IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwwob/80-19-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gütesiegel: zu detaillierte Angaben können die Funktionsfähigkeit der Zertifikate schmälern

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Pollrich
  • Lilo Wagner

Abstract

Following a series of food scandals, consumer confidence in the industry has been shaken. However, criticism has not only been directed at the industry itself, but also at the providers of quality seals who were so quick to certify the products. There are increasing calls for improved transparency and, with regard to organization and the rules of certification, more transparency does indeed make sense. However, this is not necessarily the case when it comes to product information. The present model study demonstrates that the obligation imposed by quality seals to provide more detailed product quality information could in fact restrict the effective functioning of the markets. Nach einer Serie von Lebensmittelskandalen ist das Vertrauen der Verbraucher in die Industrie erschüttert. Kritik schlägt dabei nicht nur den Herstellern selbst, sondern auch den Anbietern von Gütesiegeln entgegen, die Produkte leichtfertig zertifiziert haben. Die Rufe nach gesteigerter Transparenz werden lauter. Im Hinblick auf die Organisation und die Regeln der Zertifizierung ist mehr Transparenz sicher sinnvoll. Bezüglich der Produktinformationen gilt dies indes nicht unbedingt. Die vorliegende Modellstudie zeigt, dass eine Verpflichtung zu mehr Detailliertheit bei der Offenlegung der Produktqualität durch Gütesiegel das Funktionieren von Märkten einschränken könnte.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Pollrich & Lilo Wagner, 2013. "Gütesiegel: zu detaillierte Angaben können die Funktionsfähigkeit der Zertifikate schmälern," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 80(19), pages 15-18.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwob:80-19-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.420934.de/13-19-3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Pollrich & Lilo Wagner, "undated". "Informational opacity and honest certication," BDPEMS Working Papers 2013001, Berlin School of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marta Allegra Ronchetti, 2015. "Credit Rating Agency, Preliminary Ratings and Contact Disclosure," Discussion Papers 2015/04, University of Nottingham, Centre for Finance, Credit and Macroeconomics (CFCM).
    2. Marta Allegra Ronchetti, 2018. "Preliminary credit ratings and contact disclosure," Discussion Papers 2018/02, University of Nottingham, Centre for Finance, Credit and Macroeconomics (CFCM).
    3. Loerke, Petra & Niedermayer, Andreas, 2015. "Crises and Rating Agencies," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 521, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Certification; Bribery; Reputation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • L14 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation
    • L11 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwwob:80-19-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.