Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The state and consumer confidence in eco-labeling: organic labeling in Denmark, Sweden, The United Kingdom and The United States

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Trustworthy eco-labels provide consumers with valuable information on environmentally friendly products and thus promote green consumerism. But what makes an eco-label trustworthy and what can government do to increase consumer confidence? The scant existing literature indicates that low governmental involvement increases confidence. This suggests that government should just provide the basic legal framework for eco-labeling and leave the rest to non-governmental organizations. However, the empirical underpinning of this conclusion is insufficient. This paper analyses consumer confidence in different organic food labeling regimes with varying degrees of governmental involvement. Using unique and detailed survey data from the US, United Kingdom, Denmark, and Sweden, the analysis shows that confidence is highest in countries with substantial state involvement. This suggests that governments can increase green consumerism through active and substantial involvement in eco-labeling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. However, there are also eco-labelling schemes with second and first party certification. The labelling scheme is organized by an industry association in the former and by the producer in the latter (Boström 2006a, p. 141).

  2. Only respondents not living with their parents (or grandparents) are sampled to ensure that the respondents occasionally shop food. The response rate varies between 39 and 57% across countries. Although this is rather low, there is no particular reason to expect sampling bias as non-responders did not know the topic before refusing to participate. The fieldwork was conducted by AC Nielsen and Survey Sampling International in April/May 2008. The codebook is available upon request.

  3. Income is also a standard social background explanation. However, quite a few respondents did not reveal their income, which implies that including income will reduce the sample size. We have estimated models that include income and its effect is insignificant and does not change the effect of country of residence. Moreover, it is not obvious that income should affect confidence. On that basis we do not include income in the models reported below.

References

  • Agricultural Marketing Service. 2003. National organic program. Washington, DC: US Department of agriculture. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateF&navID=RegulationsNOPNationalOrganicProgramHome&rightNav1=RegulationsNOPNationalOrganicProgramHome&topNav=&leftNav=NationalOrganicProgram&page=NOPRegulations&resultType=&acct=noprulemaking. Accessed 26 Jan 2010.

  • Akerlof, G.A. 1970. The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics 84(3): 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boström, M. 2006a. Establishing credibility: Practising standard-setting ideals in a Swedish seafood-labelling case. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 8(2): 135–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boström, M. 2006b. Regulatory credibility and authority through inclusiveness: Standardization organizations in cases of eco-labelling. Organization 13(3): 345–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boström, M., and M. Klintman. 2006. State-centered versus nonstate-driven organic food standardization: A comparison of the US and Sweden. Agriculture and Human Values 23(2): 163–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boström, M., and M. Klintman. 2008. Eco-standards, product labeling, and green consumerism. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, N. 2007. The politics of the environment: Ideas, activism, policy, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caswell J.A., and E.M. Mojduszka. 1996. Using informational labeling to influence the market for quality in food products. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(Proceedings): 1248–1253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daugbjerg, C., and K.M. Sønderskov. Forthcoming. Environmental policy performance revisited: Designing effective policies for green markets. Political Studies.

  • Delhey, J., and K. Newton. 2005. Predicting cross-national levels of social trust: Global pattern or Nordic exceptionalism? European Sociological Review 21(4): 311–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. 2010. Farming: Organic farming. http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/growing/organic/index.htm. Accessed 26 Jan 2010.

  • Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Environmental labeling issues, policies, and practices worldwide. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fødevarestyrelsen. 2010. Økologiske Fødevarer. http://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/fdir/Pub/2006213/rapport.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2010.

  • Gertz, R. 2005. Eco-labelling: A case for deregulation? Law, Probability and Risk 4(3): 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamm, U., and J. Michelsen. 1996. Organic agriculture in a market economy: Perspectives from Germany and Denmark. In Fundamentals of organic farming, proceedings of the 11th IFOM conference, ed. T. Østergaard, 208–222. Tholey Theley: Ökozentrum Innsbach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, K. 2000. Labelling of organic food products. In The voluntary approach to environmental policy: Joint environmental policy-making in Europe, ed. A. Mol, V. Lauber, and D. Liefferink, 156–191. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, J. 2006. Institutional trust and subjective well-being across the EU. Kyklos 59(1): 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hysing, E. 2009. Governing without government? The private governance of forest certification in Sweden. Public Administration 87(2): 312–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. 1995. Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Political Science and Politics 28(1): 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A., R.K.W. Wurzel, and L. Brückner. 2004. Consumer responsibility-taking and eco-labelling schemes in Europe. In Politics, products, and markets: Exploring political consumerism past and present, ed. M. Micheletti, A. Follesdal, and D. Stolle, 161–180. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A., R.K.W. Wurzel, and A. Zito. 2005. The rise of “new” policy instruments in comparative perspective: Has governance eclipsed government? Political Studies 53(3): 477–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjærnes, U., M. Harvey, and A. Warde. 2007. Trust in food. New York: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • KRAV. 2010. Certificeringer. http://www.krav.se/Foretag/Certifieringar/. Accessed 2 Feb 2010.

  • Lilliston, B., and R. Cummins. 1998. Organic versus “organic”: The corruption of a label. The Ecologist 28(4): 195–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohr, L. 1998. Implications of organic certification for market structure and trade. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(5): 1125–1129. Proceedings Issue.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell, M. 2002. Environmental activism as collective action. Environment and Behavior 34(4): 431–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackendrick, N.A. 2005. The role of the state in voluntary environmental reform: A case study of public land. Policy Sciences 38(1): 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A.J., and G. Spaargaren. 2000. Ecological modernization theory in debate: A review. Environmental Politics 9(1): 17–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, H., B. Tunçer, and Å. Thidell. 2004. The use of eco-labeling like initiatives on food products to promote quality assurance—is there enough credibility? Journal of Cleaner Production 12(5): 517–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyfang, G. 2005. Shopping for sustainability: Can sustainable consumption promote ecological citizenship? Environmental Politics 14(2): 290–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sønderskov, K.M. 2008a. Environmental group membership, collective action, and generalized trust. Environmental Politics 17(1): 78–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sønderskov, K.M. 2008b. Making cooperation work: Generalized social trust and large-n collective action. Aarhus: Politica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sønderskov, K.M. 2009. Different goods, different effects: Exploring the effects of generalized social trust in large-N collective action. Public Choice 140(1): 145–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen, J. 2000. Psychological determinants of paying attention to eco-labels in purchase decisions: Model development and multinational validation. Journal of Consumer Policy 23(3): 285–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E.M. 2002. The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E.M. 2008. Corruption, inequality, and the rule of law: The bulging pocket makes the easy life. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, R., L. Hunnicutt, and J. Keith. 2004. If you can’t trust the farmer, who can you trust? The effect of certification types on purchases of organic produce. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 7(1): 60–77.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Andrew Jordan, two anonymous reviewers of this journal, and participants at the 60th Annual Conference of the Political Studies Association for constructive suggestions. The financial support of ICROFS (DARCOF III) is appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Kim Mannemar Sønderskov & Carsten Daugbjerg

Authors
  1. Kim Mannemar Sønderskov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carsten Daugbjerg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim Mannemar Sønderskov.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sønderskov, K.M., Daugbjerg, C. The state and consumer confidence in eco-labeling: organic labeling in Denmark, Sweden, The United Kingdom and The United States. Agric Hum Values 28, 507–517 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-010-9295-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-010-9295-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation