Overview of Findings

Although many consumers feel a commitment towards the environment, this commitment is far from always strong enough to make them choose eco-labeled alternatives of food products.

Research has shown that those who do choose eco-labeled alternatives of foods like milk, bread, meat, and potatoes place great emphasis on the purchase criterion “good for the environment” and “good for your own health”. These consumers also have more favorable opinions about other features of eco-labeled products, such as their taste (Grankvist & Biel, 2001).

It should be noted that eco-labels in use today signify environmentally benign outcomes. That is, the labeled products are better than other similar products with regard to environmental impact. Another strategy would be to use eco-labels that indicate negative environmental outcomes, with the purpose of making consumers avoid environmentally unfriendly products. In an experiment it was shown that individuals who had a weak or no interest in environmental issues were unaffected by both positive and negative outcome eco-labels. The negative outcome label affected individuals with an intermediate interest in environmental issues more than a positive label did. Individuals with a strong interest in environmental protection changed product preference about equally much for both kinds of labels (Grankvist, Dahlstrand & Biel, 2004). In other words, the positive eco-labels in use today works best for consumers who are “already converted”.

Significance of Findings

Consumers with an intermediate interest in environmental issues have a potential to avoid the “bad” alternatives. Their interest in environmental protection is however not strong enough to more than occasionally choosing “good” alternatives. In today’s system, with only positive outcome labels, there is consequently a great deal of potential that is not transformed into environmentally friendly behavior.

Practical Application

Today independent eco-labeling organizations critically examine the environmental effects of marketed products. If standards are satisfied a product may become certified and eco-labeled. However, eco-labeling is done on a voluntary basis and implies an economical cost for the producer. It is unlikely that a producer voluntarily would pay an independent organization to have a product labeled as “worse than average for the environment”. To implement a system that not only includes positive, but also neutral and negative eco-labels, a regulation that prescribes that all products should be classified into one of these categories would be needed.

The European Union (EU) directive concerning the energy label shows that legislation could be used to introduce a label system with not only positive but also neutral and negative outcomes (The European Union On-Line, 2003). The energy label system is based on order of rank in seven steps, from the most, to the least, energy efficient alternative.

Whether a similar regulation is possible for eco-labels is however a political issue.

Article References

Grankvist, G., Dahlstrand, U., & Biel, A. (2004). The impact of environmental labeling on consumer preference: Negative versus positive labels. Journal of Consumer Policy, 27, 213-230.

Grankvist G & Biel A. (2001). The importance of beliefs and purchase criteria in the choice of eco-labeled food products. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 405-410.

The European Union On-Line (2003). Council Directive 92/75/EEC (31992L0075) of 22 September 1992. Retrived June 18, 2003, from http://www.europa.eu.int/