How do alternative climate mitigation claims affect WTP in dairy markets?

The food sector faces growing pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and food companies increasingly communicate climate actions through product labels and sustainability claims. Yet low-carbon claims can be achieved through substantively different strategies. Some firms directly reduce emissions in production or along the supply chain, while others rely on carbon offsets that compensate for emissions through external projects. This study examines whether U.S. consumers distinguish among direct emissions reduction, carbon offsetting, and a combined reduction-and-offset approach in the context of dairy products. We conduct an online discrete choice experiment in which consumers choose between two 8-ounce blocks of sharp cheddar cheese and a neither option. Product attributes include brand type, price, climate mitigation claim, and certification source. Using a conditional logit model with respondent-clustered standard errors, we estimate willingness to pay for alternative climate claims and certification sources. Results show that consumers value all three climate mitigation claims relative to no claim, but they do not treat them as equivalent. Under both certification sources, the combined reduction-and-offset claim receives the highest willingness to pay, followed by direct emissions reduction and carbon offsetting alone. Similarly, across all the climate mitigation claims, government certification generates an additional premium relative to independent third-party certification. These findings suggest that the market value of climate-related food labels depends not only on the presence of a low-carbon claim, but also on the substantive mitigation strategy and the credibility of verification.