Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 279–298 | Cite as

Do Biodegradable Labels Lead to an Eco-safety Halo Effect?

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Biodegradable products allure consumers despite complications associated with developing consistent guidelines for degradability and potential misperceptions regarding what biodegradability means to consumers. This research investigates inferences consumers make about products bearing 100% biodegradable labels and uses the halo effect as a theoretical foundation for investigation. Past research has found that health labels can have a general halo effect and promote beliefs about attributes unrelated to health claims. The results of two experiments suggest that 100% biodegradable labeling produces a similar eco-safety halo. This eco-safety halo is characterized by assumed consumer safety and environmental attributes of 100% biodegradable products. Results are presented along with implications, limitation, and directions for future research.

Keywords

Organic Biodegradable Instrumental attributes Halo effect Health halo 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Åberg, H., Dahlman, S., Shanahan, H., & Säljö, R. (1996). Towards sound environmental behaviour: exploring household participation in waste management. Journal of Consumer Policy, 19(1), 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alwitt, L. F., & Pitts, R. E. (1996). Predicting purchase intentions for an environmentally sensitive product. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(1), 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amos, C., Pentina, I., Hawkins, T. G., & Davis, N. (2014). “Natural” labeling and consumers’ sentimental pastoral notion. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(4/5), 268–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apaolaza, V., Hartmann, P., Echebarria, C., & Barrutia, J. M. (2017). Organic label’s halo effect on sensory and hedonic experience of wine: a pilot study. Journal of Sensory Studies, 32(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arhangelsky, P. (2015). FTC ban of “biodegradable” claims threatens expansion of FTC authority. Retrieved June 21, 2016 from http://emord.com/blawg/ftcs-ban-of-biodegradable-claims-in-the-ecm-case-threatens-an-expansion-of-ftc-authority-case-comment/.
  6. Barber, N., Taylor, D. C., & Deale, C. S. (2010). Wine tourism, environmental concerns, and purchase intention. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(2), 146–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bettman, J. R., Payne, J. W., & Staelin, R. (1986). Cognitive considerations in designing effective labels for presenting risk information. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 5, 1–28.Google Scholar
  8. Bondi, C. A. M. (2011). Applying the precautionary principle to consumer household cleaning product development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(5), 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. BPI. (2015). Confused by the terms biodegradable and biobased. Biodegradable Products Institute. Retrieved June 21, 2016 from http://www.bpiworld.org/science-of-composting.
  10. Brockhaus, S., Petersen, M., & Kersten, W. (2016). A crossroads for bioplastics: exploring product developers’ challenges to move beyond petroleum-based plastics. Journal of Cleaner Production, 127, 84–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007). The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health claims: lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3), 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cude, B. J. (1993). Consumer perceptions of environmental marketing claims: an exploratory study. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 17(3), 207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahl, R. (2010). Green washing: do you know what you’re buying. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(6), A246–A252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duffus, J., Nordberg, M., & Templeton, D. M. (2007). Glossary of terms used in toxicology, 2nd edition. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 79(7), 1153–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duvall, M., & Carra, R. (2015). FTC backs off green guides biodegradability standard: environmental and natural resources law, attorneys, beveridge & diamond. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from http://www.bdlaw.com/news-1799.html.
  17. Eaton, K. (2011). Biodegradable products are good for landfills, but bad for the climate. Fast Company. Retrieved June 29, 2016 from http://www.fastcompany.com/1756520/biodegradable-products-are-good-landfills-bad-climate
  18. EPA. (1992). Compendium of materials on municipal solid waste. United States environmental protection agency. Retrieved June 20, 2016, from http://bit.ly/2iOm1E0.
  19. EPA. (2016a). Pesticide labeling questions & answers [policies and guidance]. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-labels/pesticide-labeling-questions-answers
  20. EPA, O (2016b). Criteria for biodegradability claims on products registered under FIFRA [Overviews and Factsheets]. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-labels/criteria-biodegradability-claims-products-registered-under-fifra.
  21. Erickson, G. M., Johansson, J. K., & Chao, P. (1984). Image variables in multi-attribute product evaluations: country-of-origin effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(2), 694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ford, G. T., Hastak, M., Mitra, A., & Ringold, D. J. (1996). Can consumers interpret nutrition information in the presence of a health claim? A laboratory investigation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15(1), 16–27.Google Scholar
  23. FTC. (1999). FTC releases revised consumer brochure about “green” claims. Retrieved June 30, 2016, from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/1999/04/ftc-releases-revised-consumer-brochure-about-green-claims.
  24. FTC. (2010). Guides for the use of environmental marketing claims: request for public comment on proposed, revised guides (matter no. P954501). Federal Trade Commission. Retrieved May 8, 2017 from https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/federal_register_notices/16-c.f.r.part-260-guides-use-environmental-marketing-claims-request-public-comment-proposed-revised-guides/101015greenguidesfrn.pdf.
  25. FTC. (2012). Environmental claims: summary of the green guides. Federal Trade Commission. Retrieved June 21, 2016 from https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-issues-revised-green-guides/greenguidessummary.pdf.
  26. FTC. (2013). FTC cracks down on misleading and unsubstantiated environmental marketing claims. Federal Trade Commission. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/10/ftc-cracks-down-misleading-unsubstantiated-environmental.
  27. Genpak (2016). What biodegradable and compostable packaging really means. Retrieved June 30, 2016, from http://www.genpak.com/green-room/biodegradable/.
  28. Golan, E., & Unnevehr, L. (2008). Food product composition, consumer health, and public policy: Introduction and overview of special section. Food Policy, 33(6), 465–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greene, J. (2007). Biodegradation of compostable plastics in green yard-waste compost environment. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 15(4), 269–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gruère, G. P. (2015). An analysis of the growth in environmental labelling and information schemes. Journal of Consumer Policy, 38(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heritage Pioneer Corporate Group. (2016). The difference between biodegradable and compostable packaging materials. Retrieved June 30, 2016, from http://www.hpcorporategroup.com/the-difference-between-biodegradable-and-compostable-packaging-materials.html.
  32. Hulland, J., Todiño, H. S., Jr., & Lecraw, D. J. (1996). Country-of-origin effects on sellers’ price premiums in competitive Philippine markets. Journal of International Marketing, 4(1), 57–79.Google Scholar
  33. Innocenti, F. D. (2003). Biodegradability and compostability. In E. Chiellini & R. Solaro (Eds.), Biodegradable polymers and plastics (pp. 33–45). Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Ippolito, P. M., & Mathios, A. D. (1990). The regulation of science-based claims in advertising. Journal of Consumer Policy, 13(4), 413–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johansson, J. K., Douglas, S. P., & Nonaka, I. (1985). Assessing the impact of country of origin on product evaluations: a new methodological perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(4), 388–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kangun, N., & Polonsky, M. J. (1995). Regulation of environmental marketing claims: a comparative perspective. International Journal of Advertising, 14(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Knoblauch, J. A. (2009). Plastic not-so-fantastic: how the versatile material harms the environment and human health. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/plastic-not-so-fantastic/.
  38. Kotler, P. (2011). Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 132–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lähteenmäki, L., Lampila, P., Grunert, K., Boztug, Y., Ueland, Ø., Åström, A., & Martinsdóttir, E. (2010). Impact of health-related claims on the perception of other product attributes. Food Policy, 35(3), 230–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lampert, S. I., & Jaffe, E. D. (1998). A dynamic approach to country-of-origin effect. European Journal of Marketing, 32(1/2), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Larceneux, F., Benoit-Moreau, F., & Renaudin, V. (2012). Why might organic labels fail to influence consumer choices? Marginal labelling and brand equity effects. Journal of Consumer Policy, 35(1), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee, W. J., Shimizu, M., Kniffin, K. M., & Wansink, B. (2013). You taste what you see: do organic labels bias taste perceptions? Food Quality and Preference, 29(1), 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levis, J. W., & Barlaz, M. A. (2011). Is biodegradability a desirable attribute for discarded solid waste? Perspectives from a national landfill greenhouse gas inventory model. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(13), 5470–5476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lin, Y.-C., & Chang, C. A. (2012). Double standard: the role of environmental consciousness in green product usage. Journal of Marketing, 76(5), 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lundblad, L., & Davies, I. A. (2016). The values and motivations behind sustainable fashion consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(2), 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2015). The means and end of greenwash. Organization & Environment, 28(2), 223–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Macera, J. (2011). What “biodegradable” really means. excellence in manufacturing consortium. Retrieved June 29, 2016 from https://www.emccanada.org/blogs/emcchatham/whatbiodegradablereallymeans.
  49. Marteau, T. M., Ogilvie, D., Roland, M., & Suhrcke, M. (2012). Judging nudging: can nudging improve population health? British Medical Journal, 29(January), 263–265.Google Scholar
  50. McDaniel, S. W., & Rylander, D. H. (1993). Strategic green marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(3), 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Meise, J. N., Rudolph, T., Kenning, P., & Phillips, D. M. (2014). Feed them facts: value perceptions and consumer use of sustainability-related product information. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(4), 510–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Menon, A., Menon, A., Chowdhury, J., & Jankovich, J. (1999). Evolving paradigm for environmental sensitivity in marketing programs: a synthesis of theory and practice. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(2), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Merriam-Dictionary. (2016). Definition of biodegradable. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biodegradable.
  54. Mobley, A. S., Painter, T. S., Untch, E. M., & Rao Unnava, H. (1995). Consumer evaluation of recycled products. Psychology and Marketing, 12(3), 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moser, A. K. (2016). Consumers’ purchasing decisions regarding environmentally friendly products: an empirical analysis of German consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 389–397. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.05.006.
  56. Nedović, V., Raspor, P., Lević, J., Šaponjac, V. T., & Barbosa-Cánovas, G. V. (2015). Emerging and traditional technologies for safe, healthy and quality food. Cham: Springer International.Google Scholar
  57. Newman, G. E., Gorlin, M., & Dhar, R. (2014). When going green backfires: how firm intentions shape the evaluation of socially beneficial product enhancements. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 823–839. doi: 10.1086/677841.
  58. OECD. (2011). Environmental claims: findings and conclusions of the OECD committee on consumer policy. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved June 21, 2016 from https://www.oecd.org/sti/consumer/48127506.pdf
  59. Olsen, M. C., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Chandukala, S. R. (2014). Green claims and message frames: how green new products change brand attitude. Journal of Marketing, 78(5), 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pape, J., Rau, H., Fahy, F., & Davies, A. (2011). Developing policies and instruments for sustainable household consumption: Irish experiences and futures. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pinto, D. C., Herter, M. M., Rossi, P., & Borges, A. (2014). Going green for self or for others? Gender and identity salience effects on sustainable consumption: Gender, identities and sustainable consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5), 540–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Polonsky, M. J., Carlson, L., Grove, S., & Kangun, N. (1997). International environmental marketing claims: real changes or simple posturing? International Marketing Review, 14(4), 218–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rana, S., Pichandi, S., Parveen, S., & Fangueiro, R. (2014). Biodegradation studies of textiles and clothing products. In S. S. Muthu (Ed.), Roadmap to sustainable textiles and clothing: environmental and social aspects of textiles and clothing supply chain (pp. 88–123). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  64. Rathje, W. L., & Murphy, C. (2001). Rubbish!: the archaeology of garbage. Tucson: University of Arizona Press Retrieved June 30, 2016 from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1i_B1c573OQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA124&dq=Rubbish&ots=DmEZizkjPS&sig=0n5kvffcpqg1zStCqJpLl5qqE_k#v=onepage&q=the%20truth&f=false.
  65. Rice, G. (1990). Being green: U.S. marketers begin to respond. Academy of Marketing Science News, (April), 5.Google Scholar
  66. Roe, B., Levy, A. S., & Derby, B. M. (1999). The impact of health claims on consumer search and product evaluation outcomes: results from FDA experimental data. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18(1), 89–105.Google Scholar
  67. Roozen, I. T. M., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2000). Polish and Belgian consumers’ perception of environmentally friendly behaviour. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 24(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Roozen, I. T. M., & De Pelsmacker, P. (1998). Attributes of environmentally friendly consumer behavior. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 10(3), 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rozin, P. (2005). The meaning of “natural”: process more important than content. Psychological Science, 16(8), 652–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A., & Wood, K. (2004). Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 43(2), 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Salazar, H. A., & Oerlemans, L. (2015). Do we follow the leader or the masses? Antecedents of the willingness to pay extra for eco-products. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50(2), 286–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schuldt, J. P., & Hannahan, M. (2013). When good deeds leave a bad taste. Negative inferences from ethical food claims. Appetite, 62(1), 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schuldt, J. P., Muller, D., & Schwarz, N. (2012). The “fair trade” effect: health halos from social ethics claims. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 581–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schuldt, J. P., & Schwarz, N. (2010). The “organic” path to obesity? Organic claims influence calorie judgments and exercise recommendations. Judgment and Decision making, 5(3), 144.Google Scholar
  75. Schwepker, C. H., & Cornwell, T. B. (1991). An examination of ecologically concerned consumers and their intention to purchase ecologically packaged products. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(2), 77–101.Google Scholar
  76. Scott, L., & Vigar-Ellis, D. (2014). Consumer understanding, perceptions and behaviours with regard to environmentally friendly packaging in a developing nation: Perceptions of environmentally friendly packaging. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(6), 642–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sörqvist, P., Haga, A., Holmgren, M., & Hansla, A. (2015a). An eco-label effect in the built environment: performance and comfort effects of labeling a light source environmentally friendly. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 123–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sörqvist, P., Haga, A., Langeborg, L., Holmgren, M., Wallinder, M., Nöstl, A., & Marsh, J. E. (2015b). The green halo: mechanisms and limits of the eco-label effect. Food Quality and Preference, 43, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Staff. (2014). Biodegradable plastics market to be worth $3.47 billion by 2019. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from http://www.processingmagazine.com/processing-e-news/biodegradable-plastics-market-to-be-worth-3-47-billion-by-2019/.
  80. Sundar, A., & Kardes, F. R. (2015). The role of perceived variability and the health halo effect in nutritional inference and consumption: nutritional inference. Psychology & Marketing, 32(5), 512–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sundar, A., & Kellaris, J. J. (2015). Blue-washing the green halo. In R. Batra, C. M. Seifert, & D. Brei (Eds.), The psychology of design: Creating consumer appeal (pp. 63–74). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Sütterlin, B., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Simply adding the word “fruit” makes sugar healthier: The misleading effect of symbolic information on the perceived healthiness of food. Appetite, 95(1), 252–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. USDA. (2016). Poisonous plant research: home. Retrieved June 30, 2016, from http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=20-80-15-00.
  85. van Trijp, H. C. M., & van der Lans, I. A. (2007). Consumer perceptions of nutrition and health claims. Appetite, 48(3), 305–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wansink, B., & Chandon, P. (2006). Can “low-fat” nutrition labels lead to obesity? Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 605–617. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wasik, J. F. (2009). The green supermarket shopping guide. New York: Grand Central Publishing.Google Scholar
  88. Weinzierl, A. J. (2015). FTC fails to prove green guides’ meaning of biodegradable. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from http://www.natlawreview.com/article/ftc-fails-to-prove-green-guides-meaning-biodegradable.
  89. Whitson, D., Ozkaya, H. E., & Roxas, J. (2014). Changes in consumer segments and preferences to green labelling: consumer preferences to green labelling. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5), 458–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Williams, P. (2005). Consumer understanding and use of health claims for foods. Nutrition Reviews, 63(7), 256–264. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2005.tb00382.x.
  91. Yue, C., Hall, C. R., Behe, B. K., Campbell, B. L., Dennis, J. H., & Lopez, R. G. (2010). Are consumers willing to pay more for biodegradable containers than for plastic ones? Evidence from hypothetical conjoint analysis and nonhypothetical experimental auctions. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 42(4), 757–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Goddard School of Business and EconomicsWeber State UniversityOgdenUSA

Personalised recommendations