Eco-labelling is way of telling consumers about the environmental credentials of a product. For example, many are familiar with the Marine Stewardship Council's 'blue tick' or Rainforest Alliance Certified Cocoa. There has been an increasing call for a universal label within the grocery industry - not one that only sits on certified fish or cocoa, but one that can theoretically sit on any grocery product.
Every food product has an environmental cost and with ambitious climate change targets set to ramp again at COP28, how can an environmental label best nudge consumers towards positive environmental behavioural change?
But such calls have led to questions - how should the eco-label be framed? Is the aim to inform consumers so they can make their own rational decision? Or is the aim to shock respondents to grab attention, negative arousal and ultimately scare consumers into behavioural change?
In a recent article from researchers at Durham University, the key finding was cigarette-style climate warnings on food could cut meat consumption (Hughes et al. 2023 and summarised in a newspaper article in The Guardian, "Cigarette-style climate warnings on food could cut meat consumption, study suggests" 1st Nov 2023).
In this study respondents were asked to make meal decisions - for example which of these would you choose? Meat, fish, vegetarian or vegan pasta bake (see Figure 1 below). In the climate warning condition respondents saw 'WARNING: Eating meat contributes to climate change'. Whereas in the control, no warning was shown. It was found respondents in climate warning condition where less likely to choose meat versus the control group. This suggests shock tactics on environmental labelling could work.
But are shock tactics the best solution?
This research only compared the effects of climate warning messages versus a control with no message. It was found that the shock message elicited negative arousal. There was not a condition where respondents were shown information of climate impact on the product rather than shocking warning stimulus.
Previous research and our neuro- and behavioural science experts argue that “scaremongering can inhibit us from taking the desired action rather than encouraging us to change our behaviour” (Tarasescu, A., 2022; Kuhbandner et. Al., 2016). Indeed, one study found that showing warning labels on cigarette packs actually stimulated the area of the brain which craves cigarettes (Lindstrom, M., 2008). Could a similar process happen with climate meat warnings and craving - more neuro research is clearly required.
Furthermore, we know that even if some might try a new behaviour once (for example switching from a beef to a Linda McCartney burger) maintaining this behaviour and creating the right habits is hard. Could an information provision approach provide longevity of behavioural change rather than shock tactics? Perhaps this dichotomy of 'shock' message vs simply providing information is an oversimplification - can we find a middle ground such as attracting attention while instilling long term realistic behavioural change? There is clearly need for follow up research here - can an eco-label lead to desired behavioural change over a week, month or year? Some longitudinal or tracking research will be required.
Whilst this research was conducted to model that of a university canteen, does the survey design truly model that of a realistic decision making? We know that using scenario imagery promotes accurate and honest responses (Bacon & Krpan, 2018). At Walnut Unlimited we use virtual reality testing - we can put respondents in a supermarket and ask them to make a decision at the shelf. This real life modelling of a scenario they are in everyday can increase validity of results to match reality.
We know that the use of imagery in an environmental label will be vital. Literature is conclusive that using imagery to support text provides a fast pathway for consumers to process information - vital when making everyday shopping/meal decisions (Spack et al, 2012).
Either way, the future is exciting. There’s a potential path for the grocery industry to take decisive action on the environmental emergency. We also know there’s a need to incorporate a wide range of behavioural science and research techniques when assessing this kind of consumer behaviour.