when certain labels become mandatory. It is unclear how this influences the decision-making of consumers. This study analyzes the effect of different multi-level sustainability labels: animal welfare label, climate label, and a binary label (organic), and a nutritional label: the Nutri-Score on two food products. We measured the willingness to pay (WTP) for chicken breast and whole milk for different label combinations using a discrete choice experiment with 985 German consumers. Our results provide first indications that the presence of a sustainability label does not diminish the marginal utility of another sustainability label and that the effects of a negative label on the WTP cannot be compensated by a positive label. Consumers can handle two different types of labels at the same time and seem to be able to cope even with contradictory information in a trade-off situation between different sustainability dimensions. For manufacturers, this means that they should avoid scoring negatively on any sustainability dimension.

AB - Sustainability labels provide consumers with information about the production process, but the number of specialized labels is increasing rapidly. Different label combinations on one product can lead to trade-offs for consumers since sustainability dimensions, e.g., animal welfare and climate impact, may conflict. Consumers may face a combination of sustainability labels where not all characteristics are positive. The likelihood of a combination of positive and negative labels is particularly high when certain labels become mandatory. It is unclear how this influences the decision-making of consumers. This study analyzes the effect of different multi-level sustainability labels: animal welfare label, climate label, and a binary label (organic), and a nutritional label: the Nutri-Score on two food products. We measured the willingness to pay (WTP) for chicken breast and whole milk for different label combinations using a discrete choice experiment with 985 German consumers. Our results provide first indications that the presence of a sustainability label does not diminish the marginal utility of another sustainability label and that the effects of a negative label on the WTP cannot be compensated by a positive label. Consumers can handle two different types of labels at the same time and seem to be able to cope even with contradictory information in a trade-off situation between different sustainability dimensions. For manufacturers, this means that they should avoid scoring negatively on any sustainability dimension.

KW - Animal welfare

KW - Choice experiment

KW - Climate impact

KW - Multi-level label

KW - Organic

KW - Willingness to pay (WTP)

KW - Management studies

KW - Sustainability sciences, Management & Economics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85141231268&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104746

DO - 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104746

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:85141231268

VL - 104

JO - Food Quality and Preference

JF - Food Quality and Preference

SN - 0950-3293

M1 - 104746

ER -