Attributes of Carbon Labelling to Drive Consumer Purchase Intentions

  • Aila Khan
  • Yi-Chen LanEmail author


According to estimates, more than 60% of Australian grocery shoppers are ‘conscious consumers’ who would like to buy products carrying the carbon reduction label. Our paper proposes that in line with the cue utilisation theory, consumers will use the carbon label as a cue or a signal to assess the extrinsic quality of a product. While some product features can be evaluated through visual and sensory examination, other credence qualities (such as the amount of carbon produced during manufacturing) need to be assessed through the use of surrogate ‘cues’ of quality (i.e. carbon labelling). Consumers’ perceptions regarding the carbon label can play an important role in the resulting attitudes towards the product. We propose to test a model in which we aim to examine whether consumers’ attitudes and intentions towards purchasing a product are indeed impacted by their evaluation of the carbon label. This proposed study makes a theoretical contribution as it is one of the first pieces of research which proposes to measure consumer perceptions regarding the accuracy, sincerity and ease in understanding the claims made by a carbon label. The empirical results will also be useful for organisations such as the Carbon Reduction Institute, which certify and issue the labels. We hope that our results can help guide the design and promotion of carbon labels.


Carbon labelling Consumer preferences Cue utilisation theory 


  1. 1.
    Upham P, et al. Carbon labelling of grocery products: public perceptions and potential emissions reductions. J Clean Prod. 2011;19(4):348–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wu P, et al. The past, present and future of carbon labelling for construction materials–a review. Build Environ. 2014;77:160–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weidema BP, et al. Carbon footprint. J Ind Ecol. 2008;12(1):3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shi X. Carbon footprint labeling activities in the East Asia summit region: spillover effects to less developed countries. Jakarta, Indonesia: Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA); 2010.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sharp A, Wheeler M. Reducing householders’ grocery carbon emissions: carbon literacy and carbon label preferences. Australas Mark J. 2013;21(4):240–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hertwich EG, Peters GP. Carbon footprint of nations: a global, trade-linked analysis. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43(16):6414–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vanclay JK, et al. Customer response to carbon labelling of groceries. J Consum Policy. 2011;34(1):153–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    The Guardian. Tesco drops carbon-label pledge. 2012. Accessed 7 Mar 2017.
  9. 9.
    Liu T, et al. A review of carbon labeling: standards, implementation, and impact. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2016;53:68–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kermond C. First in carbon labelling. The Sydney Morning Herald. 2010. Accessed 2 Feb 2017.
  11. 11.
    EDGE. Your product carbon footprint – to label or not to label? 2017. Accessed 23 June 2017.
  12. 12.
    OECD. Towards sustainable household consumption? Trends and policies in OECD countries. Paris: OECD; 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brécard D, et al. Determinants of demand for green products: an application to eco-label demand for fish in Europe. Ecol Econ. 2009;69(1):115–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Commission. Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment. Eurobarometer 295; 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quinn I. ‘Frustrated’ Tesco ditches eco-labels. 2012. Accessed 1 July 2017.
  16. 16.
    Marshall R. How many ads do you see in one day? 2015. Accessed 21 Feb 2017.
  17. 17.
    Egol M, Vollmer C. Major media in the shopping aisle. Strategy + Business. 2008;53(Winter):68–79.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chandon P, et al. Does in-store marketing work? Effects of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of purchase. J Mark. 2009;73(6):1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    FSANZ. Labelling. 2017. Accessed 2 Feb 2017.
  20. 20.
    Bemporad R, Baranowski M. Conscious consumers are changing the rules of marketing. Are you ready? Highlights from the BBMG Conscious Consumer Report; 2007.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McGuire WJ. Persuasion, resistance and attitude change. In: Pool I, Schramm W, editors. Handbook of communication. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1973. p. 216–52.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Olson J. Cue utilization in the quality perception process: a cognitive model and an empirical test. PhD, Purdue University; 1972.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Richardson PS, et al. Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality. J Mark. 1994;58(4):28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Becker T. Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: a framework for analysis. Br Food J. 2000;102(3):158–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moser R, et al. Consumer preferences for fruit and vegetables with credence-based attributes: a review. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev. 2011;14(2):121–42.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gadema Z, Oglethorpe D. The use and usefulness of carbon labelling food: a policy perspective from a survey of UK supermarket shoppers. Food Policy. 2011;36(6):815–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leire C, et al. Consumer perceptions, understanding and use of product related environmental information - a literature review of the Nordic knowledge base. Copenhagen: Ekspressen Tryk & Kopicenter; 2004.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bolwig S, Gibbon P. Counting carbon in the marketplace: Part 1 - Overview paper. Paris: Global Forum on Trade; 2009.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Niva M, et al. Environmental information in consumer decision making. Helsinki: National Consumer Research Centre; 1996.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Burton S, Andrews JC. Age, product nutrition, and label format effects on consumer perceptions and product evaluations. J Consum Aff. 1996;30(1):68–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Habermas J. The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Forester J. The policy analysis. Critical theory and public life. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1985. p. 258–80.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Grahame P. Criticalness, pragmatics, and everyday life: consumer literacy as critical practice. In: Forester J, editor. Critical theory and public life. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1985. p. 147–74.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parguel B, et al. How sustainability ratings might deter ‘greenwashing’: a closer look at ethical corporate communication. J Bus Ethics. 2011;102(1):15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bradford R. Greenwash confronted: misleading advertisement regulation in the European Union and its member states. 2007. Accessed 19 Mar 2017.
  36. 36.
    Feunekes GI, et al. Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: testing effectiveness of different nutrition labelling formats front-of-pack in four European countries. Appetite. 2008;50(1):57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    D’Souza C, et al. An empirical study on the influence of environmental labels on consumers. Corp Commun Int J. 2006;11(2):162–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Strauss JR. Challenging Corporate Social Responsibility - lessons for public relations from the casino industry. New York: Routledge; 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Suchman MC. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad Manag Rev. 1995;20(3):571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schultz F, et al. The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: a communication view. J Bus Ethics. 2013;115(4):681–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
  43. 43.
    British Heart Foundation. 10 tips for understanding food labels. 2017. Accessed 4 July 2017.
  44. 44.
    Davis J. Talking point: lifting the label on confusion. The Mercury. 2017. Accessed 4 July 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessWestern Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations