Attributes of Carbon Labelling to Drive Consumer Purchase Intentions
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.
KeywordsCarbon labelling Consumer preferences Cue utilisation theory
- 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
- 8.The Guardian. Tesco drops carbon-label pledge. 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/30/tesco-drops-carbon-labelling. Accessed 7 Mar 2017.
- 10.Kermond C. First in carbon labelling. The Sydney Morning Herald. 2010. http://www.smh.com.au/business/first-in-carbon-labelling-20100610-y0jp.html. Accessed 2 Feb 2017.
- 11.EDGE. Your product carbon footprint – to label or not to label? 2017. http://edgeenvironment.com.au/your-product-carbon-footprint-to-label-or-not-to-label/. Accessed 23 June 2017.
- 12.OECD. Towards sustainable household consumption? Trends and policies in OECD countries. Paris: OECD; 2002.Google Scholar
- 14.European Commission. Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment. Eurobarometer 295; 2008.Google Scholar
- 15.Quinn I. ‘Frustrated’ Tesco ditches eco-labels. 2012. https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/channels/supermarkets/tesco/frustrated-tesco-ditches-eco-labels/225502.article?redirCanon=1#. Accessed 1 July 2017.
- 16.Marshall R. How many ads do you see in one day? 2015. http://www.redcrowmarketing.com/2015/09/10/many-ads-see-one-day/. Accessed 21 Feb 2017.
- 17.Egol M, Vollmer C. Major media in the shopping aisle. Strategy + Business. 2008;53(Winter):68–79.Google Scholar
- 19.FSANZ. Labelling. 2017. http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/labelling/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 2 Feb 2017.
- 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.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.Olson J. Cue utilization in the quality perception process: a cognitive model and an empirical test. PhD, Purdue University; 1972.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.Bolwig S, Gibbon P. Counting carbon in the marketplace: Part 1 - Overview paper. Paris: Global Forum on Trade; 2009.Google Scholar
- 29.Niva M, et al. Environmental information in consumer decision making. Helsinki: National Consumer Research Centre; 1996.Google Scholar
- 31.Habermas J. The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press; 1984.Google Scholar
- 32.Forester J. The policy analysis. Critical theory and public life. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1985. p. 258–80.Google Scholar
- 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
- 35.Bradford R. Greenwash confronted: misleading advertisement regulation in the European Union and its member states. 2007. www.foeeurope.org/corporates/pdf/greenwash_confronted.pdf. Accessed 19 Mar 2017.
- 41.Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975.Google Scholar
- 42.Washington Post. Food labels aren’t easy to understand, which makes it hard to pick the best items. 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/food-labels-arent-easy-to-understand-which-makes-it-hard-to-pick-the-best-items/2014/08/29/7f54ea3a-02c4-11e4-b8ff-89afd3fad6bd_story.html?utm_term=.f3e5644cc2c5. Accessed 4 July 2017.
- 43.British Heart Foundation. 10 tips for understanding food labels. 2017. https://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-matters-magazine/nutrition/sugar-salt-and-fat/10-tips-for-understanding-food-labels. Accessed 4 July 2017.
- 44.Davis J. Talking point: lifting the label on confusion. The Mercury. 2017. http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/talking-point-lifting-the-label-on-confusion/news-story/d3dc93650ee7ede8f3bbf3eee18178c7. Accessed 4 July 2017.