The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
Consumer responses to ecolabels John Thøgersen, Pernille Haugaard and Anja Olesen
Consumer responses to ecolabels
Department of Marketing and Statistics, Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark
1787 Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop and apply a framework for understanding consumer responses to ecolabelling. Design/methodology/approach – From a consumer perspective, ecolabels are tools for supporting decision making with regard to environmentally significant products. The paper proposes an adoption of innovation framework for understanding consumer responses. The framework is applied in a mall-intercept survey of the early adoption of a new ecolabel, the MSC label for sustainable fishery, in Denmark. Findings – Early adopters of a new ecolabel mostly employ a high effort adoption process. Starting the adoption process depends on both motivation (intention to buy sustainable fish products) and ability (issue-relevant knowledge). Whether and how quickly the consumer completes the adoption depends on his or her motivation, past experience with using ecolabels, and trust in the endorsing organisation. Research limitations/implications – Environmental and product-related factors did not differ between respondents. Hence, a complete account of the importance of these factors for the adoption and (especially) diffusion of the label is not provided. Practical implications – Consumers scoring highly on both issue-relevant knowledge and motivation are the most likely innovators and early adopters. Their high level of expertise means that they do not need a lot of explanation for understanding the label and its self-relevance and their strong motivation means that they will search for more if they need it (and if it is not too difficult to get). Originality/value – The paper makes both a conceptual and an empirical contribution, which are of value both to practitioners (ecolabel promoters and users) and to research on ecolabel effectiveness.
Received May 2008 Revised October 2008 March 2009 May 2009 Accepted June 2009
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Innovation, Labelling, Regression analysis Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction Ecolabelling schemes provide consumers with information about the environmental quality of individual products, at the point of purchase, in order to enable them to choose products that are acceptable from an environmental point of view. Ecolabelling is an important means to enhance transparency and consumer trust in environmental claims (Commission of the European Communities, 2007; Iraldo et al., 2005; Thøgersen, 2002). As such, ecolabelling has long been considered an important tool for improving the sustainability of consumption patterns (Sitarz, 1994). The first governmentsponsored ecolabelling scheme, the Blue Angel, was launched in Germany in 1977 (Reisch, 2001). Since then, the idea has spread and a large number and variety of ecolabelling schemes have surfaced (for a recent overview, see, for example,, Scheer and Rubik, 2005). Ecolabels promote sustainability without compromising consumer freedom of choice and they reduce consumers’ information search costs, which makes it more likely that the information provided will actually be used (Grunert and Wills, 2007).
European Journal of Marketing Vol. 44 No. 11/12, 2010 pp. 1787-1810 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0566 DOI 10.1108/03090561011079882
EJM 44,11/12
1788
They transform credence attributes to search attributes (Darby and Karni, 1973)[1] and also function as reminders (Drichoutis et al., 2006; Valor, 2008). However, existing ecolabel schemes differ a lot in how widely they are adopted by consumers, that is, in how large a share of consumers that use them as intended, know what they mean, or even are aware that they exist (Leire and Thidell, 2005; Thøgersen, 2002). Hence, in order to reap the full benefit of ecolabelling, for society and for individual stakeholders, there is an urgent need for research clarifying why and when consumers adopt ecolabels. The promises, yet mixed success of ecolabelling schemes has stimulated research (Eritja, 2004; Rubik and Frankl, 2005). However, as in the related area of nutritional labelling (Grunert and Wills, 2007), there is still a long way to go before a sufficient understanding of the causes of variation in consumer responses has materialised (Galarraga Gallastegui, 2002; Thøgersen, 2002). As argued by Leire and Thidell (2005) in a recent review article, there is especially a need for a clearer understanding of consumer decision-making with regard to ecolabelled products and services. In this connection, we suggest that it is useful to think about a new labelling scheme as an innovation (Tews et al., 2003; Thøgersen, 2002). At the individual level, research on the adoption of innovations applies a decision-making framework which views the decision to adopt not as a discrete event, but as a process consisting of several stages and where drivers and contingencies differ between the stages (Rogers, 2003). The historical and geographical context has important implications for consumer responses to ecolabelling schemes. A new ecolabelling scheme is now usually introduced in a context where consumers have already been exposed to a number of ecolabels, for a longer or shorter time. For example, one source listed 28 ecolabels (broadly defined) that could be found on products and services on the Danish market in 2004: five official ecolabels, eight organic food labels, five energy labels and about ten other types of ecolabel[2]. We apply a decision-making/adoption of innovation frame of reference to the analysis of consumers’ adoption of a new ecolabel (the MSC label, issued by the Marine Stewardship Council) in a specific context. At the time of the study only a minority of the consumers had noticed and even fewer adopted the label. Hence, our empirical analysis focuses on the decision to adopt early – and to be one of the earliest adopters. Due to the timing of the data collection, we were able to identify the early adopters, and the key drivers and contingencies for their adoption of the new label, in “real time” rather than in retrospect or based on hypothetical questions (as most studies do). Understanding early adoption behaviour is especially important for companies and organisations attempting to establish a foothold in the market. When a foothold has been established, the further diffusion of the innovation is facilitated by a number of social mechanisms, including the early adopters’ demonstration and positive word-of-mouth and the human tendency to imitate others (Kotler and Roberto, 1989). Hence, the saying “well begun is half done” is true also with regard to promoting innovations, including a new ecolabelling scheme. 2. Theory As with any other innovation, we expect individuals to differ in their readiness to adopt a new ecolabelling scheme (Rogers, 2003). For example, only a small minority is usually willing to adopt a new product, service or idea without knowing (or believing) that others have (successfully) done so before. Most people need some kind of “social
proof” (Cialdini, 2001) before adopting something new. Hence, early adopters tend to have a relatively low need for social proof, either because of their personality (e.g. a high need for novelty, a positive attitude towards change) or the possession of expert knowledge (Rogers, 2003). The decision to adopt early is different from the decision to adopt at a later stage, both because of different opportunities for social learning (Bandura, 2001) and because social and other motives behind the adoption depend on the number of people that have already adopted the innovation (Fisher and Price, 1992). Individuals who are willing to adopt an innovation first are vital for getting the diffusion process started (Kotler and Roberto, 1989). In later phases of the diffusion process the fact that others have already adopted the innovation is an important asset for its promotion to more reluctant adopter groups, as is positive word-of-mouth from earlier adopters acting as referents or opinion leaders (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2006). The human propensity to imitate others also means that innovations that are observable, for instance because they are used in public, tend to diffuse faster than innovations that are not (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2006; Rogers, 2003). One should be careful not to confuse the adoption of an ecolabel with the adoption of an ecolabelled product, which may be viewed as an innovation in its own right (Thøgersen, 2002). The adoption of an ecolabel does not necessarily mean always choosing an ecolabelled product variant. Ecolabels are tools for assisting consumers in their decision-making. Hence, a consumer has adopted an ecolabel if he or she actively, repeatedly and consistently considers the label when choosing products in a labelled category. In this article, we focus on consumer adoption of an ecolabel. Prior to the fully fledged adoption of an innovation, the typical adopter has gone through a number of stages, from exposure to the innovation and/or information about it, over understanding of and forming a positive attitude towards the innovation, to trying it out. Some consumers may stall or reject the innovation at any stage of this process, either temporarily or for good. Hence, even if an individual has taken the first step(s) in the adoption process, this is no guarantee that he or she will eventually adopt the innovation. Also, it is not necessarily the same factors that determine whether an individual will start the adoption process and whether, and at which pace, he or she will go through subsequent stages (cf. Sutton, 2005). In terms of consumer decision making, the adoption of an innovation is usually assumed to follow a “high-effort” path, which proceeds via understanding and inference, through liking to trial and continued adoption (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2006; Kotler and Roberto, 1989; Schiffman et al., 2008). Research on consumer decision-making suggests that a high-effort path is followed when adopters are highly involved in the decision-making and the alternatives are highly differentiated (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2006; McGuire, 1985), something which is usually assumed to be the case for an innovation, if for no other reasons then because of its novelty (Kotler and Roberto, 1989). There are exceptions, though. For instance, it has been suggested that low-risk incremental innovations are often adopted through a “low-effort” process where trial follows awareness of the innovation directly, without prior information acquisition or attitude formation (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2006). When it comes to the adoption of a new ecolabel there are reasons to expect that a high effort path is most common. Many studies have identified segments of consumers that are highly involved in protecting the environment (Dunlap, 2002) or in more specific environmental and/or ethical issues related to consumption (de Ferran and
Consumer responses to ecolabels 1789
EJM 44,11/12
1790
Figure 1. Conceptual framework
Grunert, 2007; Vining and Ebreo, 1990). Based on this evidence, it is usually assumed that consumers are highly involved in the purchase of ecolabelled products (Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002). The same reasoning seems valid with regard to the process of adopting a new ecolabel. Studies show that consumers often fear being cheated by unscrupulous sellers when products are promoted with “green” claims (D’Souza, 2004; Ellison, 2008). The risk of being cheated when trusting ecolabels is another reason to expect a high effort adoption process for a new ecolabel (Fazio, 1990; Hoyer and MacInnis, 2006). The existence of other ecolabels in the context where a new ecolabel is implemented may have two opposite effects on consumers’ decision to adopt the new label. It means that many consumers already know about the concept of ecolabelling and know their basic meaning and purpose. In other words, it creates a context where a new ecolabel is an incremental or continuous rather than a radical or discontinuous innovation (Rogers, 2003). Because of the smaller need for learning and the lower perceived risk, incremental innovations are generally adopted faster than more radical innovations (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2006). Hence, the fact that consumers have previously been exposed to other ecolabels in the implementation context may facilitate the adoption of a new ecolabel. On the other hand, a new ecolabel scheme must compete for consumer attention with the plethora of existing ecolabels. The risk of “information overload” ( Jacoby, 1984) has been noted in an innovation adoption context (Herbig and Kramer, 1994) and some observers have specifically warned against this risk with reference to the increasing number of labelling schemes (European Commission, 2005). The “information overload” problem implies that the fact that there are already many ecolabels in the implementation context may hamper the adoption of a new one. Figure 1 presents a simplified model of the individual ecolabel adoption process, which is based on innovation adoption research and on research on consumers’ use of nutrition labels (Grunert and Wills, 2007; Hoyer and MacInnis, 2006). As indicated,
perception, understanding and a positive attitude (liking) are contingent on exposure to the ecolabel, either on products or in promotion material. Starting the adoption process and proceeding through the stages is also assumed to be contingent on or influenced by a number of personal, environmental and (other) product related factors. Important product related factors when it comes to adopting an ecolabel include how clearly the label communicates its meaning, how well it stands out from the plethora of other labels that consumers are exposed to, and the trustworthiness of the certifying and/or endorsing organisation (Teisl and Roe, 2005; Thøgersen, 2000, 2002). Important environmental factors include campaigns promoting and educating consumers about the new label, supportive or conflicting social norms and how many people have already adopted the new label (Abt Associates, Inc. and Environmental Protection Agency, 1999; Fisher and Price, 1992; McDonagh, 2002). Important personal factors include consumers’ issue-relevant knowledge – in this case in particular knowledge about sustainable fishery and ecolabels – and their perceived need for the label, i.e. how strongly they are motivated to distinguish between sustainable and non-sustainable food products in the supermarket (Grankvist et al., 2007; Morris et al., 1995). In terms of personality, innovation research has especially focused on the “innovativeness” trait (Midgley and Dowling, 1978; Rogers, 2003). It has been suggested that individuals may be innovative in some domains and not in others and that hence we should speak about “domain specific innovativeness”, reflecting “the tendency to learn about and adopt innovations [. . .] within a specific domain of interest” (Goldsmith and Hofaker, 1991, p. 211). We apply this decision making/adoption of innovation frame of reference to the study of consumer adoption of a new ecolabel for sustainable fishery and fish products: the MSC label. Since our study is limited to a single label and context, we focus especially on personal factors. 3. Hypotheses In order to make the hypothesis development simpler, we only distinguish between two phases of the adoption process: (1) starting the adoption process (i.e. perceiving and understanding the new ecolabel); and (2) completing the process (i.e. trial and continued adoption). In the rather cluttered environment where a new ecolabel is implemented, we expect that early adopters have a relatively high expertise in the areas of ecolabelling and the issues referred to by the label. Relevant expertise facilitates the understanding of a new ecolabel and therefore probably also paying attention to it (and to information about it). Further, it is well documented that individuals attend selectively to aspects of the environment that are relevant for the fulfilment of their needs or reaching their goals (Peter et al., 1999; Schiffman et al., 2008). Therefore, noticing and understanding a new ecolabel is likely to depend on: . the consumer’s concern for the environment (or for the specific environmental problem that motivates the label); and . the strength of specific behavioural goals or intentions that the ecolabel is instrumental in reaching (buying fish from sustainable fishery operations in the case of the MSC label).
Consumer responses to ecolabels 1791
EJM 44,11/12
1792
It seems likely that the effect of environmental concern on attention to and comprehension of a new ecolabel is mediated through specific behavioural goals or intentions (Bamberg, 2003). In addition to motivation and expertise, personality may influence how early individuals start the adoption process. Based on the cited literature, we hypothesise that “ecolabel innovativeness” increases selective attention to (information about) a new ecolabel and therefore adoption. Perceived norms (i.e. others’ behaviour and expectations) are important for the further diffusion of an innovation once it has “taken off”. However, we do not expect norms to play an important role for the individual adoption process among the earliest adopters. In sum, we expect that: H1. Starting the process of adopting a new ecolabel (the MSC label), that is, noticing it and making an effort to understand it, depends on the individual’s (a) issue-relevant knowledge or expertise, (b) intentions to buy the labelled products (sustainable fish products), and (c) ecolabel innovativeness. H2. Perceiving and understanding the new ecolabel is positively related to environmental concern, but the effect of this variable is mediated through intentions to buy. The high-effort model of the adoption process suggests that completing the adoption process – that is, consciously trying and using the label – is contingent on the consumer having gone through the process of becoming aware of the new label and having obtained a sufficient understanding of what it is and what it stands for. Knowledge does not necessarily imply action, however. Hence, it is likely that proceeding to the final stage of the adoption process also depends on the consumer’s motivation, as reflected in the strength of conscious goals or behavioural intentions that can be more effectively reached by means of the label, and on other potential facilitators and/or impediments. A potential facilitator is the consumer’s experience with using other ecolabels. Consumer experience may influence the adoption of a new ecolabel in at least two ways: (1) an experienced ecolabel user may feel that the risk of trying a new one is low and may therefore employ a low-effort adoption process where he or she jumps directly from awareness of the label to trial without attempting to achieve a deeper understanding of it first (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2006); and (2) alternatively, ecolabel experience may lead to the learning of a mental script for how to act on knowledge about a new label, which simply speeds up the process of adoption, without necessarily short-circuiting the process (Leigh and Rethans, 1983). A possible impeding factor is mistrust in the certifying and/or endorsing authority (company, NGO, or government agency), which might feed fear of being cheated and thereby increase the perceived risk connected with adopting the ecolabel (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2006). We expect an influence of trust primarily on final adoption rather than on the earlier stages of perception and comprehension.
In sum, we expect that: H3. Completing the process of adopting a new ecolabel (the MSC label), that is, trying it and continuing to use it, depends on the individual having completed the earlier stages of the adoption process. H4. Completing the process of adoption also depends on (a) intentions to buy the labelled products (sustainable fish products), (b) past experience with using other ecolabels, and (c) trust in the certifying and/or endorsing organisation (the MSC and the World Wildlife Foundation, WWF, in case of the MSC label). H5. Consistent with the assumption that a high-effort adoption process is the most common, experience with using ecolabels functions as a moderator that interacts positively with knowledge about this specific label in determining adoption, rather than just having a direct effect on adoption (which would indicate that adopters short-circuit the process). H6. The behavioural intention functions as a moderator that interacts positively with knowledge about the MSC label in determining adoption, reflecting that the speed of adoption depends on the consumer’s motivation. H7. Trust in the certifying and/or endorsing organisations interacts positively with knowledge about this specific label in determining adoption, reflecting that mistrust in the certifying and/or endorsing organisation impedes the progression from knowing the label to adoption. 4. The context Knowledge about the implementation context is useful for interpreting the results, of the empirical study. Hence, before presenting our study we will briefly describe the context in which the MSC label was introduced. Consumers are usually given little information, eco or otherwise, about seafood products in shops. For consumers who want to avoid threatened fish species or fisheries involving excessive side-catches, environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs), such as the WWF publish buyers’ guides on the internet[3]. These guides classify the species in three groups: (1) red; (2) yellow; and (3) green. The red category contains species that should be avoided, the yellow category species where restraint is advised, and the green category contains species that can be eaten without restraint. Retailers are obliged to label fish with its trade name, production method (e.g. wild catch or farm fish) and catch area[4], which makes it possible for consumers to avoid threatened species if they want to. Unfortunately, not all fishmongers and supermarkets comply with these rules, however[5]. There are currently no official ecolabels for fish or fish products. However, criteria for the ecolabelling of fish and fish products have been developed by the FAO Committee of Fisheries (COFI) in 2005 (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2005). Also, the EU Commission has started a debate about the criteria that should be used for an
Consumer responses to ecolabels 1793
EJM 44,11/12
1794
official European ecolabel (Commission of the European Communities, 2005). Previous studies suggest that consumers would like sustainability labelled fish products ( Jaffry et al., 2004). Fish farms can label their products with an organic label if they fulfil the criteria. In Denmark, the marketing of organic farm fish started in 2004, but the supply of farm fish labelled with the organic label is modest. A few private or NGO-administered ecolabels for fish products exists. The most widespread of these is the MSC label, whose adoption by Danish consumers is studied below. Another relatively common label is “Dolphin safe”, which certifies that tuna products did not lead to a side-catch of dolphins (Teisl et al., 2002). The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) was founded in 1997 by WWF and Unilever. Today, MSC is an independent non-profit organisation (see www.msc.org). The MSC label requires that the product does not contribute to over-fishing, the fishery has a minimal impact on the marine environment, and that the fishery is well managed so as to maintain a sustainable fishery and to ensure that the impact on the marine environment is minimised. By the end of 2005, 14 fisheries were certified to the MSC environmental standard and more than 300 seafood products bearing the MSC’s blue ecolabel were available in supermarkets around the world[6]. The first MSC labelled product on the Danish market was introduced, in a very limited way, in November 2006. Nine months later, at the time of the data collection for this study, Danish consumers could choose among ten different MSC labelled fish products, five of which were branded products and the other five a discount chain’s private label (Haugaard and Olesen, 2007). The products were all frozen and either fillets or ready-made meals and they were only available in selected supermarkets. Hence, the selection and availability of MSC-labelled fish products was still very limited. At this time, there had still been no mass media campaign promoting or informing about the MSC label in Denmark. Consumer exposure to the label was limited to the possibility of seeing it on a few products in supermarkets, leaflets at the point of purchase, and scattered media coverage[7]. Hence, the organisations and companies behind them employed a slow penetration strategy for both the MSC label and for the individual MSC labelled products (Kotler, 1991). There have been several campaigns promoting other ecolabels in Denmark in recent years. For instance, a campaign in week 41 of 2006 increased the share of the population that said they knew the EU Flower label from 30 percent to 36 percent[8]. The share of consumers claiming they had bought EU Flower or Nordic Swan labelled products within the last three months increased from 47 percent in 2004 to 62 percent in 2006[9]. Campaigns aiming at increasing the knowledge of EU’s organic label in 2004 and 2005 increased consumer recognition of the label from 7 percent to 29 percent[10]. The Danish state-controlled organic label is by far the most well known ecolabel in Denmark, on food products and overall, recognised by 98 percent of a random sample of consumers in 2005 (Direktoratet for FødevareErhverv, 2005). In sum, in the context where the MSC label was introduced there was quite a large number of ecolabels already, some of which had been there for decades and were very well known. Hence, consumers had had quite a lot of exposure to ecolabels and most of them also had experience with ecolabels already, but rarely or only very limited exposure to or experience with ecolabels for seafood.
5. Method Our hypotheses were tested by means of survey data collected in August 2007. Participants were recruited in a shopping mall in the second largest city of Denmark, Aarhus. Shoppers were intercepted and asked to fill out a written questionnaire if they were judged to be between 18 and 70 years old. In order to get a broad representation of different shopper types, data were collected at all times of day and both at weekends and on weekdays. A total of 443 completed questionnaires were collected. Four respondents were excluded because they never ate fish. Of the remaining 439, some had not completed all items, which means that the active sample can be smaller in the following calculations. Reflecting the gender distribution of the shoppers, participants were 35 percent male and 65 percent female. The average age was 41. The average size of participants’ households was 2.4 persons. The average yearly pre-tax household income was slightly below DKK 400,000. 5.1 The questionnaire The questionnaire opened with a few demographic items and a screening question about fish consumption. Then came recall questions about the MSC label embedded in a larger instrument, followed by items measuring environmental awareness, knowledge about sustainable fishery, and subjective knowledge about the same issue. Next came a panel showing the seal of the MSC label together with five other ecoand ethical labels (see the Appendix) and questions were asked about recognition, comprehension and use. This was followed by an instrument measuring domain-specific innovativeness regarding ecolabelled products, then buying intentions regarding sustainable fish products and subjective (descriptive and injunctive) norms regarding buying sustainable fish products. The questionnaire was concluded with an instrument measuring the credibility of the WWF and a few demographic items. The items used are shown in the Appendix, which also specify the scales and report Cronbach’s a; values for composite constructs (in the note to the table). Questionnaire items not used for the present purpose are not reported. Most of our measurement instruments have been thoroughly validated in previous studies and they were adapted to the present case from the original sources (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Flynn and Goldsmith, 1999; Goldsmith and Hofaker, 1991; Grob, 1995). 6. Results Since decisions about food purchases are usually initiated at the point of sale, recognition rather than recall is likely to be the key driver of decision initiation and support[11]. Therefore, we use recognition as the criterion for assessing awareness of the label in the following calculations. When shown the MSC label seal in a panel with six eco and ethical labels (the MSC label was number five) and asked whether they had seen it before and knew what it meant, 34.2 percent of the respondents said they recognised the MSC label, 15.3 percent had at least some idea about what it meant and 4 percent reported that they knew what it meant (i.e. that they understood it). Following the recognition and understanding measure, respondents were asked whether they never, sometimes or always took the labels into consideration when shopping. Regarding the MSC label, 15.3 percent reported that they did so at least sometimes. This is consistent with the expectation that at the time of our study
Consumer responses to ecolabels 1795
EJM 44,11/12
1796
adoption of the MSC label was limited to the segments that Rogers (2003) calls “innovators” and “early adopters”. 6.1 Starting the adoption process Correlations between the indicators that are assumed to reflect stages in the ecolabel adoption process and possible antecedents are reported in Table I. Overall, the pattern of bivariate correlations is consistent with our hypotheses. There are a few unexpected results, though. First, whereas several knowledge indicators are positively related to the first stages of the adoption process (recognition, understanding), as expected, this is not the case for our measure of general or “objective” knowledge about sustainable fishery (“knowledge” in Table I, “general knowledge” in Table AI in the Appendix). Although it may be true that recognition and understanding of the label is unrelated to objective knowledge (Ellen, 1994), the fact that we used a non-validated instrument for this purpose means that we cannot rule out the possibility that the lack of correlation is simply due to a bad measure. Second, there are a couple of unexpected correlations between demographic variables and adoption indicators. Specifically, paying attention to and understanding, but not adopting, a new ecolabel is related to gender; the adoption, but not paying attention to and understanding the label, is related to age. None of these relationships are strong, however. We used correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis to test H1 and H2. Both hypotheses are strongly supported by the data. The first part of H2, stating that environmental concern is positively related to starting the process of adopting the new ecolabel, was confirmed by the correlation analysis reported in Table I (row 4, column 2). The second part or this hypothesis, i.e. that the effect of environmental concern is mediated through intentions to buy, implies two additional criteria (Baron and Kenny, 1986): (1) that environmental concern is also positively correlated with buying intentions, which was also confirmed by the correlation analysis in Table I (row 10, column 4); and (2) that the impact of environmental concern on starting the process of adopting the new ecolabel is significantly attenuated when intentions to buy is controlled. This final requirement is tested by means of hierarchical regression analysis in Table II. Step 2 in Table II shows that the significant and positive relationship between environmental concern and starting the process of adoption is no longer significant when the buying intention is controlled. A Sobel test of the mediation of the former relationship through buying intentions finds a critical ratio of 3.833, p , 0:001, which further confirms that the indirect effect of environmental concern via the buying intention is significantly different from zero. These results are consistent with H2. H1 is tested by means of multiple regression analysis in Table III. In addition to the predictors mentioned in the hypothesis, we controlled for gender because of the significant relationship between gender and starting the process of adopting the new ecolabel revealed in Table I (row 13, column 2). Because the relationship between the dependent variable and (“objective”) knowledge is not significant according to Table I (row 6, column 2), this variable was excluded from further analyses.
3
4
1.00 0.21 1.00 0.13 0.57 1.00 0.08 0.18 0.20 1.00 2 0.03 0.13 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.25 0.09 0.30 0.13 0.16 0.39 0.43 0.14 0.20 0.31 0.42 0.12 0.07 0.16 0.35 0.07 0.05 0.13 0.28 2 0.01 0.15 0.08 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.16 2 0.13 0.00 20.04 2 0.01 0.05 20.07 20.09 0.09 2 0.02 0.00 20.03 0.01
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1.00 2 0.08 1.00 0.17 0.03 1.00 0.03 0.10 0.11 1.00 0.04 0.14 0.22 0.60 1.00 0.04 0.22 0.19 0.27 0.41 1.00 0.04 0.11 0.26 0.18 0.35 0.44 1.00 2 0.02 0.18 2 0.02 0.09 0.17 0.24 0.19 1.00 2 0.04 20.02 2 0.12 0.22 0.10 0.16 0.15 0.08 1.00 0.07 0.06 0.38 2 0.02 0.10 0.22 0.21 0.00 0.05 1.00 2 0.05 0.01 2 0.12 0.07 0.03 20.05 20.01 0.01 0.03 20.12 1.00 2 0.05 20.02 0.00 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.10 0.00 2 0.04 0.06 0.10 1.00 0.04 20.04 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.03 2 0.07 2 0.11 0.23 0.49 0.31
5
Note: n varies in the range 359-437. Correlations larger than j0.09j are significant, p , 0:05. aMale ¼ 0, female ¼ 1
1. Recall 2. Recognise, understand 3. Trial, continued adoption 4. Environmental concern 5. Innovativeness 6. Knowledge 7. Subjective knowledge 8. Label knowledge 9. Label use 10. Buying intention 11. Subjective norms 12. Trust the WWF 13. Gendera 14. Age 15. Household size 16. Education 17. Income
1
Consumer responses to ecolabels 1797
Table I. Correlations between latent variables
EJM 44,11/12
1798
According to Table III, starting the adoption process depends on the individual’s subjective knowledge about sustainable fishery and general knowledge about ecolabels. It also depends on the individual’s intention to buy sustainable fish products and on his or her “ecolabel innovativeness.” These results are all consistent with H1. Unexpectedly, Table III also reveals that gender gives an independent contribution to predicting who had started the adoption process, women being more likely than men to have noticed the new label and know what it means. Notice, as a caveat, that the calculation in Table III displays an attenuated impact of buying intention, compared to what was reported in Table II. The reason for this is that the impact of buying intention is partly mediated through the knowledge constructs. A Sobel test finds critical ratios of 3.936 and 2.659, p , 0:001 and p , 0:01, regarding the indirect effect of buying intention via label knowledge and subjective knowledge respectively. 6.2 Completing the adoption process Next, we test the hypotheses H3-H7 regarding the final adoption of the label. Again, all of these hypotheses are strongly supported by the data. Notice first that the correlation analyses reported in Table I revealed that completing the adoption process (i.e. trying and continuing to use the MSC label), is related to how far the individual has come through the earlier stages of the adoption process (recognise, understand), as well as intentions to buy sustainable fish products, past experience with using ecolabels, and trust in the WWF. These significant relationships are consistent with H3 and H4. The moderation hypotheses, H5-H7, are analysed by means of hierarchical regression analysis (Tables IV-VI). Before these analyses, all independent variables were standardised and interaction terms were calculated as products of standardised variables (Aiken and West, 1991).
b Table II. Mediation of the effect of environmental concern on starting the process of adopting (i.e. perceiving and understanding) the new ecolabel through buying intention
Table III. Direct determinants of starting the process of adopting (i.e., perceiving and comprehending) the new ecolabel
t
Significance Adjusted R 2 R 2 change
Step 1 Environmental concern
0.17 3.425
0.001
0.026
Step 2 Environmental concern Buying intention
0.10 1.889 0.16 3.050
0.060 0.002
0.045
0.022
Significance of F change
0.002
Note: n ¼ 408
Buying intention Label knowledge Subjective knowledge Innovativeness Gender Note: n ¼ 390. Adjusted R 2 ¼ 0.112
b
t
Significance
0.11 0.18 0.13 0.10 0.11
2.232 3.576 2.593 2.107 2.256
0.026 0.000 0.010 0.036 0.025
According to Step 1 in Table IV, and in accordance with what we saw in Table I, the best predictor of the final adoption of the new ecolabel is how far the person has gotten through the stages of recognising and understanding the label. This is consistent with the high effort adoption process assumption. However, when this variable is controlled, past ecolabel use still contributes to predicting final adoption. Step 2 in Table IV shows that there are not only direct effects, but also a positive interaction between the two variables. This is consistent with H5. The positive interaction suggests that the likelihood, or speed, of moving from recognising and understanding the new ecolabel
t
b
Significance
Adjusted R2
Step 1 Recognise, understand (RU) Label use (LU)
0.52 13.356 0.31 8.012
0.000 0.000
0.414
Step 2 Recognise, understand (RU) Label use (LU) RU £ LU
0.47 12.403 0.28 7.417 0.21 5.539
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.455
R2 change
0.042
t
Significance Adjusted R 2 R 2 change
Step 1 Recognise, understand (RU) Buying intention (BI)
0.53 12.823 0.20 4.750
0.000 0.000
0.360
Step 2 Recognise, understand (RU) Buying intention (BI) RU £ BI
0.46 11.211 0.22 5.495 0.25 6.147
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.415
0.057
0.000
Significance of F change
0.000
Note: n ¼ 389
b
t
Significance Adjusted R 2 R 2 change
Step 1 Recognise, understand (RU) Trust the WWF (T)
0.56 13.645 0.09 2.211
0.000 0.028
0.329
Step 2 Recognise, understand (RU) Trust the WWF (T) RU £ T
0.54 12.763 0.10 2.384 0.13 3.009
0.000 0.018 0.003
0.343
Note: n ¼ 395
0.015
1799
Significance of F change
Note: n ¼ 402
b
Consumer responses to ecolabels
Table IV. Experience with ecolabels as a moderator of the relationship between stage in the first (recognising and understanding) part of the adoption process and the behavioural measure of adoption
Table V. Intention to buy sustainable fish products as moderator of the relationship between stage in the first (recognising and understanding) part of the adoption process and the behavioural measure of adoption
Significance of F change
0.003
Table VI. Trust in the WWF as moderator of the relationship between stage in the first (recognising and understanding) part of the adoption process and the behavioural measure of adoption
EJM 44,11/12
1800
Table VII. Direct and interaction effects in completing the process of adopting the MSC label
to actually adopting it depends on (and is increased by) previous experience with using ecolabels. This is also consistent with the assumption that most of the current adopters of the MSC label followed a high effort adoption process. The second moderation analysis tests H6, which states that the speed of adoption depends on how motivated the consumer is, as reflected in the strength of conscious goals or behavioural intentions to buy sustainable fish products. Specifically, we investigate whether the behavioural intention functions as a moderator that interacts positively with knowledge about the MSC label in determining adoption of this specific label (Table V). The results reported in Table V parallel those reported in Table IV. The significant interaction effect confirms that a strong perceived need for the label, as reflected in the intention to buy sustainable fish products, speeds up the adoption process. For consumers with no or only a weak intention to buy sustainable fish products, knowing and understanding the MSC label may have few behavioural implications. Hence, proceeding through the stages of adoption after entering the first stage is neither mechanical nor inevitable. The third moderation analysis tests H7, which states that mistrust in the certifying and/or endorsing organisation acts impedes the progression from knowing the label to adoption. Specifically, we investigate whether trust in the WWF interacts positively with recognising and understanding the MSC label in determining adoption of this specific label (Table VI). The results reported in Table VI parallel those reported in Tables IV and V, except that both the direct and the moderator effect of trust in the WWF are weaker than the corresponding effects found in the previous analyses. Still, the significant interaction effect confirms the hypothesis that trust in the WWF speeds up the process of adoption or, formulated negatively, that mistrust in the WWF impedes the progression to final adoption. The final model, including all hypothesised direct and interaction effects, is reported in Table VII. As revealed by Table VII, both the direct and moderator impacts of trust disappear when controlling for the other variables. Together with the significant bivariate correlations between trust and buying intention and trust and label use, reported in Table I, this suggests that the impact of trust on adoption is mediated through these other variables. A few variables not included in Table VII are significantly correlated with the final adoption of the MSC label, according to Table I (environmental concern, subjective knowledge, subjective norms, age). They were not included because we had no
Recognise, understand (RU) Buying intention (BI) RU £ BI Label use (LU) RU £ LU Trust the WWF (T) RU £ T Note: n ¼ 384
b
t
Significance
0.42 0.11 0.17 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.01
1.635 2.687 4.044 5.875 3.593 0.315 0.364
0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.753 0.716
theoretical reasons for including them and because calculations (not reported in order to conserve space) show that none of them is statistically significant when controlling for the variables included in Table VII. 7. Discussion From a consumer perspective, an ecolabel is a tool for supporting decision-making with regard to environmentally significant products. In principle, a consumer may adopt an ecolabel as a decision-making tool and still reject the ecolabelled product, after weighing the pros and cons. In this article, we have proposed and applied a decision-making/adoption of innovation framework for analysing consumer responses to a new ecolabel. A key question in this connection is whether consumers that adopt early typically go through a high or a low effort process when adopting a new ecolabel (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2006). We find the arguments suggesting a high effort process most compelling and this proposition was supported by our empirical study. Especially the strong positive relationship between how far the individual had progressed through the initial stages and the measure of final adoption is consistent with this proposition as is the finding that past experience with ecolabels is a moderator of this relationship, rather than just having a direct effect on the adoption of the new label. A direct effect of past experience indicates that experienced ecolabel users go through a low-effort process, jumping directly from awareness of the label to trial, perhaps because experience reduces their perceived risk. The moderation effect, on the other hand, suggests that experienced ecolabel users go through the process of adoption more quickly, without necessarily cutting corners, perhaps because they have developed a mental script for how to act when learning about a new ecolabel. We analysed the adoption of the MSC label by consumers relatively shortly after its introduction in Denmark. As argued in the Introduction, the motives, facilitators and barriers for adoption depend on how many have adopted the innovation (in this case, a new ecolabel) before. Especially, peer influence and other social and normative factors are likely to play a different role in different phases of the diffusion process. Hence, the conclusions we can draw are limited to early adopters and cannot be generalised to consumers adopting later. It is a key feature of our decision-making/adoption of innovation framework that adoption of an innovation is not conceived as a simple discrete event, but as a process consisting of several steps or stages. In accordance with this stage-model, we found that different antecedents predict whether an individual is likely to start the adoption process and whether he or she continues from being aware of and understanding the label to final adoption. Consistent with previous research into consumer adoption of new products, we find that domain-specific innovativeness with regard to buying ecolabelled products is positively related to starting the adoption process. We also find that the consumer’s needs and goals are key factors behind starting the process of adoption. The MSC label helps the consumer achieve the goal of buying sustainable fish products and it thereby fulfil needs reflected in environmental concern. These are the basic reasons why a consumer would want to adopt the new label. We reason that needs and goals are important for starting the process of adoption because individuals attend selectively to aspects of the environment that are relevant for the fulfilment of their needs or reaching their goals.
Consumer responses to ecolabels 1801
EJM 44,11/12
1802
Like most other ecoseals, the MSC label conveys limited information in itself. Hence, just to recognise it as an ecolabel demands some expertise. Also, the early adopters do not have the advantage of being able to imitate others or draw on advise from more experienced peers. In the specific case, even communication in the general media about the label was scarce. Hence, the early adopters studied were more dependent on their own general expertise than are later adopters. Consistent with these facts, we find that starting the process of adopting a new ecolabel among early adopters depends on the individual’s knowledge. The more familiar consumers are with ecolabels on the market and the more confident they are in their knowledge about sustainable fishery, the more likely it is that they were among the first to notice and understand the new label. Competence may also be the reason behind the found gender effect. Perhaps the average woman holds relevant shopping competences that the average man misses and that are not captured by the included knowledge measures. About the presence of other ecolabels in the context where a new ecolabel is implemented, we find that exposure to and experience with ecolabels lead to learning, which facilitates the understanding of a new one and reduces the perceived risk. This does not prove that the information overload hypothesis is necessarily wrong, however. Future research should investigate whether the learning effect is more or less important than the possible confusion and distraction produced by the abundance of other labelling schemes. According to this study, taking the last steps in the process and finally adopting the new label depends on specific drivers, facilitators and impediments. The more strongly a person intends to buy sustainable fish products, and therefore feels a need for a tool that transforms this credence attribute into a search attribute, the more determined he or she seems to be to complete the adoption process and do it quickly. This result has high face validity and it is consistent with previous studies suggesting that ecolabel success depends on latent consumer demand for green products (e.g. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1997). In terms of facilitators and impediments, the study shows that both experience with using other ecolabels and (mis)trust in the key endorsing organisation (the WWF) influence the speed of adoption. (A large majority of the participants trust the WWF; cf. the Appendix. For example, only 3.8 percent fully or partly agreed, while 67.7 percent fully or partly disagreed with the statement “I do not have confidence in the WWF”.) The remaining direct effects of the supposed moderators, found in the moderator analyses, suggest that factors that reduce the perceived risk or increase the tolerance of risk connected with adopting a new label make some consumers cut corners and employ a low-effort adoption process. However, overall our results are consistent with a high-effort adoption process being the most common, at least among early adopters. Summing up, consumer decisions to adopt a new ecolabel (early) depend on both motivation and ability factors. Paying attention to and understanding the new label depends on both consumer motivation and issue-relevant knowledge. Further, as noted above, consumer knowledge (about ecolabels and sustainable fishery in this case) also depends on motivation factors. In the specific case, consumers with high intention of buying sustainable fish products had acquired more issue-relevant knowledge. In other words, both consumer motivation and expertise are necessary for starting the process of adopting a new ecolabel. Proceeding from being aware of and understanding the label to trial and continued adoption depends partly on the factors motivating the first
steps (i.e. the need for a tool helping the consumer who wants to buy sustainable fish products), partly on facilitators, such as experience with using other ecolabels, and possible impediments, such as mistrust in the endorsing organisation. 7.1 Limitations The reported analyses are based on correlational survey data. As always, correlations are not proof of causality. Also, self-reported survey data are prone to a range of well-known errors and biases. On the other hand, by asking ordinary consumers about their everyday practice in their everyday context we most likely obtain higher external validity than when using student subjects in the artificial context of the lab. The success or failure of an ecolabelling scheme may be attributed to the scheme itself, to the environment in which it is implemented, and/or to the consumers who are supposed to adopt the ecolabel and use it in their decision-making. Because environmental and product-related factors did not differ between respondents, we had limited possibility to estimate the importance of these factors for consumer responses to the label. Hence, it is definitely possible that environmental and/or product related factors are more important than it may appear from this study. 7.2 Implications and future research It is usually recommended that campaigners should focus on the innovators and early adopters segment in the initial campaign promoting an innovation (Hawkins et al., 1998). The results of this study suggest that, when the innovation is a new ecolabel, this segment is best characterised in terms of issue-relevant knowledge and motivation. Consumers scoring highly on both of these characteristics are the most likely innovators and early adopters. Assuming good access to products carrying the label and to in-depth information (e.g. on the iInternet), it seems likely that this consumer segment has limited need for information through traditional mass media. Their high level of expertise means that relatively little information is sufficient for understanding the label and its self-relevance and their strong motivation means that they will search for more if they need it (and if it is not too difficult to get). However, promoting an innovation means chasing “a moving target” (Hawkins et al., 1998) and the communication strategy will need to change over time. When they have established a foothold in the market for the label, campaigners need to change focus and target more reluctant adopters, which means consumers with less issue-relevant knowledge and/or less motivation. These segments need more extensive and probably also more complex information, which is not easily communicated through mass media (Hawkins et al., 1998). For this and other reasons, the earliest adopters are an important resource, as opinion leaders and disseminators of positive word-of-mouth and also as models (Rogers, 2003). The marketing toolbox contains a wide repertoire of modelling techniques and ways of stimulating communication between consumers that promoters of ecolabels can draw upon (cf. Donovan and Henley, 2003; Kotler and Roberto, 1989). Elaborating on these tools is outside the scope of this article and the interested reader is referred to the cited references. In addition to adapting the communication strategy, supply characteristics should be geared to the anticipated increase in demand including increasing the volume of supply, widening the selection, and increasing the intensity of distribution.
Consumer responses to ecolabels 1803
EJM 44,11/12
Notes 1. Search attributes can be directly observed by consumers prior to purchase. Experience and credence attributes are difficult for consumers to verify. By definition, experience attributes can only be known after purchase and use. Even then, credence attributes cannot be verified by the consumers themselves. 2. According to www.miljoeogsundhed.dk
1804
3. For example, www.hvaforenfisk.dk 4. See www.miljoeogsundhed.dk 5. “Utilstrækkelig information om fisk”, IMS 2005, (see www.miljoeogsundhed.dk/default. aspx?node ¼ 5011), “Utilstrækkelig information om fisk”, IMS 2006, (see www. miljoeogsundhed.dk/default.aspx?node ¼ 5312). 6. See http://eng.msc.org/html/content_572.htm 7. A search in a database covering Danish printed media (see www.infomedia.dk) using the Danish translation of “MSC label” as the search term revealed only three articles – two in regional newspapers and one in a consumer magazine – prior the time of our data collection. 8. See www.ecolabel.dk 9. See www.ecolabel.dk 10. See www.fvm.dk 11. We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out to us. References Abt Associates, Inc. and Environmental Protection Agency (1999), Consumer Labeling Initiative. Phase 2 Report, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution, Prevention, and Toxics, Washington, DC. Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Bamberg, S. (2003), “How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 23, pp. 21-32. Bandura, A. (2001), “Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 1-26. Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82. Cialdini, R.B. (2001), Influence: Science and Practice, 4th ed., Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA. Commission of the European Communities (2005), Launching a Debate on a Community Approach towards Eco-Labelling Schemes for Fisheries Products, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. Commission of the European Communities (2007), Accompanying Document to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Progress Report on the European Union Sustainable Development Strategy 2007, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 22 October.
D’Souza, C. (2004), “Ecolabel programmes: a stakeholder (consumer) perspective”, Corporate Communications, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 179-88. Darby, M.R. and Karni, E. (1973), “Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud”, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 67-88. de Ferran, F. and Grunert, K.G. (2007), “French fair trade coffee buyers’ purchasing motives: an exploratory study using means-end chains analysis”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 18, pp. 218-29. Direktoratet for FødevareErhverv (2005), Postma˚ling Nr. 2. Kampagne for Nyt EU-Logo for Økologiske Fødevarer (Post Measurement No. 2. Campaign for new EU Logo for Organic Food Products), Direktoratet for FødevareErhverv, København. Donovan, R.J. and Henley, N. (2003), Social Marketing: Principles and Practice, IP Communications, Melbourne. Drichoutis, A.C., Lazaridis, P. and Nayga, R.M. Jr (2006), “Consumers’ use of nutritional labels: a review of research studies and issues”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 9. Dunlap, R.E. (2002), “An enduring concern”, Public Perspective, September/October, pp. 10-14. Ellen, P.S. (1994), “Do we know what we need to know? Objective and subjective knowledge effects on pro-ecological behaviors”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 30, pp. 43-52. Ellison, J. (2008), “Save the planet, lose the guilt”, Newsweek, 30 June, available at: www. newsweek.com/2008/06/28/save-the-planet-lose-the-guilt.html# Eritja, M.C. (Ed.) (2004), Sustainability Labelling and Certification, Marcial Pons, Madrid. European Commission (2005), EVER: Evaluation of Emas and Ecolabel for Their Revision. Annex Iii: Emas and Ecolabel Case Studies Based on “On-Site” Visits, IEFE – Universita` Bocconi, Adelphi Consult, IOEW Office Heidelberg, SPRU Sussex University and Valør & Tinge A/S for the European Commission, Brussels. Fazio, R.H. (1990), “Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: the mode model as an integrative framework”, in Zanna, M.P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 23, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 75-109. Fisher, R.J. and Price, L.L. (1992), “An investigation into the social context of early adoption behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 477-86. Flynn, L.R. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1999), “A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46, pp. 57-66. Food and Agriculture Organization (2005), Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. Galarraga Gallastegui, I. (2002), “The use of eco-labels: a review of the literature”, European Environment, Vol. 12, pp. 316-31. Goldsmith, R.E. and Hofaker, C.F. (1991), “Measuring consumer innovativeness”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19, pp. 209-21. Grankvist, G., Lekedal, H. and Marmendal, M. (2007), “Values and eco- and fair-trade labelled products”, British Food Journal, Vol. 109, pp. 169-81. Grob, A. (1995), “A structural model of environmental attitudes and behaviour”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 209-20. Grunert, K.G. and Wills, J.M. (2007), “A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels”, Journal of Public Health, Vol. 15, pp. 385-99. Haugaard, P. and Olesen, A. (2007), Introduktionen Af Bæredygtig Fisk Pa˚ Det Danske Marked – Med Fokus Pa˚ MSC-Mærket (The Introduction of Sustainable Fish on the Danish Market – Focusing on the MSC Label), Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University, Aarhus.
Consumer responses to ecolabels 1805
EJM 44,11/12
1806
Hawkins, D.I., Best, R.J. and Coney, K.A. (1998), Consumer Behavior. Building Marketing Strategy, 7th ed., Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA. Herbig, P.A. and Kramer, H. (1994), “The effect of information overload on the innovation choice process”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11, pp. 45-54. Hoyer, W.D. and MacInnis, D.J. (2006), Consumer Behavior, 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Iraldo, F., Lanzini, P., Melis, M., Kahlenborn, W., Freier, I., Rubik, F., Ankele, K., Scheer, D. and Hertin, J. (2005), EVER: Evaluation of Emas and Eco-Label for Their Revision. Report 2: Research Findings, IEFE – Universita` Bocconi, Adelphi Consult, IOEW, SPRU Sussex University, and Valor & Tinge A/S, Milan. Jacoby, J. (1984), “Perspectives on information overload”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 569-73. Jaffry, S., Pickering, H., Ghulam, Y., Whitmarsh, D. and Wattage, P. (2004), “Consumer choices for quality and sustainability labelled seafood products in the UK”, Food Policy, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 215-28. Kotler, P. (1991), Marketing Management. Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control, 7th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kotler, P. and Roberto, E.L. (1989), Social Marketing. Strategies for Changing Public Behavior, The Free Press, New York, NY. Leigh, T.W. and Rethans, A.J. (1983), “Experiences with script elicitation within consumer decision-making contexts”, in Bagozzi, R.P. and Tybout, A.M. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 667-72. ˚ . (2005), “Product-related environmental information to guide consumer Leire, C. and Thidell, A purchases – a review and analysis of research on perceptions, understanding and use among Nordic consumers”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13, pp. 1061-70. McDonagh, P. (2002), “Communicative campaigns to effect anti-slavery and fair trade. The case of Rugmark and Cafe´direct”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 5/6, pp. 642-66. McGuire, W.J. (1985), “Attitudes and attitude change”, in Lindzey, I.G. and Aronson, E. (Eds), Handbook in Social Psychology, Vol. II, Random House, New York, NY, pp. 233-345. Midgley, D.F. and Dowling, G.R. (1978), “Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 229-42. Morris, L.A., Hastak, M. and Mazis, M.B. (1995), “Consumer comprehension of environmental advertising and labeling claims”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 29, pp. 328-50. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (1997), Eco-Labelling: Actual Effects of Selected Programmes, OECD/GD(97)105, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. Peter, J.P., Olson, J.C. and Grunert, K.G. (1999), Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Strategy, European edition, McGraw-Hill, London. Reisch, L.A. (2001), “Eco-labeling and sustainable consumption in Europe: lessons to be learned from the introduction of a national label for organic food”, Consumer Interest Annual, Vol. 47, pp. 1-6. Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., The Free Press, New York, NY. Rubik, F. and Frankl, P. (Eds) (2005), The Future of Eco-Labelling. Making Environmental Product Information Systems Effective, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield.
Scheer, D. and Rubik, F. (2005), “Environmental product information schemes: an overview”, in Rubik, F. and Frankl, P. (Eds), The Future of Eco-Labelling. Making Environmental Product Information Systems Effective, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, pp. 46-88. Schiffman, L.G., Kanuk, L.L. and Hansen, H. (2008), Consumer Behaviour: A European Outlook, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Harlow. Sitarz, D. (1994), Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet, EarthPress, Boulder, CO. Sutton, S. (2005), “Stage theories of health behaviour”, in Conner, M. and Norman, P. (Eds), Predicting Health Behaviour, Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp. 223-75. Teisl, M.F. and Roe, B. (2005), “Evaluating the factors that impact the effectiveness of eco-labelling programmes”, in Krarup, S. and Russell, C.S. (Eds), Environment, Information and Consumer Behaviour, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 65-90. Teisl, M.F., Roe, B. and Hicks, R.L. (2002), “Can eco-labels tune a market? Evidence from dolphin-safe labeling”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 43, pp. 339-59. Tews, K., Busch, P.-O. and Jorgens, H. (2003), “The diffusion of new environmental policy instruments”, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 42, pp. 569-600. Thøgersen, J. (2000), “Psychological determinants of paying attention to eco-labels in purchase decisions: model development and multinational validation”, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 23, pp. 285-313. Thøgersen, J. (2002), “Promoting green consumer behavior with eco-labels”, in Dietz, T. and Stern, P. (Eds), New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information, and Voluntary Measures, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 83-104. Valor, C. (2008), “Can consumers buy responsibly? Analysis and solutions for market failures”, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 31, pp. 315-26. Vining, J. and Ebreo, A. (1990), “What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and non-recyclers”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 55-73. Zanoli, R. and Naspetti, S. (2002), “Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food. A means-end approach”, British Food Journal, Vol. 104 No. 8, pp. 643-53.
Consumer responses to ecolabels 1807
EJM 44,11/12
Appendix
n
1808
Table AI. Items and descriptive statistics
Adoption of the label Have you heard about the MSC-label, an ecolabel for sustainable fishery? (Recall) 435 How well do you know this label [the MSC label]? (Recognise, understand)a 424 To what extent do you take this label into account when you shop [the MSC label]? (Adoption)b 405 Personal factors I am concerned about the development of the global environment (Environmental concernc) I feel it is a moral obligation to use environment-friendly products (Environmental concern) It concerns me that people do not care enough for the environment (Environmental concern) I have changed from one brand to another for the sake of the environment (Environmental concern) I often buy ecolabelled products for the sake of the environment (Environmental concern) I am generally one of the first among my acquaintances to buy new ecolabelled food products (Innovativenessd) Even if new environment-friendly food products are available in the shops I do not buy them (Innovativeness) Compared with my acquaintances, I buy more new environment-friendly food products than most (Innovativeness) I am generally one of the last among my acquaintances to know new ecolabelled food products (Innovativeness) I will not buy new ecolabelled food products if I haven’t tasted them before (Innovativeness) I know new ecolabelled products before others do (Innovativeness) Sustainable fishery is better for the sea bed and the marine environment (General knowledge) Sustainably caught fish are healthier than traditionally caught fish (General knowledge) There are less heavy metals in sustainably caught fish (General knowledge) Sustainable fishery makes sure that the fish stocks are not overharvested (General knowledge) Gentle catch tools are key in sustainable fishery (General knowledge) Sustainable fishery is meant to secure the development and future of fishery (General knowledge) I know quite a lot about sustainable fishery (Subjective knowledgee)
Minimim Maximum Mean
SD
0
1
0.08
0.265
0
3
0.54
0.847
0
2
0.18
0.450
436
0
4
3.19
0.805
433
0
4
2.82
0.844
436
0
4
3.07
0.805
436
0
4
2.42
0.985
434
0
4
2.47
0.942
434
0
4
1.39
0.893
435
0
4
1.64
0.898
432
0
4
1.78
0.906
434
0
4
1.57
0.904
433
0
4
1.32
0.942
434
0
4
1.34
0.786
404
0
1
0.96
0.207
394
0
1
0.39
0.489
389
0
1
0.35
0.478
403
0
1
0.96
0.201
390
0
1
0.83
0.373
402
0
1
0.98
0.131
411
1
4
2.93 0.605 (continued)
n I am one of the experts on sustainable fishery among my acquaintances (Subjective knowledge) I feel well informed about sustainable fishery (Subjective knowledge) I do not feel particularly knowledgeable about sustainable fishery (Subjective knowledge) Compared with others I know less about sustainable fishery (Subjective knowledge) When it comes to sustainable fishery, I don’t know a lot (Subjective knowledge) How well do you know this label [the Danish Organic label]? (Label knowledgef)a How well do you know this label [the EU Organic label]? (Label knowledge)a How well do you know this label [the EU Flower label]? (Label knowledge)a How well do you know this label [the Nordic Swan label]? (Label knowledge)a How well do you know this label [the Max Havelaar label]? (Label knowledge)a To what extent do you take this label into account when you shop [the Danish Organic label]? (Label useg)b To what extent do you take this label into account when you shop [the EU Organic label]? (Label use)b To what extent do you take this label into account when you shop [the EU Flower label]? (Label use)b To what extent do you take this label into account when you shop [the Nordic Swan label]? (Label use)b To what extent do you take this label into account when you shop [the Max Havelaar label]? (Label use)b In future, I’m going to buy sustainable fish in the shops (Buying intentionh) In future, I will try to buy sustainable fish (Buying intention) In future, I will plan my shopping so that I get to buy sustainable fish (Buying intention) Environmental factors People whose opinion I value want to buy sustainable fish (Subjective normi) People who are like me want to buy sustainable fish (Subjective norm) My acquaintances want to buy sustainable fish (Subjective norm) My acquaintances think I should buy sustainable fish (Subjective norm) People whose opinion I value support me buying sustainable fish (Subjective norm) It is expected from me that I buy sustainable fish (Subjective norm)
Minimim Maximum Mean
SD
406
0
4
0.81
0.888
404
0
4
1.86
1.089
406
0
4
2.78
1.024
402
0
4
2.27
1.076
406
0
4
2.62
1.003
426
0
3
2.55
0.754
427
0
3
0.81
1.074
426
0
3
1.21
1.084
424
0
3
1.65
1.250
425
0
3
1.81
1.275
410
0
2
0.96
0.626
404
0
2
0.27
0.523
405
0
2
0.38
0.579
407
0
2
0.62
0.674
409
0
2
0.62
0.653
422
0
4
2.56
0.795
422
0
4
2.62
0.754
421
0
4
2.19
0.775
418
0
4
2.10
0.796
421
0
4
2.22
0.754
420
0
4
2.08
0.707
422
0
4
1.54
0.892
420
0
4
2.19
0.887
422
0
4
1.75 0.942 (continued)
Consumer responses to ecolabels 1809
Table AI.
EJM 44,11/12
1810
Table AI.
n Product-related factors The WWF does a good job (Trust WWFj) The WWF is an independent organisation that is not under political influence (Trust WWF) I do not have confidence in the WWF (Trust WWF) I have a positive attitude towards the WWF (Trust WWF) I believe what the WWF tells me in campaigns and in the media (Trust WWF)
Minimim Maximum Mean
SD
429
0
4
3.00
0.803
427 428
0 0
4 4
2.42 1.21
0.872 0.809
427
0
4
2.96
0.701
429
0
4
2.67
0.769
Note: With the exceptions noted below, items were measured on a five-point scale and coded from 0 to 4 so that a higher number indicated a more favourable position towards the issue. With the exceptions noted below, the scale labels went from “completely disagree” to “completely agree.” In case of dichotomous labels, 0 ¼ no or untrue, 1 ¼ yes or true. a0 ¼ never seen, 1 ¼ seen, but don’t know what it means, 2 ¼ seen and have some idea about what it means, 3 ¼ seen and know what it means. b 0 ¼ do not use, 1 ¼ sometimes use, 2 ¼ always use. cAverage of five items. Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.80. d Average of six items. Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.85. eAverage of six items. Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.80. fAverage of five items. Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.64. gAverage of five items. Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.67. hAverage of three items. Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.83. iAverage of six items. Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.85. jAverage of five items. Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.85
About the authors John Thøgersen, PhD, Dr Merc, is Professor of Economic Psychology in the Department of Marketing and Statistics, Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus. John Thøgersen is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected] Pernille Haugaard and Anja Olesen are both MSc students in Business Administration and contributed to this research as part of their thesis work.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
