IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae14/182742.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Labelling and consumer behaviour: experimental evidence from a Belgian supermarket

Author

Listed:
  • Vlaeminck, Pieter
  • Jiang, Ting
  • Vranken, Liesbet

Abstract

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%.

Suggested Citation

  • Vlaeminck, Pieter & Jiang, Ting & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "Labelling and consumer behaviour: experimental evidence from a Belgian supermarket," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182742, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae14:182742
    as

    Download full text from publisher

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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, pages 321-341.
    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)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Food labelling; Field Experiment; Environmental Information Provision; Consumer Behaviour; Consumer/Household Economics; Institutional and Behavioral Economics;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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: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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.