Speaker
Description
Keywords: multidimensional multi-level sustainability labels, consumer preference, label type, groceries
Introduction
While multi-level front-of-package labels (such as the NutriScore) for indicating food items’ healthiness based on several dimensions are well established (Ikonen et al., 2020), the sustainability labelling landscape is very fragmented (Futtrup et al., 2021) and yet, no multidimensional multi-level sustainability label (MDMLSL) prevails in the food context. Currently most existing food labels are conceptualized binary (Weinrich & Spiller, 2016), however, focusing on multiple dimensions appears to be especially important considering the multi-facet nature of sustainability. By incorporating more than just one dimension, the actual sustainability can be captured holistically (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, water footprint) and thus, more realistically. Additionally, multi-level labels are of particular importance, since they different levels depict the different shades of to what extent a criterion is fulfilled more granularly (e.g., free-range livestock breeding, different levels of space in the barn). Furthermore, a MDMLSL could increase the comparability of food and food products by incorporating not one but several of the most important metrics, such as water use, land use and carbon emissions (Asioli et al., 2020). Moreover, studies indicate that consumers’ satis-faction for multi-level labels are higher than for binary labels in the food item context (Weinrich & Spiller, 2016). Hence, a MDMLSL would take into account all essential sustainability dimensions, their level of fulfillment, and an (easy to interpret) aggregated score.
To cover all essential sustainability labels in a MDMLSL for the food industry, one would need to take into account dimensions such as water use, land use, greenhouse gases, etc. However, “despite repeated calls for the development of such a holistic label, to date no label repre-sents sustainability holistically with all of its relevant dimensions” (Futtrup et al., 2021, p. 1412). One main challenge in implementing a MDMLSL lays in translating complex sustainability information into labels that can easily by understood by every consumer (Futtrup et al., 2021).
Objectives
In order to find out which dimensions should be included into a MDMLSL and how it should be designed to address the trade-off between information overload and an easy to understand conceptualization, this paper provides the following contributions. First, a systematic literature review is conducted to summarize all previous insights on MDMLSL and meta-labels, which oftentimes are proposed as alternative solutions to MDMLSLs. This literature review is extended by examining those MDMLSL currently existing in practice (in selected organic grocery shops). Second, two studies are conducted to test different aspects of consumers’ preference of MDMLSLs. The first one empirically tests which type of label conceptualization is preferred most between similar MDMLSLs. The second one investigates which of the currently existing MDMLSLs and those discussed in litera-ture is preferred among consumers from different countries.
Method
For the systematic literature review, we focused on the data bases EBSCO, Science Direct, and Web of Science, as well as snowball sampling. The initial search string covers: “(food OR groceries OR grocery) AND (label OR labelling OR score OR scoring) AND (sustainability OR sustainable OR ecological OR eco OR environmental) AND (multi OR level OR multiple OR summarized OR composite OR dimension OR combined OR combination OR combining OR overall OR holistic OR comprehensive) AND (consumption OR consumer OR behavior OR behaviour OR purchase OR preference OR acceptance OR choice OR evaluation)” and incorporates literature published between 2012 and 2024. The final number of papers examined amounts to n=115.
The first study uses a Best-Worst scaling experiment (BWS), since this methodology enables to yield a higher discrimination between similar items (here: MDMLSLs, Brand & Kopplin, 2023). The first study enquires n=285 German consumers with twelve types of MDMLSLs, which were slightly modified based on literature.
The second study also consists of a BWS and makes use of an es-tablished panel provides to yield comparable sample across countries. Based on extant literature, Poland and Sweden appear to represent interesting opposites, since the first one shows low level of sustainability concerns, while the latter one has the highest use of sustainability labels on food items (Grunert et al., 2014). However, both countries have a comparable gross domestic product (Poland 2022: 688.3 billion USD; Sweden 2022: 591.2 billion USD, see IMF, 2023a, 2023b). The second study covers 14 MDMLSLs derived from literature and practice and involved n=450 consumers per country. Both studies included an anchor scaling.
Findings
The systematic literature review and an analysis of existing MDMLSLs revealed that most labels focus on carbon footprint, CO2 emissions or carbon emissions (83%), follow by water use or water footprint (52%) and biodiversity (46%). Hence, these three dimensions appear to be the essential ones when it comes to the ecological impact of groceries. Depending on the grocery selected, an additional dimension would be animal welfare.
The first study indicates that consumers clearly prefer the conceptualization currently employed by “Öko-Score”. This MDMLSL shows an aggregate score and the sub-scores for each dimension. It also incorporates parts of a globe as part of the logo. Purely aggregated scoring labels were ranked last; however, all labels would be generally be taken into account when shopping for groceries (anchor scaling). Apart from that, letters representing the score were preferred over number, leaves, or stars.
The second study with n=450 Swedish and n=450 Polish consumers is about to be launched. The results will be available in April.
Conclusion
To facilitate consumers’ awareness for purchasing more environmentally friendly groceries, one universal label should prevail (just like the NutriScore for health concerns). To do so, all relevant environmental aspects (dimensions) should be taken into account. Based on the sys-tematic literature review, the most important dimensions are carbon emissions, water footprint, and biodiversity. The first study implies that consumers tend to welcome outlining different sub-dimensions instead of global, aggregated score for MDMLSLs only. Consumers preferred letters for indicating a label’s score over numbers, stars, or leafs. Most MDMLSL would be welcome by consumers. Consumers prefer the visualization proposed by the “Öko-Score” the most.
