IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Labelling and consumer behaviour: experimental evidence from a Belgian supermarket

Listed author(s):
  • Vlaeminck, Pieter
  • Jiang, Ting
  • Vranken, Liesbet

Using an incentive-compatible framed field experiment, we investigate whether consumers’ food consumption is more eco-friendly when the information about a product’s environmental impact is more easily accessible. Through an online choice experiment, we identify a food label that is perceived to be the most easily accessible for assessing a product’s eco- friendliness among six alternatives. This new graded food label is subsequently tested in an experimental food market embedded in a Belgium supermarket. We find that the presence of the new graded food label leads to more eco-friendly food consumption relative to the label currently used in the supermarket, i.e. the graded label increases the overall eco-friendliness of our subjects’ food consumption by about 10%.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/182742
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by European Association of Agricultural Economists in its series 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia with number 182742.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Aug 2014
Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae14:182742
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.eaae.org
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2007. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 341-368, June.
  2. Lozano, Javier & Blanco, Ester & Rey-Maquieira, Javier, 2010. "Can ecolabels survive in the long run?: The role of initial conditions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2525-2534, October.
  3. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
  4. Matthias Benz & Stephan Meier, 2008. "Do people behave in experiments as in the field?—evidence from donations," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 268-281, September.
  5. John A. Fox & Jason F. Shogren & Dermot J. Hayes & James B. Kliebenstein, 1998. "CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 455-465.
  6. Douadia Bougherara & Pierre Combris, 2009. "Eco-labelled food products: what are consumers paying for?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 36(3), pages 321-341, September.
  7. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1998. "Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 193-205, October.
  8. de Boer, Joop & Boersema, Jan J. & Aiking, Harry, 2009. "Consumers' motivational associations favoring free-range meat or less meat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 850-860, January.
  9. Vlaeminck, Pieter & Jiang, Ting & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "How can environmental information align consumer behaviour with attitude? Evidence from a field experiment," Working Papers 162425, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
  10. Vermeir, Iris & Verbeke, Wim, 2008. "Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 542-553, January.
  11. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Svedsäter, Henrik, 2012. "Self-image and valuation of moral goods: Stated versus actual willingness to pay," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 879-891.
  12. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
  13. Gerbens-Leenes, P. W. & Moll, H. C. & Schoot Uiterkamp, A. J. M., 2003. "Design and development of a measuring method for environmental sustainability in food production systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 231-248, September.
  14. Triguero, Angela & Moreno-Mondéjar, Lourdes & Davia, María A., 2013. "Drivers of different types of eco-innovation in European SMEs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 25-33.
  15. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri, "undated". "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," DEOS Working Papers 0801, Athens University of Economics and Business.
  16. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
  17. Bradley G. Ridoutt & Peerasak Sanguansri & Gregory S. Harper, 2011. "Comparing Carbon and Water Footprints for Beef Cattle Production in Southern Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 3(12), pages 1-13, December.
  18. Rousseau, Sandra & Vranken, Liesbet, 2013. "Green market expansion by reducing information asymmetries: Evidence for labeled organic food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 31-43.
  19. Gerbens-Leenes, P. W. & Nonhebel, S., 2002. "Consumption patterns and their effects on land required for food," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 185-199, August.
  20. Schumacher, Ingmar, 2010. "Ecolabeling, consumers' preferences and taxation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2202-2212, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eaae14:182742. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.