Sustainability label credibility : a consumer perspective

(1)

Sustainability Label Credibility:

A Consumer Perspective

Master thesis Political Science International Relations

Graduate School of Social Sciences Lilies van Poorten

10469702

Supervisor: Dr. L.W. Fransen

Second Reader: Prof. B.M. Burgoon 25 June 2014

(2)

Abstract

Sustainability labels are an important method to facilitate more sustainable production and consumption. While consumers cannot verify sustainability label claims themselves, the credibility of sustainability labels is of utmost importance. This research aimed to get a deeper understanding of how consumers perceive sustainability label credibility. The research adopted a qualitative approach. It focused on sustainability labels on coffee, since this is considered a leading industry for sustainability initiatives. Data was collected through sixteen in-depth interviews with consumers of sustainable labeled coffee. The findings indicated that there are different elements that consumers consider as important for their understanding of sustainability label credibility. These elements are: familiarity with a sustainability label, information, the frequency that a sustainability label appears on products, the price of the product that bears a sustainability label, sustainability label proliferation, and type of sustainability label source. The findings demonstrate that these elements are interrelated and that the consumer evaluation process of label credibility is personal and subjective. The research contributes to a better understanding of the challenges that sustainability labels face and, ultimately, increases transparency for consumers of sustainable goods. The research can be a starting for further research on label credibility in other countries and contexts, on other types of sustainability labels, on the interrelatedness of the findings, or for quantitative research on this issue.

(3)

Preface

This thesis is the result of the Master's Programme International Relations at the Graduate School of Social Sciences. It was written in the context of the research project Global Politics of Sustainability. I would like to thank my supervisor, Luc Fransen, for his support and guidance throughout the process of this research. Furthermore, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support, encouragement, and attempts to keep me from my work. Finally, I thank caffeine, for making addicted respondents.

(4)

1. Introduction

Product labeling systems are a prominent measure to facilitate more sustainable development. According to the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland-report 1987). Sustainability labels inform consumers about a product's social or environmental qualities and tell about its particular characteristics that meet certain standards. These standards are either set by a third-party independent institution or public authority, or by producers themselves. However, with a profusion of sustainability labels striving for their share in the market, accusations of them being rather confusing than facilitating have been on the rise. A study from research and consultancy company MarketResponse indicated that more than 75% of the Dutch consumers get confused by the proliferation of sustainability labels on products, and that this number seems to be increasing. Respondents do not know where sustainability labels stand for, do not find the provided information clear, and cannot make a distinction between the many different labels (ANP). Recently, the Dutch organization Milieu Centraal jumped in on this issue by developing a website (www.keurmerkenwijzer.nl) that is designed to guide confused consumers through the jungle of labels and logos.

On the other hand, the study from MarketResponse showed that at least 85% of the respondents found it important that sustainability labels on products exist. This contrast clearly indicates that there is a sprawl of sustainability labels, and that there is need for more clarity and clearness. Although labels can play a vital role in contributing to sustainability, their profusion gives producers and companies the opportunity to make false claims and mislead consumers. While only a minority of consumers is very conscious about the notion of sustainability, a bigger share is unaware or uninterested, or thinks that sustainability is important but does not want to take the time to find out why and how to express this in their buying behavior. This is why one can assume that the average consumer will not spend a lot of time sifting through different sustainability labels. The vast amount of sustainability labels risks creating a credibility problem, which can lead to a situation in which all labels end up meaningless (Hans and Böhm 2012). Reduced credibility can lead to a decrease in the demand for sustainability labels on products. This can cause a decline in the demand for, and supply of sustainably produced goods, and therefore have profound impacts on sustainability in general. Given labeling system’s rising popularity, it is important to overcome these credibility problems and find out what it is that makes sustainability labels more or less credible in 6

(7)

the perception of consumers. This research answers to this issue, by asking:

'How do consumers understand the credibility of sustainability labels?'

The research focuses its analysis on the coffee sector, because it was at the forefront of certification and labeling initiatives and because environmental and social standards in this sector have profound impacts on both the wellbeing of peasant producers and farmers as on the sustainability of tropical ecosystems in many places around the world (Raynolds et al. 2007).

A growing number of studies in the literature deals with sustainability labels. The overall assumption in this literature is that credibility is a highly relevant factor for consumer willingness to buy sustainable labeled products (Atkinson and Rosenthal 2014). While sustainability labels are credence labels, which means that they contain claims that cannot be verified by consumers either before or after consumption, they have to be credible in order to overcome information asymmetries (Dentoni et al. 2014). The more credible a label is, the more plausible its claims are in the perception of consumers (De Pelsmacker et al. 2005). Also, a credible label has a greater effect on product choice (Teisl and Roe 2005). A lack of credibility can cause consumer uncertainty, which can lead to decision-making delays, compromise beliefs, and increase unwanted negative emotions such as frustration and ambivalence (Hassan et al. 2013). This implies that credibility is of great importance to the issue of sustainable purchase behavior (Atkinson and Rosenthal 2014).

There have been many studies on the issue of the credibility of sustainability labels that took a certifying organization point of view (Boström 2006, Thǿgerson 2002, Gallaraga Gallastegui 2002, Nilsson et al. 2004). These studies indicate that there are different building blocks for credibility, created by certifying organizations. These are for example ownership, stakeholder dialogue, traceability, transparency, stringency, and third-party certification. Not so many studies have been conducted on the credibility of sustainability labels from a consumer point of view. Nilsson et al. (2004) touch upon this by questioning whether the building blocks that standard organizations have created meet with the expectations of consumers for credibility. Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014) examine what kinds of sustainability labels consumers deem most credible and are more likely to purchase by testing the influence of information and product involvement. Sirieix et al. (2013), Valor et al. (2013), Teisl et al. (2002), and Dentoni et al. (2014) discuss the importance of the level of trust in the endorser or the information source of a sustainability label for it to be credible in the perception of consumers. Other studies mention the importance of familiarity of consumers with a

(8)

label (Hans and Böhm 2012, Teisl and Roe 2005).

However, despite the centrality of credibility to issues of the consumption of sustainable labeled products, a notable gap remains about how credibility gets understood by consumers. With a view to addressing this gap, this research poses the following questions:

− What are sustainability labels and how were they established? − What are consumer motivations to buy sustainable labeled products?

− What are other influences on consumers buying sustainable labeled products?

− What is the importance of credibility for consumers buying sustainable labeled products? − How is the credibility of sustainability labels understood by consumers?

To tackle these questions, the research focuses on the case of Dutch consumers of sustainable labeled coffee. The rest of this research is structured as follows. First, a theoretical framework will be provided that helps to define key concepts, puts the research in a broader scientific debate, motivates the choice of research design and helps organizing and interpreting the results. It will discuss relevant literature about private transnational governance, ethical consumer behavior, labeling systems, and label credibility. Then, a chapter will follow that elaborates on the method that is used to answer the research question. It will discuss the research approach, sample and case selection, data collection and analysis, and possible validity and reliability threats. The next chapter will contain the empirical analysis. This will be followed by a discussion chapter in which a further elaboration on the key findings will take place and in which the findings will be related to existing research. Finally, in the conclusion, the research question will be answered, followed by a statement of the research contribution and an elaboration on the implications for the literature, reflections on shortcomings, and suggestions for further research.

(9)

2. Theoretical framework

This section will be devoted to a theoretical framework in which theories that are relevant for this research will be discussed. Doing this will put the research into a broader scientific debate. In succession will be dealt with private transnational governance, coffee certification, sustainable labeling, ethical consumer behaviour, and credibility.

2.1 Private transnational governance

Private transnational governance arrangements are changing the traditional distribution of power in the world. In the time that state regulation proves to be inadequate to address many social and environmental issues, this new type of governance links different actors from different levels with each other in a way that denotes a world order not centered on sovereign states. Private transnational governance comes in different appearances such as codes of conduct initiated by firms, industry sectors, or non-governmental organizations (NGOs), certification initiatives, or corporate social responsibility (Mayer and Gereffi 2010).

This shift towards private transnational governance can be seen as an answer to social pressures brought forth by economic globalization processes and the inability of governmental institutions to address these pressures (ibidem). When corporations, markets, and production-chains increasingly crossed national boundaries, existing public governance seemed to be unable to adequately regulate this new economic world order. Economic globalization requires global regulation, but international regulation in this area is either absent or weak, because there is not enough capacity for enforcement. Moreover, in the countries were most of the world's production is concentrated, the developing countries, state capacities to regulate, monitor, and enforce are typically low (Dingwerth 2008). This creates a regulatory gap on which private actors indent by setting up private certification arrangements that address environmental, health, and social issues.

These certification arrangements have two important features. These are that they include rules, standards, or guidelines and that they have a reporting or monitoring measure. The arrangements can be divided into four categories in which the distinction is based on who sets the standards and who monitors them (Gereffi et al. 2001). In first-party certification, an individual corporation sets and monitors its own standards. While this form of self-regulation is common practice, the legitimacy of first-party regulation is limited because of its self-interested nature and lack of transparency (Raynolds et al. 2007). The coffee sourcing guidelines from Starbucks are an example

(10)

of this type of certification. In second-party certification, associations from industry sectors set and monitor the standards. This certification type has a higher level of transparency and strictness than first-party certification, but legitimacy still is an issue. The commodity-specific guidelines from the Sustainable Agricultural Platform, created by the food industry, are an example of this type of certification. In third-party certification, a non-corporate third-party actor, usually an NGO, sets and monitors the standards. It is the most legitimate form of certification, because of its independence from corporations and because of its structure which is usually based upon participation, clarity, and opportunities for credibility verification (ibidem). An example of this type of certification is the Fairtrade certification scheme. Fourth-party certification includes governmental and multilateral agencies that set and monitor standards. This type of certification is not so widespread, because of the alleged lack of conflicts of interest between certified parties and the certification body. An example is the United Nation's Global Compact, an initiative that was developed to encourage corporations to adopt sustainable policies and report on their implementation.

Proponents argue that certification initiatives are more responsive, flexible, effective, and democratic than traditional forms of governance. Critics question the extent to which decision-making behind the state is desirable (Dingwerth 2008). They question whether certification initiatives weaken the influence of developing countries' interest, or whether it is just a way for the industry to preempt governmental interference. Other critics focus on what a proliferation of certification initiatives means for their ability to address environmental and social issues. They wonder to what extent initiatives can avoid being co-opted by the market system they are trying to change (Auld 2010).

It is certain that a new world of private transnational governance has arisen. Within this world, the coffee sector stands out as one of the most rapid areas of growth. Next, the emergence and state of the art of certification initiatives in this sector will be discussed.

2.1.1 Coffee certification

Coffee has long been the centerpiece of political debate about the distribution of its rents among peoples, corporations, and countries (Auld 2010). Before 1989, the International Coffee Organization (ICO) regulated the international market via the International Coffee Agreement (ICA). The ICO included representatives from major coffee consumer- and producer-countries. There was a quota system that regulated coffee supply and coffee prices. The demise of the ICA made coffee supplies raise and competition increase. This, together with liberalization pressures

(11)

causing a decline in government regulation, led to a drop in world coffee prices. Simultaneously, the international coffee chain became more and more controlled by large corporations, because of corporate convergence and increased differentiation of coffee products (Raynolds et al. 2007). As a result, a smaller share of the world coffee income ended up in producer-countries, while most was taken by the corporate coffee roasters in consumer-countries (Auld 2010). These developments have to be kept in mind when analyzing the emergence of private governance in the coffee sector.

While coffee has long been a dull staple good, it increasingly develops into a differentiated specialty item (Raynolds et al. 2007). High quality gourmet coffee, attractively packed and sold in trendy cafés as well as in supermarkets, gains an increasing share of the total coffee sales. A part of this share comprises sustainable coffee. This is coffee that is produced according to certain social and environmental standards. These standards address issues such as social disparities that exist in the global coffee market, environmental degradation due to mono-cropping, health issues as a result of using chemicals in plantations, and the volatility of coffee prices. In 2012, 8 per cent of the coffee produced worldwide was certified (Potts et al. 2014). Historically, coffee was differentiated by its product characteristics such as its taste and quality of the beans. Sustainable coffee however, is differentiated on process characteristics that are linked with the circumstances under which the coffee is made and traded (Raynolds et al. 2007). Just as with other products, these new standards are to a greater extent being standardized through certification initiatives. The fastest growing certification initiatives in the coffee sector are third-party certification systems. In the Netherlands, approximately 40 per cent of all coffee is certified. This makes it the world leader in market share, followed by the United States and Denmark, Sweden, and Norway (Pierrot et al. 2010). The most prominent third-party certification initiatives that have a market share in the Netherlands are Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance, UTZ Certified, and the organic label. A short elaboration of these initiatives will cover the next part of this section.

(12)

Fairtrade is one of the most settled certification systems. Fairtrade is an alternative approach to conventional trade, that aims to lessen poverty in the global South by offering access opportunities to markets in the North. The first Fairtrade certification initiative was developed by the Max Havelaar Foundation in the Netherlands to increase labeled commodity sales in mainstream outlets. This means that explicitly trade itself was targeted as a tool for sustainable development. It required licensees to pay a minimum price for coffee while also ensuring other trade benefits. The Max Havelaar model was rapidly adopted in other countries. These eventually came together to form Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO) in 1997. Labels are conferred to goods that are imported from developing countries, and that have been produced according to laudable social and environmental standards (Loureiro and Lotade 2005). Fairtrade International's Standards unit establishes the criteria and an independent third-party is responsible for certification. The initiative works with accredited certifiers. These are certification bodies that are independently accredited by an accreditation body according to international standards such as the ISO International Standards. In addition to the specification of a minimum price, special about this certification initiative is that it only certifies small-scale farmers. Furthermore, certification is awarded to the small-scale farmers that are organized democratically (so called cooperatives). Also, a fixed social premium is distributed to cooperatives for reinvestment in local communities. In the Netherlands, 5 à 6 percent of the certified coffee has the Fairtrade label.

Another well-known and settled third-party certification initiative, which has about the same market share as Fairtrade coffee, is organic certification. In the Netherlands, the EKO Quality mark foundation is the certifying organization for this type of certification. It has rigorous auditing procedures and strict chain of custody requirements, so that no mingling with non-organic products takes place. Organic products are grown without using artificial fertilizers or chemical pesticides and they do not contain any artificial aromas, colouring agents, flavourings, or preservatives. Products that are certified organic are labeled with the EKO-label. The label has higher standards than the European organic label, which is a label that claims that a product complies with the requirements of European legislation on organic farming and food production. The label is based on the principles of International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), the platform of European organic organizations (Foundation EKO Quality mark, 2014). Within the Netherlands, organic products are inspected by Skal, the inspection body

(13)

appointed by the Dutch government. The term 'organic' is legally protected, and can only be used when a product complies with European legislation.

The Rainforest Alliance is an NGO with the mission to prevent rainforest deforestation that started in 1994 with the development of a program for certifying responsible coffee production. This program was created to address social and environmental issues in farm management practices. The organization is made up from 8 Latin American conservation groups and the US-based Secretariat. It includes no coffee-cooperatives or labor-organizations in its organization. Farmers do not receive fixed minimum prices, but prices are set by negotiations between buyers and producers. The Rainforest Alliance certifies farms of different sizes. In earlier years, mainly large-scale producers were certified. This was the case because it matched with the mission of changing farmer practices on a large scale. However, the amount of small-farmer certification is growing and now surpasses the amount of certified plantations (Raynolds et al. 2007). The Rainforest Alliance belongs to the world’s top 4 greatest coffee certifiers; in the Netherlands about 3% of the certified coffee bears the Rainforest Alliance green frog label (Potts et al. 2014).

The sustainable coffee program UTZ Kapeh, now known as UTZ Certified, was launched by the Dutch supermarket and food service multinational Ahold, in collaboration with a coffee producer in Guatemala (Auld 2010). Its standards are focused on compliance with the general agricultural practice guidelines as developed by the European retailer/producer group EurepGap. Coffee corporations, NGOs, and producer-cooperatives are included in the governance of the organization and monitoring is done by independent certifiers. Most certified coffee comes from plantations, and there are also a few small producers. A little price premium is offered. Special about this initiative is its emphasis on traceability; it assures that all coffee can be traced back to its origin. Coffee can only be certified when its sale is registered in the UTZ Certified's tracking system. The label is focused on consolidating the adoption of large corporate roasters and brand name retailers. The market share of this sustainability label increases expeditiously. Douwe Egberts and Ahold, together responsible for 75% of the Dutch market supply, adopted the label (Muradian and Pelupessy 2005). At the moment, 86% of all certified coffee in the Netherlands is UTZ Certified.

(14)

The messages of certified coffee are transmitted primarily through labeling. Currently this can be seen as one of the most prominent ways of informing consumers about products' social or environmental qualities. The next section will be devoted to an elaboration of the concept of labeling.

2.1.2 Labeling

Labels are “any words, particulars, trademarks, brand names, pictorial matter or symbols on any packaging, document, notice, board or collar accompanying or referring to a product” (Valor et al. 2013). They are claims asserting that products have specific characteristics or qualities (De Boer 2003). Sustainability labels can be used as instruments to incorporate the environmental and societal effects of products’ production, consumption, and disposal (Atkinson and Rosenthal 2014).

According to de Boer (ibidem), sustainability labeling is a type of quality assurance. He argues that the perspective of logical theory is a way to get a better understanding of labeling claims. Logical theory implies that a claim is actually a conclusion that is based on specific arguments. In the case of sustainability labels, the claim is that they assure a certain quality. They disclose particular characteristics of a product or of its production process and expose differences between more and less sustainable products. The justification for this claim is derived from economics, and entails that any characteristic that comes with a product and where consumers are willing to pay for is a product quality. This justification is backed up by evidence in the literature, in which various studies proved that consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable products (Laroche et al. 2001, de Pelsmacker et al. 2005). However, there are many refutations for this straightforward way of thinking. For example, the message of sustainability claims is often too complicated for consumers to be simply translated into quality assurances. The special aspect of sustainability labels is that private parties claim that they properly address public concerns. To support the claim that a product has been developed in a sustainable manner, producers can comply with certain standards and guidelines. To back up this argument, knowledge about successful certification systems is of use for consumers. For example the knowledge that third-party certification systems are more legitimate and transparent than first- or second party certification systems (de Boer 2003).

Contributing to sustainability and encouraging more sustainable consumer behaviour are the most important justifications for the use of sustainability labels on products. However, there are other reasons to use them. Sustainability labels can improve the image of a company or increase its sales, create a higher level of awareness of environmental and social issues, and encourage companies to

(15)

pay attention to the social and environmental externalities of their business practices. However, while the idea behind sustainability labels is straightforward, there are doubts about their actual achievements. While most of these doubts concern the idea of certification systems in general (see paragraph 2.1), others more specifically address the labeling part, such as the shortness of the validity period of the label before its revision (Galarraga Gallastegui 2002), or the confusing effect of proliferation of different labels on the market (Harbaugh et al. 2011).

In many countries, sustainability labels have spread from niche stores to mainstream retailers and supermarkets. However, the specific characteristics of certifications are often confusing to the mainstream customers, and labels often remain too vague in what they stand for in the eyes of many consumers (Giovannucci and Ponte 2005). Within the traditional niche of bio- and health stores, consumer confusion will probably be limited. However, in mainstream markets consumers are mostly less informed and they are also confronted with a greater range of products and marketing messages (ibidem). This confusion of consumers caused by a proliferation of sustainability labels is underpinned by Harbaugh et al. (2011). They argue that a proliferation of labels exaggerates the effect of uncertainty, since it causes the amount of information derived from labels to decrease. Brécard (2013) also states that label proliferation causes consumer confusion due to the blurring of the information that different labels provide. Moreover, Galarraga Gallestegui (2002) argues that the overuse of ‘sustainable’ and ‘green’ claims has eroded the credibility of sustainability labels' claims. It is important to note that consumers who buy sustainable labeled products do not always correctly interpret these labels. It can for example be confusing to distinguish between UTZ’ catchphrase ‘responsible coffee’, and the Fairtrade phrase ‘fair trade’ (Muradian and Pelupessy 2005). Labels can create misperceptions, and make consumers believe claims about product features that are not present at all. Relevant information can be obscured and mislead consumers, while it is very difficult for them to distinguish between the different social and environmental impacts of labels. Consumers appear to have not much knowledge about the relationship between a specific social or environmental issue and the purchasing behaviour by which they can address this issue (Nilsson et al. 2004).

Ben Youssef and Abderrazak (2009) argue that when consumers have to choose between two labels, they do not know which label stands for the highest quality on sustainability issues. Therefore, they base their purchase decisions on prices. They often assume that a higher price ensures higher quality. This leads the authors to conclude that the main incentive for producers of sustainable labeled goods is to abate their sustainability standards in order to increase their profits (ibidem).

(16)

Brécard et al. (2013) confirm that consumers know that sustainability labels differ in their level of standards, but they argue that consumers do not perceive these differences as quality differences. Instead, they view them as variety differences. This means that the quality of labels does not differ for consumers, because consumer confusion is translated into consumers' inability to correctly asses the sustainability qualities of different labels. If there are two sustainability labels with different qualities and the same price, consumers will not be able to notice these differences, and will not base their purchase decisions on quality based motivations. In short, they see the presence of a label on a product as a form of quality, but they do not differ between levels of quality between labels. As a consequence of this confusion they will choose a sustainability label based on its image, or on other factors, rather than on its actual contributions to sustainability issues. This means that labels that provide the highest quality are in a disadvantaged position compared to the standards that have lower standards (ibidem). Label proliferation can thus cause consumer confusion, thereby contradicting one of the main motives for the creation of sustainability labels. However, label proliferation can also lead to increased competition and therefore increase the credibility of labels by raising the level of standards. On the other hand, competition can also lead to a race to the bottom (Auld 2010).

While consumers often have few incentives to devote efforts into looking for information, the idea of labeling seems logical and straightforward. As a label exposes the differences between more or less sustainable products that consumers were not able to easily identify themselves, one could expect that consumers would sooner buy labeled products instead of the unlabeled ones. However, this line of reasoning is too elementary. Ethical consumer behaviour is very complicated and influenced by many other contextual and psychological factors. The next section of this theoretical framework will be devoted to an elaboration of this complex phenomenon.

2.2 Ethical consumer behaviour

A lot of attention has been paid in the literature to ethical consumer behaviour (Freestone and McGoldrick 2008, Öberseder et al. 2011, Memery et al. 2011, Bucic et al. 2012, Hainmueller and Hiscox 2012). Consumers play a valuable role in the creation and expansion of a market for sustainable products. Their purchasing decisions determine the demand for sustainable produced products (Klöckner 2011). The consumer decision-making making process however, is not straightforward. It consists of a lot of interconnected decisions that are influenced by many psychological and circumstantial factors. For instance, consumers have to decide on what they want

(17)

to buy, where they want to buy, when they want to buy, and how much money they are going to spend. If they decide to go to a supermarket, they face another range of products than on a rural farmers market. If they have to buy products in a hurry, the time to reflect on the outcomes of purchase decisions is limited. They take different products into considerations when they are on a budget or when they have a lot of money to spend (ibidem). In the next section, some of the main theories to explain ethical consumer behaviour will be discussed.

2.2.1 Consumer motivations to buy ethically sound

Many theories and studies have been developed and applied to explain ethical consumer behaviour. The Transtheoretical model as part of the Decisional Balance Scale is one example of a model that is used to analyze ethical consumer behaviour (Freestone and McGoldrick 2008). This model explains consumer behaviour as a result of consumers’ evaluation of the expected costs and benefits of specific behaviour. It assumes that consumers can be in different stages of awareness, concern or action regarding ethical purchase behaviour. The weighing of costs and benefits will depend on which stage the consumer is in. Öberseder et al. (2011) argue that ethical consumer behaviour is driven by a complicated series of considerations in which consumers distinguish between more or less influential determinants. Three aspects influence the probability of ethical purchase decisions: core (information and personal concern), central (financial situation), and peripheral (corporate image, influence of peer groups, and credibility) aspects. There are also more superficial approaches to ethical consumer behaviour. Memery et al. (2011) argue that there are three ethical and three store image factors that determine ethical consumer behaviour. Consumers can be divided into categories of willingness to perform ethical purchasing behaviour on the basis of how much value they attach to each factor. A theory that is also often used to explain ethical consumer behaviour is the Theory of Planned behaviour. The main assumption of this theory is that behaviour is mainly determined by the intention or will to perform certain behaviour. This intention is driven by attitudes, social norms, and perceived behavioural control (Klöckner 2011). Yet another model often applied to explain consumer behaviour is the Norm-activation model. This model focuses on personal norms as the driver of behaviour (ibidem). Also, ethical consumer behaviour among specific consumer groups has been studied. Bucic et al. (2012) for instance, analyze the factors that influence the ethical purchase behaviour of the Millennials, which are people born between 1985 and 1999.

(18)

The broader trend in studies on ethical consumer behaviour is the emphasis on identifying general motivations that lead people to buy ethically sound (Klöckner 2011). These studies demonstrate that values and attitudes are important determinants of behaviour. However, other variables such as situational impacts are also of influence. In this thesis, it will be assumed that values and attitudes together with situational impacts and credibility are crucial determinants of ethical consumer behaviour. Next, the concepts of values, attitudes, and their influence will be explained, followed by an explanation of the influence of situational impacts and credibility.

2.2.2 Values and attitudes

Values are “concepts or beliefs about desirable end states or behaviours” (Freestone and McGoldrick 2008). Characteristics of values are that they determine what behaviour a person believes to be morally desirable, that they are applicable across different situations, and that they differ in their level of importance among different persons, groups, or cultures. They influence behaviour by determining the degree to which certain behaviour seems appealing and influence the motivation to express this behaviour. Different or even opposing values can motivate consumers to buy sustainable labeled products (Klöckner 2011). For example, some people buy sustainable labeled coffee because they want to protect nature or workers, while others buy it out of hedonistic motivations, for example because they think it has a better taste. The direct relationship between values and behaviour is weak and mediated by other factors, such as attitudes.

An attitude is a psychological tendency towards a particular entity that incorporates an evaluation of the desirability of a person for that entity (ibidem). It is a psychological proclivity that can, but does not have to, be expressed in behaviour. The difference with values is that attitudes are less general and more connected with specific situations and entities. Values contribute to forming attitudes. While attitudes have proven to be an important determinant of ethical consumer behaviour, a gap exists between attitudes and actual behaviour (De Pelsmacker et al. 2005). That is because the relationship between attitudes and behaviour is influenced by other factors that moderate this relationship, or because the relationship between attitudes is an indirect one in which attitudes influence the variables that motivate consumers to perform specific behaviour. Part of these other variables are situational impacts and their subjective representation (Klöckner 2011).

(19)

2.2.3 Situational impacts

Situational impacts are factors like availability, visibility, or the relative price of a product. They have a profound impact on purchase decisions. The impacts of these factors depend on the subjective representations that consumers have of them, since the objective availability, visibility or relative price are often not in line with consumer interpretations of them (ibidem). Availability is a key variable, since consumers' values and attitudes regarding the purchasing of sustainable labeled products are only relevant within a decisional space in which the opportunity to buy these products exists. If sustainable labeled goods are available in common supermarkets, it becomes more convenient for consumers to buy them. Retailers, therefore, play a crucial role in the decision-making process of consumers. Visibility is particularly an important aspect for irregular consumers of sustainable labeled products. These consumers often did not plan to buy sustainable before they entered the store (Hjelmar 2010). Facing those consumers with a sustainable labeled product that cannot be overlooked can mean the difference. A labeled product that is placed at eye level, close to conventional products, has a bigger chance of being selected. These factors are particularly of importance when consumers are in hurry or when they are not inclined to engage much in purchasing decisions. Higher prices are found to be the most important barrier for sustainable purchase decisions. However, while higher prices can refrain people from buying sustainable labeled products, they can also have a positive effect on peoples' perception of the quality of the product. Thus, higher prices can have multiple effects. On the one hand, consumers who are willing to pay more for what in their eyes seems a product of better quality (because of its higher social or environmental qualities) will purchase it sooner. On the other hand, consumers who maybe are susceptible to sustainable purchases but do not want to pay a lot more money, are deterred.

2.2.4 Credibility

“Credibility reflects the expectation that an actor provides accurate and valuable information or performs useful services over time” (Dentoni et al. 2014). Since consumers cannot verify the claims that sustainability labels make themselves, the labels must be credible in order to avoid information asymmetries (Moussa and Touzani 2008). This makes credibility an essential condition for considering the purchase of sustainable labeled products for consumers. Credible labels can have a positive impact on consumer attitudes, perceptions, purchasing behaviour, and persistence of this purchasing behaviour over time. The absence of credibility can keep consumers from buying sustainable labeled products (Grunert et al. 2014). However, important to keep in mind is that subjective knowledge has a greater impact than objective knowledge (Sirieix et al. 2011). This

(20)

means that it is the perceived credibility that is of importance when considering the impact of credibility on consumer behaviour (Moussa and Touzani 2008). While consumers can often recognize and value a label, they mostly do not have complete knowledge of its meaning.

Since credibility has a major impact on consumer behaviour related to sustainability labels, a lot of attention has been devoted to it in the literature and by certifying organizations themselves. This is for instance, shown in the existence of the ISEAL Alliance; an NGO whose mission it is to define the credibility and increase the uptake of credible sustainability standards. Its members are certifying organizations. Also, there are a lot of studies on the issue of credibility that take a certifier point of view (Boström 2004, Thøgersen 2002, Gallaraga Gallastagui 2002). However, with the issue of credibility in mind, they seem to focus on addressing the existing quality assurance schemes and their actual achievements in the field of social, health, or environmental issues rather than on consumer understandings of credibility (Nilsson et al. 2004).

A few studies do pay attention to label credibility from a consumer point of view. An analysis of these studies suggests that assumptions exist on how consumers understand the credibility of sustainability labels. These assumptions relate to the importance of information, label source, familiarity, and as mentioned already, label proliferation. These elements will be outlined in more detail next in this chapter.

According to Nilsson et al. (2004) consumers view the provision of information as an important aspect for the credibility of sustainability labels. Consumers often have faith in the intentions of a certain label, but are not sure about the actual impacts of them buying a product with that specific label. Providing information about these aspects will give consumers more confidence that they are actually buying something sustainable. Grankvist (2012) emphasizes the importance of more detailed information and also Teisl and Roe (2005) find that a more detailed label is perceived as more credible than a simple one. Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014) also stress the importance of information. They state that more comprehensive and significant information is perceived as a sign of reliability and quality. A simple label can work as a heuristic cue, but this cue can be insufficient when consumers consider the possible environmental or social effects of their purchase decisions. However, this effect is not consistent. Consumers who are less involved in buying a product are more susceptible to argument specificity than consumers who are highly involved. This is because other product features influence the effect of high involvement purchases to a greater extent, such as for example the special features of a mobile phone. It can also be that buying products such as

(21)

coffee is involving in other ways because it is a product that people ingest, and people mostly have a higher need for correct information on food products (Atkinson and Rosenthal 2014). A study by De Pelsmacker et al. (2005) also underlines the weight of information, but suggests that it is of minor importance to the source of the label.

The label source is the issuer or endorsing entity of the label (ibidem). Several studies indicate that the label source is of importance when understanding the credibility of sustainability labels, notwithstanding that knowing the endorsing entity could look like a too demanding effort for consumers (Valor et al. 2013). According to Nilsson et al. (2004), labels with an NGO as source are perceived as most trustworthy. Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014) argue that label source is of less importance than information, but that it does have an influence on label credibility, especially in low-involvement conditions. They find that governmental sources often gain more credibility than corporate ones. However, they do not include NGOs in their analysis. Valor et al. (2013) state that credibility increases when a label has an independent label source, such as an NGO or the government. Soderskov and Daugbjerg (2011) also argue that consumers perceive a higher level of credibility when governmental institutions are involved in assigning labels. Teisl et al. (2002) provide another order of perceived as credible label sources. They argue that first NGOs, then private certification companies, and then federal government agencies are perceived as the most credible label sources. Overall, the general assumption is that, compared to NGOs and governmental certifying institutions, corporations or industry organizations seem to be perceived as less credible label sources.

Familiarity also has an influence on consumers' understanding of credibility. According to Hanss and Böhm (2012), consumers consider sustainability labels that are familiar to them as containing more credible claims than less familiar labels. They argue that consumers use familiarity as an indicator for how sustainable the labels really are. This assumption is based on research that indicates that consumers' attitudes are influenced by exposure to brands. Frequent exposure increases familiarity and decreases uncertainty, which causes a more positive response from consumers. Also, there is found a positive relation between the amount of exposure and brand trustworthiness and reliability in the perception of consumers (ibidem). Sireix et al. (2013) also emphasize the importance of familiarity for consumers' perception of label credibility. They find that consumers tend to find a sustainability label that has been endorsed by a familiar entity more credible than other labels. Consumers tend to be more skeptical about sustainability labels and the claims that they make when they do not know the label. Teisl and Roe (2005) likewise stress the

(22)

significance of consumers' familiarity with a label for its credibility and add that consumer uncertainty about the label source decreases its perceived level of credibility.

As mentioned in the introduction and in section 2.1.2 already, label proliferation also influences consumers’ understanding of credibility. An increase in the number of sustainability labels on the market, can cause consumer confusion and decrease the added value of sustainability labels in the perception of consumers (Hans and Böhm 2012).

While the above mentioned studies suggest different elements that are of influence on how consumers understand the credibility of sustainability labels, one has to keep in mind that it are not always informed consumers that purposefully buy sustainable labeled products. Since almost half of the amount of the coffee that is offered for sale in the Netherlands is labeled, it often happens that consumers buy sustainable labeled coffee without even paying attention to the label.

This thesis will add to the literature by analyzing more comprehensively how consumers understand the credibility of sustainability labels. While we know that information, label source, familiarity and label proliferation can be important for consumer understanding of credibility, we do not know whether these are the only influences on consumers' understanding of credibility. These studies did not explicitly have consumer understandings of label credibility as their research focus and did not view the uninformed or unwitting sustainable coffee consumer as an important actor. This research does have consumer understandings of credibility as its focus and does include the uninformed or unwitting consumer. In the next chapter, the method of research will describe in detail how this is carried out.

(23)

3. Method

While the theoretical framework has put the research in a broader scientific debate, the next step is to describe the method used to provide an answer to the central research question. This chapter elaborates on the research approach, the sample and case selection, the data collection and data analysis, and possible validity and reliability threats.

3.1 Research approach

The research adopted a qualitative approach. A qualitative approach is useful for the goal of discovering novel insights aimed at the deeper understanding of phenomena (Green and Peloza 2011). One of the main distinctions between qualitative and quantitative research is the nature of the data that is being analyzed. Qualitative data relates to the nature, value, and characteristics of the phenomenon examined and not to quantities such as numbers, sizes, and frequencies as is the case with quantitative data. This research needed rich and deep data to serve the goal of the research. The richness of data was essential to identify the attitudes and motivations of consumers, which were decisive for answering the main research ambition. A common way to collect quantitative data is through surveys. In contrast to surveys that ask simpler questions about consumer attitudes, this research concerned more complicated questions about how consumers themselves give meaning to phenomena and about their motivations to do so. Answering these questions would be hard to accomplish with a survey among a large group of consumers, since the opportunities for consumers to give their own input would be limited. Section 3.3 contains a comprehensive description and justification of the method of data collection that is used in this research.

Inductive as well as deductive approaches were relevant in the connection between a theoretical perspective and certain observations. With a view to presenting the understandings of consumers in the most straightforward manner, a considerable dependence on induction was necessary (Berg 2006). However, while there was former theory that touches upon the issue, deduction was not excluded. The research was based on analytic induction, which “combines the analysis of data after the coding process with analysis of data while integrating theory” (ibidem). This means that the analysis of data was grounded to theory while at the same time it was able to establish new theory.

3.2 Sample and case selection

The research concentrated on a particular set of sustainability labels. These were sustainability labels on coffee, since this is generally regarded as the pioneering industry for sustainability

(24)

standards and certification initiatives (Raynolds et al. 2007). While certification initiatives for sustainable coffee have been around for more than twenty years, the past decade has seen a rapid increase in the development of new schemes and mainstream uptake of sustainable coffee. Since the amount of certified coffee offered for sale in the Netherlands is with 40 percent way above the world average of 8 percent, it was a well-suited country to conduct this research (Potts et al. 2014, Pierot et al. 2010). Consumers in this country are relatively often confronted with sustainability labels. The most important sustainable labels in terms of volumes sold in the Netherlands are the labels of Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance, UTZ Certified, and the organic label. These labels all have a substantial share in the market, and are all represented in Dutch supermarkets and in other coffee-selling stores. This made it convenient to find sustainable labeled coffee consumers.

While it is assumed that every buyer from a sustainable labeled product adds in a certain way to the credibility of sustainability labels, the unit of analysis of this research is the consumer that buys sustainable labeled coffee. The sample consisted of consumers that bought sustainable labeled coffee in the supermarket. This were either informed consumers that intentionally bought sustainable labeled coffee or consumers that did not buy sustainable labeled coffee with the explicit purpose of buying a sustainable product. The researcher approached consumers in supermarkets and asked whether they would want to participate in an interview about sustainability labels. The focus was on consumers in supermarkets where presumably the most various kinds of consumers could be found, in order to get a varied sample. Albert Heijn, Lidl, or Dirk van den Broek are examples of suited supermarkets, because they sell both labeled and unlabeled coffee and have a varied and large customer base. A focus on organic supermarkets such as Marqt or Ekoplaza would limit the generalizability of the research, since their range of products is almost homogeneous in terms of its level of sustainability and their customer base is much less varied. While these supermarkets are known for their organic and sustainable products, their customer base mostly consists of a particular set of consumers who are probably more informed and more motivated to do sustainable purchases. They have particular characteristics that are less applicable to the rest of the sustainable labeled coffee buying consumer population. Snowball sampling was used as well in order to reach a broad sample.

3.3 Data collection

In-depth interviews with consumers were conducted to get first hand data. Most consumer studies are built upon large quantitative surveys, but the want for a deep exploration of consumers' perspectives and understandings suggested that in-depth interviews were a suitable method of data

(25)

collection for this research (Green and Peloza 2011). Interviews helped in getting closer to the research data point (the consumers) and therefore added to the validity of the research. The concept of credibility contains a large intangible component and interviews helped in identifying and understanding those intangible elements. These elements included for instance psychological factors, such as emotions and motivations. Open ended questions were preferred above closed ones because they helped in understanding the consumer's behavior and thoughts better and because they allowed for more flexibility. Interviewing made it possible to quickly get information, while the researcher could pick up on respondents' answers when necessary. The interviews were semi-structured in order to get the most relevant answers while the respondents were being influenced as less as possible. Semi-structured interviews also gave respondents the opportunity to explain their thoughts in their own words (Cohen and Crabtree 2006). The interviews lasted between twenty and fourty five minutes. The next section will explain how the analysis of the data took place.

3.4 Data analysis

After conducting an interview, the researcher wrote a short summary that contained the most important elements of the interview in order to make it easier to keep oversight. There was a point of reflection when the first interviews were conducted and transcribed. This to improve possible bottlenecks or to reformulate used terms. This added to the systematics of the research method, reduced the chance of possible biases, and made the data collection more focused.

The data was read through when all the interviews were conducted and transcribed. Hereby, the researcher made notes about what appeared to be relevant information. The computer program Maxqda was used to facilitate the coding procedures. This is a software program that is designed for computer assisted qualitative and mixed method analysis. It specifically assists with encoding data and establishing linkages between developed codes. Using Maxqda, categories were developed. These categories were derived from the theoretical framework, from connections with the research question, or straight from the interviews. The researcher first established codes that were abstracted from the literature and then expanded these with codes developed on the basis of the interviews. Hereafter, definitions or coding rules for each category were refined and the data was sorted. Once the data was sorted it was analyzed in order to find relevant processes or patterns (Berg 2006). Found processes or patterns needed to be interpreted. The results were considered in their relation with existing research. Examined was whether the findings confirmed or contradicted previous research and how this could be explained.

(26)

3.5 Possible validity and reliability threats

The researcher minimized validity and reliability threats by triangulating the different research methods of analyzing existing research in the literature and conducting and analyzing interviews of a varied sample. Internal validity is the degree to which the research indeed measures what has been planned to measure. It is the extent to which the concepts and interpretations have the same meaning between the researcher and the respondents (Merriam 1995). Threats to internal validity can be a lack of or biased understanding of existing research or inconsistencies in the research's logic (Ihantola and Kihn 2011). The researcher tried to overcome these threats, by using a theoretical framework that depends on a broad range of mainly quite recent articles, that are represented in well-known transnational governance and consumer behavior journals, and that generally support each other. The researcher also tried to overcome logic contradictions, by matching the research question and the research design as best as possible. Important to keep in mind is the researchers own role, since the researcher is the data collection instrument when conducting in-depth interviews. Respondents can behave differently than they normally do in the vicinity of the researcher, or give socially expected answers. Therefore it was important that multiple data sources (in this research: multiple consumers) were used and that was looked for counterexamples or data that was discrepant with or modified patterns that were found in the analysis (van Zwieten and Willems 2004).

A topic list was created to use by the researcher when conducting the interviews (see: appendix). The list included topics that were relevant for the research. These topics were derived from the theoretical framework. The researcher asked questions about the topics mentioned on the list, but moreover asked a lot of additional and clarifying questions that were related to the answers the respondents gave. The topic list however, gave the researcher guidance in deciding on the relevance and priority of the subjects that were discussed in the interviews. With each interview, the researcher took a sheet with the logos of the four sustainability labels on it and a different sheet per sustainability label about the label’s background and characteristics in case the respondents were interested in more information afterwards.

External validity is concerned with in what contexts the findings of the research can be applied (Malterud 2001). The researcher minimized threats by reconnecting the empirical findings of the research to those of other studies and theories and by explaining how the new evidence enhanced the understanding of the research question. The researcher made a comparison between empirical findings and previous theoretical contributions in order to avoid to 'discover' something already 26

(27)

demonstrated in other studies. For the generalizability of a research it is important to explain in what way and to what reasoning the selection of respondents takes place. The characteristics that are regarded relevant based on theoretical considerations must be present in the sample (Curtis et al. 2000). The criterion for this research was that respondents had bought sustainable labeled coffee. Tried was to compile a broad and diverse sample, but the opportunities to exactly determine the composition of the sample were limited because of the dependence on consumer willingness to participate and the difficulty of determining consumers’ (socio-economic- and demographic) characteristics on the base of their appearance. The researcher's interpretation thus played a substantial role in the final composition of the group of respondents.

The results are more representative if the sample is composed in a way that all variations in consumer attitudes and motivations are given the opportunity to manifest within the sample and the research as such. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that the group of respondents consisted of consumers that were willing to participate in the research. As stated above, the researcher mentioned sustainability labels as the topic of the research. This could have led to a sample of respondents that would like to talk about sustainability labels because they have a strong opinion about it, because they are somehow engaged with the phenomenon, because they have a relatively high level of awareness regarding sustainability issues, or because they have particular preferences for sustainable purchases. This can cause an over-representation of a particular type of consumer, which can bias the results of the research. It is not clear how different the sample would have been if the researcher had not mentioned a topic. Moreover, the socio-economic and demographic characteristics have to be taken into account. As given in the theoretical framework, ethical consumer behaviour is determined by a lot of factors. For example, the consumer's financial situation is of great importance for consumer attitudes and motivations to buy ethically sound. If the sample only consists of consumers with a university degree, which probably have a higher income, this will skew the results. Also, a lot of consumers did not want to participate, which means their understandings are not taken into account. This influences the results as well. An overview of the persons that were interviewed and their characteristics will be included in the appendix.

Another researcher should be able to examine the work and come to the same conclusions. The researcher tried to increase the consistency of the research by reporting clearly and accurately how the data was retrieved, analyzed en interpreted. Interviews were pretested so that mistakes could be adjusted. The interviews were recorded and during the interviews short notes were taken about verbal and non-verbal communication as well. Relations that develop between researchers and 27

(28)

participants may also threaten the reliability of a research, as social interaction takes place between the researcher and the person being interviewed. The respondent can be biased to give socially accepted answers, be influenced by his or her mindset or physical condition at the time of interviewing, or by the degree to which he or she feels comfortable. The researcher tried to minimize these influences by trying to let the respondent feel as comfortable and as free to speak as possible, and by trying to make sure that he or she did not have the idea of being judged by the researcher. General and easy to answer questions were asked first. Also, anonymity was guaranteed. The interviews took place on a location where the researcher and the respondent were free to speak. However, while the interviews mostly took place in a public space, total isolation of the researcher and the respondent was not an option. The research is based on a number of sixteen interviews, since this is assumed to be a reliable amount of interviews and a proper quantity to reach a point of saturation.

(29)

4. Empirical analysis

This chapter examines how consumers understand the credibility of sustainability labels by analyzing the data that is collected through the interviews. The results show that there are different elements of importance for consumers in understanding the credibility of sustainability labels. In random sequence the most influential elements are: familiarity, information, label frequency on products, price, label source, and label proliferation. In addition, three other elements are distinguished that seem to be of influence, but to a lesser extent. These are the packaging of the product that bears a label, the product brand, and the label logo. First, the six most prominent elements will be discussed and then the other three that are less influential, but still worth mentioning.

4.1 Familiarity

The interviews reveal that label familiarity is of great importance to consumer understanding of label credibility. Most respondents say to attach more value to the claim of a sustainability label that is familiar to them. Especially the Fairtrade label is mentioned very often in this respect. Respondents frequently refer to Fairtrade as an example of a label that seems credible to them because of its familiarity.

“I would choose Fairtrade, purely because it is more familiar to me” (Respondent 2, female, 24). 1

“I attach more value to the familiar labels such as Fairtrade or the organic label, than to the labels that are less well-known” (Respondent 5, female, 53).

Conversely, less familiar labels are considered as less credible labels.

“I think UTZ, Fairtrade and the organic label are credible labels, but the Rainforest Alliance label seems to me less credible, because I do not know the label” (Respondent 9, female, 58).

“And UTZ, well I must say I have my doubts about it because I do not really know the label. I knew it was some sort of sustainability label, but I did not know where it stands for” (Respondent 12, female, 27).

1_{All the interviews were conducted in Dutch, the researcher has translated the quotes that are used to English}

29

(30)

It is especially important that a label is familiar in a good manner. Negative stories have a negative effect on label credibility.

“I also believe the Fairtrade label because it has been there for so long and because I have actually never heard anything negative about it” (Respondent 3, female, 59).

Consumers get familiar with sustainability labels by seeing them in stores or by advertisements on television, in newspapers, magazines, and by other forms of publicity, for example via the church or the community.

One respondent about why she finds Fairtrade a familiar label:

“I have the feeling that there is a lot of publicity for that label on television and in magazines. So you are confronted with it in other places than in the supermarket as well. I think that makes a difference, because UTZ is also often on products, but I still do not know what it means” (Respondent 2, female, 24).

"Some labels have a lot of advertisements and publicity about where they stand for and about how coffee can be fairly produced without people suffering. With these labels you have the idea that you are really buying some sustainable instead of just something" (Respondent 1, female, 26).

That familiarity is of importance also appears from the interviews when the respondents mention different ways to increase label credibility. Hereby they stress the importance of marketing.

“I think it would work if those labels would just put more effort in marketing” (Respondent 11, male, 32).

“I think that if there would be more marketing for the label and its reputation, much more people would pay attention to it and start thinking about it. Then the phenomenon becomes more credible for them” (Respondent 16, female, 34.)

Many respondents also underpin the influence of public awareness of sustainability issues in general. They mention attempts to raise public awareness as a way to increase label credibility.

(31)

“If there would be paid more attention to increasing awareness in general, then sustainability labels would be more credible. Now it does not have as much to do with credibility, but more with ignorance and lack of knowledge among consumers” (Respondent 8, male, 25).

“I think maybe still very little attention is paid to bringing it to the people. If more attention is paid to creating awareness, it will become a bit more real for me and a lot more credible” (Respondent 1, female, 26).

Some respondents have opposite ideas about the importance of familiarity. One respondent expresses her doubts about the familiarity of Fairtrade. She thinks it might be too familiar, which could make it look too much like a commercial organization. Another respondent thinks that labels lose credibility when they have a large marketing budget.

“I think that a label is less credible when it has a major marketing strategy behind it. Then I immediately start thinking, wow could they not spend that money on something else?” (Respondent 12, female, 27).

4.2 Information

The provision of information also influences consumer understanding of label credibility. The respondents express that they attach a lot of value to the story behind the label and that they want to know why a specific label is sustainable. They want to know where a label stands for to be able to distinguish its added value. This is related to the openness of a label concerning the standards that products must meet in order to receive the label. These standards are often unknown to consumers. Respondents know that there are standards that products must comply with and find these standards important. However, they usually do not take the effort to find out their exact content.

“I think sustainability labels are valuable, but sometimes I do not totally believe it because I want to know more about the whole story behind it. This information is often too brief. For example when a label says that something is organic, how do I ever check if that is true? They should tell more about that” (Respondent 9, female, 58).

“Actually, I think all those sustainability labels and their standards are unclear to people. What is the ultimate goal of a label? If you know that, then you are able to learn your finger and say 'oh it is this label, that is what I want!'” (Respondent 10, male, 36).

(32)

The interviews indicate that the supermarket is the best place to provide more information about sustainability labels. Most respondents express that they do want more information, but they are not going to actively search for it by themselves. More information about a label can be provided on the product packaging, or separate from the product but close to it in the supermarket, for example on a folder or on a placard.

One respondent about how label credibility can be increased:

“I can imagine that when there would be a placard or something with the explanation of the sustainability labels in the supermarket that you can just read somewhere, that they can become way more credible. For example, I would read it” (Respondent 11, male, 32).

Another respondent about how she would like to receive more information:

“I think they should just distribute a folder in the supermarket, just a leaflet so you know that this product comes from there, and this is how it is made” (Respondent 9, female, 58).

The respondents also mention other options to obtain more information about labels. These include more active ways for consumers to gather information. For example by checking websites, or by scanning codes with a mobile phone. Although respondents express that they may not actually do this, it does add to the credibility of labels because it gives consumers the idea that if they want, they can check the facts.

One consumer about what would contribute to label credibility according to her:

"More information, I think on the packaging. That you see the label and next to it: 'we are committed to...check www.... for more info'. You will probably not do that, but it would help that you know that the information is there" (Respondent 12, female, 27).

"On the back of my package there is such a scan mark that you can scan to get more information about where your coffee is made and stuff. In my case this unfortunately failed and I have never tried it again, but it is a good idea (Respondent 1, female, 26).

Two respondents do not think that the amount of information is an important element for label credibility. For example, one respondent just believes the labels on products she does not know much about, more information thus would not be necessary.

Sustainability label credibility : a consumer perspective