1
True pricing and consumer behaviour:
A field experiment
Master Thesis
MSc Business Economics: Managerial Economics and Strategy Daan Wilhelmus
10421394 Number of ECTS: 15
2 Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Daan Wilhelmus who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3 Abstract
Making sustainable choices about food consumption is important to consumers. However, in practice they struggle with how to make sustainable choices. To help people make better informed decisions, a price could be introduced with all externalities included. This price is called the ‘True Price’ and includes external costs and benefits to society. In this study the following research question is examined: does the true price of meat influence consumer behaviour? This is investigated in a natural field experiment at lunchroom Frederix in Amsterdam. Data was collected during two periods, a control and a treatment period. During the control period baseline data was collected, and consumers were provided with standard menus. During the treatment period, consumers were provided with a flyer next to the standard menu, informing them about the true price of meat. During both time periods, consumers paid the same selling price, the flyer was informative. This research paper shows an increase of meat consumption when consumers receive the true price information.
4 1.Introduction
The price of food often does not represent all costs to society of the production and consumption of food. Externalities like pollution, child labour, underpayment and health concerns lead to costs to society that are not reflected in the price of food. The issue of integrating these costs and making them more transparent is gaining interest. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2015) made clear that there are worrying discrepancies between the retail price of food and the true costs of the production in many countries. The European Commission (EC) (2011) finds it important that prices reflect the true costs of all resources used. The EC finds that prices which do not reflect true costs will lead to unsustainable exploitation of some resources. The Dutch minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality points out that it is important to gain more insight in the external costs of food production and consumption (Schouten, 2018).
The external costs of food consumption with regard to the environment are dominated by livestock products (Weidema et al., 2008; FAO 2006). The global livestock sector generates 18% of greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change (FAO, 2006). Furthermore, meat consumption has an impact on biodiversity and animal welfare (Baltussen et al., 2017; CE Delft, 2018; IVM, 2010). All these externalities are rarely captured in the selling price of meat. A price that internalizes these externalities is called ‘True Price’. At present some institutions are developing a methodology to determine this true price. CE Delft (2018) published a report about the true price of meat. CE Delft concluded that Dutch pork should be 53%, beef 40% and chicken 26% higher than the current retail price in the Netherlands. Many studies have shown that a food diet based on less meat can help reduce greenhouse gases emissions (Bajželj et al., 2014; Popp and Lotze-Campen, 2010). Animal-based products require more energy, land, and water resources than vegetarian products (Pimentel & Pimentel, 2003). As a consequence, reducing meat consumption is important for a more sustainable future.
Consumers consider it important to make sustainable choices about food consumption, however the execution is difficult. This is called the attitude-behaviour gap (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). To overcome this gap and help people make better informed decisions, a price could be introduced with all externalities included, the ‘True Price’. The use of this true price can be stimulated by governments by tax regulations. It can also serve as a source of information for consumers. This will make it possible for consumers to know if they made a
5 societal conscious food choice. Not just in terms of for example organic or animal friendly, but a meta overview in one price.
This paper examines whether informing consumers about the true price of meat influences consumer behaviour.
Based on the above, the following research question was formulated:
Does the true price of meat influence consumer behaviour?
This is tested in a natural field experiment at lunchroom Frederix in Amsterdam. During two periods the data was collected, a period for respectively control and treatment data. The control period served to collect baseline data, and consumers were given standard menus. During the treatment period, consumers received a flyer with the true price of meat, next to the standard menu. During both time periods, customers paid the same selling price, the flyer was only informative.
In summary, the main result of this paper showed an increase of meat consumption in the treatment group compared to the control group. This is in contrast to the hypothesis, in which a decrease in meat consumption was expected.
The structure of this paper is as follows. Chapter 2 is a literature review. Chapter 3 presents the methodology, addressing the experimental design and the hypothesis. Chapter 4 presents the results of the experiment. The conclusion gives a summary of the results, and indicates the limitations of this research and gives some recommendations for future research.
2. Literature review 2.1 Introduction to True Pricing
True pricing, full-cost accounting, true-cost accounting, total value or total impact, are all methodologies to translate invisible resources into a common currency (FAO, n.d.-a).
Researchers and accounting firms are developing methods to integrate all costs and benefits to society into one financial framework. This can be done at different levels: product, business and investment.
In this paper the focus is on product level, and during the experiment prices of products are shown to consumers. At product level, true price contains private costs, external costs and benefits to society. Private costs include all costs for producing a product for the producer,
6 these costs are integrated in the market price. Therefore, researchers who calculate true prices reflect these private costs as the retail or market price (CE Delft, 2018; IVM et al., 2010; True Price, PwC, & Deloitte, 2014). External costs and benefits, also called externalities, are not accounted for in the market price. As Nicholson and Snyder (2011) define: “An externality occurs whenever the activities of one economic actor affect the activities of another in ways that are not reflected in market transactions”.
True pricing integrates the externalities into a price in three main steps (True Price et al., 2014). First the externalities that cause societal costs and benefits are measured. The second and third steps monetize the externalities to integrate them in prices.
Based on research by CE Delft (2018), IVM et al., (2010), True Price, PwC, & Deloitte (2014), the following equation is used in this paper:
𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 = 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 + 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 − 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠
Identifying and measuring externalities is not new. One of the first economists who provided a solution for externalities was Pigou (Nicholson, W., & Snyder, 2011). Pigou proposed tax externalities in the 1920s, later called the Pigouvian tax. However, nowadays it is easier to measure and monetize externalities in a robust and quantitative way. Therefore, the
transaction costs to internalize externalities are decreasing due to innovations in technology and science (True Price et al., 2014).
There are many different methods, tools and techniques to monetize externalities. The social human capital protocol categorizes these techniques by different dimensions of value
(WBCSD, 2018). They distinguish the following categories: market-based approaches, revealed preference techniques, stated preference techniques, wellbeing valuation, cost-based approaches, and value transfer techniques. A complete overview of these different monetary valuation techniques is provided in the social human capital protocol (WBCSD, 2018).
2.2 True Price of meat products
As mentioned in the introduction, food and meat consumption have multiple externalities. To create a universal framework for the measurement and valuation of agricultural externalities, the TEEBAgriFood is currently developing such framework (TEEB, 2018). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for Agriculture and Food is a global study and led by the UN Environment Program.
7 The TEEB framework contains four elements: stocks, flows, outcomes and impacts. The stocks are the first element in TEEB framework. The stocks of agricultural food are based on four different capitals. First, human capital, which refers to knowledge, skills competencies and attributes of people that lead to well-being (TEEB, 2018). Secondly, social capital, which contains formal and informal networks that bind individuals in communities. Thirdly,
produced capital, which includes all manufactured capital like buildings, equipment, physical and infrastructure. The last capital is natural capital, which refers to the physical and
biological resources on earth.
Flows are the second element in the TEEB framework. The stocks of capitals are used in visible and invisible flows (production activity, consumption activity, ecosystem services, purchased inputs and residuals).
These flows lead to the third element, outcomes. The outcomes are reflected as changes in the stocks of capitals.
The last element ‘impact’ is created by the outcomes. Outcomes impacts human well-being in environmental, economic, health and social ways. This comprehensive TEEB framework provides a basis for comparing and describing agriculture food systems (TEEB, 2018). Wageningen Economic Research and the True Price organization made a complete social cost-benefit analysis of the production and consumption of five food products in the Netherlands (Baltussen et al., 2017). Their analysis was partly based on the TEEB interim framework from 2015 which distinguishes six capital categories: financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, natural and social capital. One of the five food products they studied was minced beef. According to the authors, important positive effects of minced beef compared to an average food product are landscape quality, social ties (family intensive), no child and forced labour, and a high degree of organization and institutions. Important negative effects of minced beef are subsidies, contribution to climate change, poor animal welfare and social cohesion and social status scores both below average. The authors tried to analyse these effects completely quantitatively, but it was impossible to do this in the entire analysis, because of the insufficiently robust methodology and lack of enough data. They note that, if these obstacles are overcome in the future, a complete quantitative analysis will be possible. Although a complete monetized cost benefit analyse is impossible at the present, there are some institutions and researches who made an conservative estimation of the true price of meat in the Netherlands. In these studies they do not internalize all externalities and therefore
8 do not take all capitals into account. Table I shows the true prices of meat for the three
studies.
TABLE I
Comparison true prices of meat (in €/kg)
Type of meat Study Market price True costs True Price
Pork, conventional IVM € 6.69 € 2.06 € 8.75
Pork, organic IVM € 8.36 € 0.94 € 9.3
Pork, conventional Blonk et al. - € 1.84 € 4.34*
Pork, efficient Blonk et al. - € 1.73 € 4.23*
Pork, organic Blonk et al. - € 1.37 € 5.87*
Pork CE Delft € 7.75 € 4.08 € 11.83
Beef CE Delft € 12.17 € 4.89 € 17.06
Chicken CE Delft € 7.00 € 1.8 € 8.80
Notes. True costs = external costs (+ subsidies) – external benefits. *In the study of Blonk et al. the true price consist of production costs instead of market price.
The Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM) calculated the true price of pork in 2010. IVM internalized the following societal impacts: subsidies, greenhouse gases, animal welfare, biodiversity and animal diseases. IVM distinguishes between conventional (true costs: € 2.06/kg) and organic pork (true costs: € 0.94/ kg). The difference in these costs is mainly due to animal welfare. The true price of organic pork (€ 9.3/kg) is higher than that of conventional pork (€ 8.75/kg), because the selling price and production costs of organic pork are higher. Blonk et al. (2011) also examined the true price of pork meat, and roughly monetized the same societal impacts as IVM, with the exception of subsidies: the estimated external costs are € 1.84/kg for conventional pork. In addition, the authors have also investigated two
directions. They looked at a more efficient production method (‘more with less’) with external costs of € 1.73/kg pork and an organic production with external costs of € 1.37/kg. Even though the total external costs of pork are lower when produced in an organic way, no other production method scored better (lower true costs) on all separate categories of externalities. In comparison to IVM, the difference between the external costs is also strongly determined by animal welfare. Organic pork has the highest true price, because of the high production costs which are part of the selling price.
As mentioned before, CE Delft (2018) calculated the true prices of Dutch pork, chicken and beef containing products. CE Delft internalized the external costs of: emissions of greenhouse gases, emissions that lead to environmental pollution (including acidifying substances,
particulate matter and pesticides), loss of biodiversity and animal diseases. As in the study by IVM, subsidies were added to the true price, because they can have a price reduction effect.
9 This price reduction can occur when governments disturb the market with specific meat production subsidies, that do not apply to other goods. The CE Delft study also takes into account the external benefit landscape quality. This is only relevant for cows, since pigs and chickens do not graze outdoors. CE Delft did not monetize the external costs of animal welfare, because the costs for meeting the legal standards of animal welfare are already internalized in the price. The authors also argue that consumers can already choose to buy meat with higher standards for animal welfare, using for example the ‘Beter leven’ sign on products in the Dutch shops. These arguments can be questioned, because as the authors state, the legal standards are not always met and checked. Furthermore, meat produced with higher standards of animal welfare is not available everywhere and it is unclear whether consumers have been sufficiently informed about animal welfare. The external costs plus subsidies minus the benefits leads to the following true costs: € 4.08/kg of pork, € 4.89/kg of beef and € 1.8/kg of chicken.
Compared to the prices in IVM and Blonk et al, the external costs calculated by CE Delft are much higher, mainly due to a broader range of health impacts that arise during production of meat. Toxic health effects are included and a more recent assessment of health damage in accordance with the WHO was used. In addition, the authors point out that the monetized externalities are more extensive, because the impact is calculated up to the retailer instead of the up to the slaughterhouse.
All three studies did not include the following externalities: damage to health caused by the consumption of meat, odour nuisance, antibiotic resistance and resulting illness in animals and consumers, and desiccation and depletion of the soil. These effects are not monetized because the authors could not quantify them.
In this study, the study of CE Delft will be taken as a guideline, because these figures are the most recent and because it calculated true prices for both pork and beef. Therefore, the same standard for different types of meat is used in this paper. The true prices of meat are
calculated based on the average meat industry in the Netherlands, without distinguishing between standard, organic and/or efficient ways of producing meat. It is assumed that all meat is produced in the same conventional way. In the experiment at Frederix, conventional meat products are also used. It is a fact that certainly not all societal effects have been taken into account. This is not considered a problem, because the focus of this study is on consumer behaviour. Therefore, calculating the exact true price is unnecessary, a conservative estimate is sufficient.
10 2.3 Related literature on labels and information policy
A literature search yielded no previous study that examined whether showing the true price affects consumer behaviour. There are some studies on the policy interventions on sustainable food consumption. According to Reisch et al. (2017) policy makers can use four instruments to enhance sustainable food consumption in general: Information based instruments, which use labels on products and educate people to become more aware. Secondly, market based instruments, where policy makers use subsidies for sustainable food and taxes on
unsustainable food. Thirdly, regulatory instruments, that force people or firms to make sustainable food choices. Finally, nudging instruments, by which policy makers can change the choice architecture so that people become more likely to choose the ‘sustainable or good’ option without forbidding any choices (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009).
By showing true prices of meat to consumers, they are provided with information which can make them more aware. Hence, showing true prices is an information based instrument. Some studies will be discussed about this instrument.
In Europe, much food-related information is available about health claims, origin of products, environmental details and organic content (Reisch et al, 2017). These information tools are usually available in the form of food labels. According to the FAO, the universal definition of a food label is “any tag, brand, mark, pictorial or other descriptive matter, written, printed, stencilled, marked, embossed or impressed on, or attached to, a container of food” (FAO, n.d.-b).
Research on sustainable food labels is fragmented, most studies focus on one product or label (Grunert et al., 2014), and focus on one of many different (health, organic, ecological and animal welfare) labels.
Sonnenberg et al. (2013) investigated health food labels in a field experiment and showed that traffic light food labels made people purchase healthier food. Thorndike et al. (2014) showed that healthier choices were sustained for a long period by traffic-light labels.
Janssen and Hamm (2012) investigated the willingness to pay for organic food labels and showed that consumers are more willing to pay for well-known organic logos they trust. Trust is also relevant for ecological labels, specifically carbon footprint labels (Röös and Tjärnemo, 2011). Carbon footprint labelling, where products were labelled with a numerical value and a symbol for the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, was difficult to understand for consumers (Röös et al., 2014). In addition to trust and understanding, a high price is the most important reason why people see a barrier in purchasing products with small carbon
11 footprints. According to Grunert (2011) this applies to ecological labels in general. Koistinen et al. (2013) find that carbon footprint information has an impact on the preferences of
consumers: they want to buy sustainable products, but the willingness to pay is relatively low. Van Loo et al. (2014) find that consumers are less willing to pay for a low carbon footprint and organic label, than for products with the EU animal welfare label: 87% of consumers is prepared to pay for animal welfare. Koistinen et al. (2013) studied preferences of consumers for minced meat and found that consumers are willing to pay for organic and animal welfare, though this depended strongly on the consumer type.
According to Grunert et al. (2014) consumers are only limitedly aware of sustainability labels, but they are able to imagine the meaning of the labels and they found that the use of
sustainability labels by consumers is low. They found a relation between the use of labels and consumers’ motivation to consume sustainably. Consumers tend to use the sustainability labels more when they are involved in sustainable food production.
Grunert (2011) identified six barriers to make a sustainable choice. First, consumers do not notice a label because they are in a hurry or by habit. The second barrier is that consumers see the label, but do not make an effort to read or understand it. The third barrier is that
consumers make wrong assumptions about a label, they interpret the information in the wrong way and draw false conclusions. Fourthly, other criteria might be more important to a
consumer such as taste, price or family preferences. Another barrier is lack of awareness and / or credibility of labels: Consumers may have a sustainable attitude, but might find it difficult to put this into practice. The last barrier is a lack of motivation at the time of choice.
A factor influencing sustainable food choices positively is social influence. Many studies showed that social influence has an effect on making a sustainable choice (Salazar et al., 2013; Vermeir and Verbeke 2008). Therefore, showing a true price to a group might have a different effect than when showing it to an individual.
As mentioned before, there are many food labels, which may lead to complexity and an overload of information for consumers (Horne, 2009). Attempts have been made to create meta-labels, incorporating different facets such as the socioeconomic ‘sustainability’ label (Reisch et al., 2017), but so far no meta-label is being used in practice. Creating a “true-price” meta-label might be the solution to reduce the complexity of the many different labels.
12 2.4 Related literature on meat consumption
Global meat consumption has significantly increased over time: between 1990 and 2009 with 60% (Henchion et al., 2014). This worldwide increase of meat consumption is part of a nutrition transition (Dagevos and Voordouw, 2013). Nutrition transition is described as the increase of livestock consumption as societies become wealthier (Popkin, 2006). Nutrition transition shows that meat has a special status in cultures, therefore a reduction in meat consumption can be difficult to achieve (deFrance, 2009). For example, meat consumption in the Netherlands strongly depends on cultural values such as strength, health, masculinity and indulgence (De Bakker and Dagevos, 2010). However, this special status of meat does not apply to everyone. Research shows a significant group of meat reducers, who reduce their meat consumption more or less and who vary in the way how they reduce their meat consumption (De Bakker and Dagevos, 2010).
Meat consumption is not only driven by one single factor (e.g. price), but by many factors (de Bakker and Dagevos, 2012). Many studies have shown that price, safety, health, taste,
environmental and animal welfare concerns have a significant impact on consumption behaviour of meat (McCarthy et al., 2004; Verbeke and Viaene, 1999; Latvala et al., 2007). As a result of all these different factors, it is uncertain whether price measures on meat alone will lead to a reduction in meat consumption (de Bakker and Dagevos, 2012; Bunte et al. 2007; Mytton et al. 2007). Prices and taxes remain important and relevant, but it is important not to focus solely on one factor (de Bakker and Dagevos, 2012): an informative instrument, e.g. a true price label, might be of additional value.
Many studies have examined the consumer readiness and willingness to eat a more plant-based diet. Latvala et al. (2012) studied reasons for changing meat consumption in Finland and found that health is the most important reason to change. Environmental effects and animal welfare are also important reasons for some groups, but these are less salient. Apostolidis & McLeay (2016) did a choice experiment in the UK to examine consumers preferences for minced meat and meat substitutes: price, country of origin and fat content had a major influence to consumers preference. According to these authors carbon footprint, method of production and brand are of secondary importance to influence consumer
preference. Apostolidis & McLeay (2016) distinguish six consumer groups: price conscious, healthy eaters, taste driven, green, organic and vegetarian consumers and argue that policy interventions are more effective if they focus on one of the consumer groups.
13 3. Methodology
3.1 Experimental Design 3.1.1 Sample and Setting
Whether the true price of meat has an effect on meat consumption is investigated in a natural field experiment. The advantage of a natural field experiment is that subjects are not aware that they partake in an experiment. In a questionnaire or laboratory experiment subjects might not act truly. They might adapt their answers because they know they are part of an
experiment. By running a natural field experiment this bias is avoided.
The experiment took place at lunchroom Frederix located in the centre of Amsterdam near the Dutch Central Bank and tourist attractions. The restaurant staff estimate that around 200 people per week eat at the restaurant: 70% of customers are tourists. The remaining 30% are Dutch citizens. The customers differ each day which is beneficial to this experiment, as the research sample (both control- and treatment groups) is random and heterogeneous.
During the control period (3-5-2018 - 11-6-2018), consumers were informed only about the selling prices of meat and other dishes, and received only a standard menu (see Appendix 6.1) with all day breakfast or all day lunch. Consumers could choose between many dishes: meat, vegetarian and fish. In this study only a comparison between consuming meat or no-meat will be made. On the all-day lunch menu people can choose between three dishes with meat: Filet americain sandwich, BLT sandwich and BLT salad. All dishes on the all-day breakfast menu are vegetarian, but consumers can add bacon or ham to their sandwiches.
Prices of all dishes were constant throughout the study period. The restaurant is privately owned, they aim to maximize their profits. Prices were not influenced by the experiment. The restaurant is open on Sunday-Thursday from 08.00 till 18.00 and till 22:00 on Friday and Saturday. Data was collected with a cash register system (LightSpeed). The control period provided data on the baseline on the consumption of meat and no-meat products. The control period started on the day a new menu was introduced, data before this date are therefore not included.
3.1.2 Treatment
In the treatment period of seven days (12-6-2018 - 18-6-2018), consumers received not only the standard menu but also a flyer with the true prices of meat products (see Appendix 6.2 for
14 the flyer and Appendix 6.4 for the intervention). The flyer was placed inside the menu. The treatment period provided data on the consumption of meat and no-meat products when customers were informed about true prices.
This study only takes into account the externalities of meat, as calculated by the system of CE Delft. Information about the true price of the other ingredients of dishes is not available. The true price also does not include information about externalities caused by the daily operations of the restaurant (i.e. electricity, working conditions).
The following definition of the true price is used during the experiment:
𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑠ℎ = 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑠ℎ + 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑡 −𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑡
The external effects of all other ingredients and daily operations at Frederix are assumed zero. To be clear to consumers and to not give them false information, the flyer states that the given true price only contains the externalities of meat. Appendix 6.3 shows how this true price is calculated for each meat dish on the Frederix menu.
The flyer also provides consumers with information about the definition of true price. This definition is presented in a consumer friendly way. It is explained that meat costs more than consumers pay for in the Netherlands. Furthermore, some examples of externalities and a simplified equation are given. Consumers are informed that the true price only serves as
information, and it is stressed that they pay the standard selling price in the experiment period. After consumers had ordered their food, a questionnaire was introduced with a few questions which could be answered in about three minutes (see Appendix 6.5). The goal of the
questionnaire was to check whether consumers had read and understood the true price flyer. When people had not read the true price flyer, two questions were asked: why did they not read it and whether they consumed meat. When consumers had read the flyer, several
additional questions were asked. First, whether they understood the meaning of the true price (yes or no). Secondly, to check whether they really had understood the meaning of true price: they were asked to reproduce the meaning of the true price. They were also asked how they perceived the level of the true price of meat. In addition, consumers were asked to judge statements about the true price and meat.
15 Information for consumers needs to be salient, credible and legitimate (McNie, 2007). As the flyer was placed inside the menu, the information was presented in a salient way. Taking the different assumptions into account, the information was also credible and legitimate.
3.2 Hypothesis
No study has previously examined whether showing the true price had an effect on consumer behaviour. Even though there is no previous evidence, research has shown that price, safety, health, taste, environmental and animal welfare concerns have a significant impact on
consumption behaviour of meat (McCarthy et al., 2004; Verbeke and Viaene, 1999; Latvala et al., 2007). Hence, it is assumed that consumers might care about the external effects of meat and therefore the true price. Thus, introducing a true price of meat might decrease meat consumption and hypothesis 1 is formulated as:
H.1 Introducing the true price of meat decreases consumption of meat.
3.3 Statistical analysis
To test whether the difference in meat consumption between control and treatment period is significant, chi-squared tests were performed. The dependent variable is meat consumption, a binary variable (0 = no meat consumption, 1 = meat consumption). The independent variable is whether consumers were part of the treatment group, also a binary variable (0 = control group, 1 = treatment group). To test for significance between the two binary variables a chi-squared test was used. The difference in meat consumption compared to the control group, is also tested for the groups who read (0 = control group, 1 = read), understood (0 = control group, 1 = understood) and reproduced (0 = control group, 1 = reproduced) the true price. Furthermore, the correlation between the perceived level of the true price (1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high) and meat consumption is tested. In addition, correlations between statements about true price of meat were tested between themselves and with meat consumption.
To check whether there is a significant difference between the meat consumption for consumers who eat alone or together in the treatment (0 = alone , 1 = together), chi-squared tests are performed.
16 4. Results
4.1 Main results
The meat and no-meat consumption at Frederix during the control and treatment period is reported in table II. In total there are 899 observations between 3-5-2018 and 18-6-2018.
TABLE II
Comparison of meat consumption
N Meat No-Meat Ratio Meat ∆%-point w.r.t. control P-value
Total 899 242 657 26.92% Control 764 194 570 25.39% Treatment 135 48 87 35.56% 10.17% 0.014** Read Flyer 96 32 64 33.33% 7.94% 0.096* Understood 81 27 54 33.33% 7.94% 0.122 Reproduced 74 26 48 35.14% 9.75% 0.069*
Notes. Treatment includes consumers during the treatment period (0 = control group, 1 = treatment group). Read
flyer includes consumers who read the flyer (0 = control group, 1 = read). Understood includes consumers that
read and understood the true price (0 = control group, 1 = understood). Reproduced includes consumers that read and understood the flyer and were also capable of reproducing the meaning of true price (0 = control group, 1 = reproduced). The ratio meat/total consumption is given for each group. Percentage point difference of meat ratios between the treatment groups and control group are provided. Chi-squared tests were performed to test whether the difference in meat consumption between control and treatment (groups) is significant. *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05.
During the control period 764 dishes were ordered, 194 of which were meat dishes. The meat consumption ratio in the control period is 25,39%. For 28 observations it is unknown whether they added meat on their toasties and were therefore excluded from the analyses.
During the treatment period there were 135 observations, of which 48 people consumed meat. The meat consumption ratio in the treatment group is 35.56%. A comparison between the ratios of meat consumption during the control and treatment period shows an increase in meat consumption of 10.17%-point during the treatment period. The treatment has the opposite effect of what had been expected in hypothesis 1. More people consumed meat when exposed to information about the true price of meat. The last column in table II shows the p-values of the chi-squared tests. Based on table II, the difference in meat consumption between the control group and the treatment group is significant at 5% level (p = 0.014).
In the treatment period, consumers were asked whether they had read, understood and could reproduce the true price of meat. Table III shows the number of observations and percentages of the different subgroups.
17 Out of the 135 orders, 96 consumers read the true price flyer and 39 people did not read it because they were regular customers who already knew what to order (n = 11) or they were not interested (n = 10). Other reasons that were mentioned: did not notice the true price flyer (n = 5), considered it too complicated in appearance (n = 4), customers were children (n = 3), were rushed (n = 2), thought it was a wine or meat menu (n = 2) or another person read it (n = 2).
Taking only customers into account who read the true price flyer in the treatment, the meat consumption ratio is 33.33%. As shown in table II, the difference in meat consumption between the control group and the group who read the flyer is significant at 10% (p = 0.096). Of consumers who were in the treatment group that did not read the flyer, 23 consumed no-meat dishes and 16 no-meat dishes. The no-meat consumption ratio (41.03%) of this group increased compared to the control group (25.39%), the difference in meat consumption is significant at 5% level (p = 0.030).
Out of the 96 readers, 81 said they fully understood the meaning of the true price. The main reasons for not understanding true price were: the flyer is too complicated in appearance (n = 9); not interested (n = 4). The meat consumption ratio is 33.3% in this group, but the
difference in meat consumption with the control group is not significant (p = 0.122).
Consumers who understood the true price, were asked to reproduce the meaning of true price. Answers were judged as correct or incorrect. Partially correct answers were judged a second time, to see if the main interpretation was correct. If the main interpretation was correct, the total judgement of the answer was judged as correct. 74 people could reproduce the true price
TABLE III
Summary statistics treatment subgroups
Observations Mean (s.d.) Min-Max Percent
Read Flyer 0.711 (0.455) 0-1 Yes 96 71.11% No 39 28.89% Understood 0.843 (0.365) 0-1 Yes 81 84.38% No 15 15.63% Reproduced 0.914 (0.283) 0-1 Yes 74 91.36% No 7 8.64%
Notes. Read flyer means consumers who read the flyer. Understood means consumers who read and understood the true price. Reproduced means consumers who read and understood the flyer and were also capable of reproducing the meaning of true price.
18 (17 people had a partially correct answer, that were later judged to be correct). The meat consumption ratio for this group is 35.14%. The p-value in table II shows that at 10% level the difference between the control group and the reproduced group is significant (0.069). Figure 1 illustrates the percentage consumption of no-meat and meat per group. This figure shows a higher meat consumption in all treatment (sub)groups than the control group.
4.2 Additional results
In the questionnaire consumers were asked how they perceived the true price of meat (“Do you think the true price of meat is low, medium or high?”). Table IV shows a median of 2 (interquartile range 1-2). Out of the 61 responses, 29 perceived the level of the true price as low, 22 as medium and 10 as high.
When people read and understood the meaning of the true price, they were asked to answer multiple statements about the true price and meat. These were assessed on a five point Likert scale (strongly disagree = 1, disagree = 2 , neither agree nor disagree = 3 , agree = 4, strongly agree = 5). In table IV a summary of the scores on the Likert scale are given (see Appendix 6.6 for histograms of the scores of all statements).
73,08% 74,60% 64,44% 66,67% 66,67% 64,86% 26,92% 25,39% 35,56% 33,33% 33,33% 34,14% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Total Control Treatment Read Understood Reproduced
Fig. 1
Percentage no-meat vs meat per group
19 Table V reports a negative correlation between the perceived level of the true price and meat consumption (p-value < 0.01): Consumers who perceive the true price of meat as low, are more likely to eat meat.
Table V further shows the Spearman correlations between the different statements and with meat consumption. Statements 1 and 2 correlate positively (significant p-value <0.01). This means that when people believe that meat should reflect its true price, the probability increases that they believe other people to eat less meat if they would know the true price of meat. Statements 1 and 4 correlate positively (significant p-value <0.01). This means that when people believe that meat should reflect its true price, the probability increases that they also consider the true price to be important. Statements 2 and 4 correlate positively
(significant p-value <0.01). This means that when people believe that the true price is important, the probability increases that they believe other people to eat less meat if they know the true price of meat. Naturally the correlations mentioned above can also be explained reversibly. Statement 3 (i.e. I feel that meat is already too expensive) does not correlate with any of the other statements.
The correlation between statement 1 and meat consumption is negative and significant at 10%. Hence, when consumers did not consume meat, they are more likely to agree with the statement ‘meat should be more expensive to reflect its true price’. The correlation with statement 2 and meat consumption is negative and significant at 1%: When people consumed meat, the probability decreases that they agree with the statement ‘people would eat less meat if they know the true price of meat’. The correlation between meat consumption and statement 4 is negative and significant at 5%. Hence, when people did not consume meat, they are more likely to agree with the statement that the true price is important.
TABLE IV
Summary statistics Statements
N Mean (s.d.) Min-Max Q1 Median Q2
Level True price 61 1.689 (0.743) 1-3 1 2 2
1.Reflect True price 80 3.925 (.776) 1-5 4 4 4
2.Influence people 80 3.088 (0.957) 1-5 2 3 4
3.Meat expensive 80 1.734 (0.759) 1-4 1 2 2
4.True price important 80 3.925 (0.759) 2-5 3.5 4 4
Notes. Perceived level of true price labelled as: low = 1, medium = 2, high = 3.
Statements 1, 2, 3, 4 were assessed on a five point Likert scale and are labelled as: strongly disagree = 1 , disagree = 2 , neither agree nor disagree = 3, agree = 4, strongly agree = 5.
20 TABLE V
Spearman Correlations
Level 1 2 3 4 Meat
Level true price 1
1. Reflect true price 1
2. Influence people 0.3928*** 1
3. Meat expensive -0.1108 0.0366 1
4. True price important 0.4867*** 0.5756*** 0.0068 1
Meat Consumption -0.3667*** -0.1988* -0.5110*** 0.0600 -0.2557** 1
Notes. Perceived level of true price labelled as: low = 1, medium = 2, high = 3.
Statements 1, 2, 3, 4 were assessed on a five point Likert scale and are labelled as: strongly disagree = 1 , disagree = 2 , neither agree nor disagree = 3, agree = 4, strongly agree = 5.
Meat consumption (0 = no meat consumption, 1 = meat consumption). *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ****p < 0.01.
Table VI shows the meat consumption of people who ate alone or with one or more people. In all the treatments groups, a higher meat ratio is observed for consumers who were eating together. However, the difference in meat consumption between people who were eating together and alone is not significant in all treatments groups.
TABLE VI
Meat consumption comparison for consumers who ate alone or together N Meat No meat Meat ratio P-value
Treatment 0.165 Alone 60 18 42 30.00% Together 72 30 42 41.67% Read Flyer 0.437 Alone 40 12 28 30.00% Together 53 20 33 37.74% Understood 0.438 Alone 34 10 24 29.41% Together 45 17 28 37.78% Reproduced 0.403 Alone 30 9 21 30.00% Together 43 17 26 39.53%
Notes. Treatment group includes consumers who were in the treatment period. Read flyer includes consumers who read the flyer (0 = not read, 1 = read). Understood includes consumers that read and understood the true price (0 = not understood, 1 = understood). Reproduced includes consumers that read and understood the flyer and were also capable of reproducing the meaning of true price (0 = not
reproduced, 1 = reproduced). Alone, are consumers eating alone. Together includes customers who ate with one or more people. The ratio meat/total consumption is given for each group. Chi-squared tests were performed in each treatment group, to test whether the difference in meat consumption between people who ate together and alone was significant.
21 4.3 Limitations
There are multiple limitations for these results. First, the true price flyer might be unclear to people, which reduces the internal validity. To overcome this limitation, it was asked whether consumers read, understood and could reproduce the true price. Even when people were able to reproduce the true price meaning, the reason why they were getting the information might be unclear to them. The flyer stated that it served as extra information about meat. Still consumers might wonder why a restaurant would provide them with this information. This might be a reason for consumers not to use the information in the flyer into their consumption decision.
Furthermore, consumers are not able to check the correctness of the information on the flyer. It is therefore arguable whether the flyer adheres to the important aspects that informative instruments should be trusted and well known. Hence, consumers might not to use the information in the flyer to make a decision to order a dish with or without meat.
Only the externalities of meat are calculated and processed in the true price of the meat dish. These externalities are relatively small when they are added to the selling price. This is due to different factors, first the amount of meat in the dish is quite low. Another factor is that the selling price contains a higher profit margin because it is a restaurant price instead of a retail price. Furthermore, the selling price consists of other costs than solely from meat (e.g. costs of other ingredients in the dish and labour). Therefore, the difference between the selling and true price might be perceived as small. Customers might not use the information in their consumption decision, because the externalities are perceived as small.
An additional limitation to the internal validity, is the conservative estimation of the true price of meat. As mentioned in the related literature not all externalities are internalized such as animal welfare and damage to health by the consumption of meat. Therefore a conservative true price is given to consumers, instead of a complete true price. However, this is the best available research at the moment. With a complete true price, the effect on consumer behaviour might be different.
No comparable true prices of vegetarian and fish dishes were provided, because no such data are available. It can be difficult for consumers to make a completely informed decision, because they are not able to compare the true prices of the other (no-meat) dishes.
The data in the control and treatment period was collected in two different periods. Although, these data are allocated randomly, the allocation could improve if control and treatment
22 groups were in the same period. Perhaps the meat consumption increased during the treatment period because of unknown variables. This could explain why consumers in the treatment group that did not read the flyer, had a significant increase in meat consumption compared to the control data.
The next limitation concerns the questionnaire. The question “Do you think the true price of meat is low, medium or high?” might have been unclear to customers, because there was no reference point. The intention was to ask how they perceived the difference between the selling price and the true price (=size of externalities). Hence, the correlation between perceived level of the true price and meat consumption should be interpreted with caution. There are no data about the consumer type and demographics. Possibly, Frederix attracts a certain type of consumers, for example wealthy and well educated people. However, this has not been registered. This could be a reason why a large majority took the time to read the flyer and was able to understand and reproduce the meaning of the true price. The outcome might be different in another public, e.g. for low educated consumers. Therefore, one must take caution when generalizing these results.
5. Conclusion and Discussion
5.1 Summary of conclusions and discussion
In this study the following research question is examined: Does the true price of meat influence consumer behaviour?
The answer found in this study is that consumers who were informed about the true price, significantly (at 5% level) increased their meat consumption compared to the control group. Therefore the true price of meat influences consumer behaviour.
However, the answer is unexpected and the reverse of what was assumed in the hypothesis, as the true price caused an increase in meat consumption instead of a decrease. There are three possible explanations. One possible reason that meat consumption increased is that people perceived the true price of meat as low. Therefore they might have thought that external costs to society are small and therefore meat consumption is as harmful as they thought. As seen in the results, the correlation between meat consumption and the perceived level of the true price is negative and significant at 1%. This negative correlation might be responsible for the increase in meat consumption in the treatment group. Another reason for the increase in meat
23 consumption may be that people were unintendedly nudged to consume meat, by showing the meat options twice: both in the standard menu and again in the flyer. The third explanation might be that consumers interpreted the difference between the selling and the true price as a discount. Consumers might have understood that they paid less for the selling price, than they were ´supposed´ to for the true price.
In the treatment period it was asked whether consumers read, understood and could reproduce the true price of meat. In all these groups an increase in meat consumption is found. The differences in meat consumption between two groups (read flyer and reproduced) compared to the control group are significant at 10% level.
However, consumers in the treatment group that did not read the flyer, also had a significant (at 5% level) increase in meat consumption compared to the control data. The main reasons why people did not read the flyer may explain this increase. These reasons were (1) customers were regular customers who knew what to order and (2) customers were not interested.
Regular customers are probably not the reason why the meat consumption increased, because they had already chosen their order without looking at the menu. ‘Not interested’ consumers, might not want to be disturbed when eating meat and therefore remain ignorant about the true price. This may explain why consumers who did not read the flyer, had a higher meat ratio than consumers who read the flyer. Another reason for the increase in meat consumption might be explained with the unintended nudge: people were not interested in the true price and saw the meat options (twice) or the title ‘About your meat’. Furthermore, the meat consumption might have increased in the treatment period due to other unknown variables. The reason of the increase of meat consumption is uncertain, this increase in the treatment period should therefore be interpreted with caution.
Another result of this study, is that in all the treatments groups a higher meat ratio is observed for consumers who were eating together compared to those who ate alone. The difference in meat consumption between people who were eating together and alone is not significant in all treatments groups. Literature found that social influences had a positive effect in choosing sustainable food products. Hence, this (insignificant) difference was not expected: by showing the true price of meat, social pressure may lead to a decrease in meat consumption. The special status of meat could have been a reason why people who were eating together, consumed more meat than people who have eaten alone.
24 5.2 Limitations and further research
The limitations in the result section are summarised and some possible steps for future research are mentioned.
With respect to the internal validity, a limitation is that consumers might not be able to use the information provided on the flyer. This could be caused by an unclear flyer and the fact that customers are not able to check the correctness of the information. The informative
instrument used (flyer) might not be trustworthy or well known.
The question about the perceived level of the true price might have been unclear to customers, because there was no reference point. Hence, the correlation between perceived level of the true price and meat consumption should be interpreted with caution.
Another limitation contains the fact that restaurant prices are used. These prices do not solely entail costs about meat, but also other ingredients. Therefore the selling price is only slightly different to the true price. It would be interesting to run this experiment with retail prices at the supermarket. No other ingredients would have to be included in the selling price.
The next limitation concerns the fact that a conservative true price of meat is used. However, this is the most complete calculation of the true price available at the moment. In the future this true price might be adjusted when more data about other externalities is available. This is likely to happen, because more research in this field is currently being performed.
Also customers were not able to make a complete decision, since they were unable to
compare the true prices of other dishes on the menu. Simply because they are not available at present. For further research it would be interesting to examine the effect of true prices, when consumers can compare true prices of different products.
Other limitations are raised with regard to the external validity. One must take caution to generalize the results. This is due to a possible specific consumer sample at Frederix. For future research it is interesting to look at consumer types and social demographics.
This study is focused on the true price of meat, for future research it would be interesting to look at the true prices of other products. This can be for either other food products or non-food products.
When there is more data and true prices of other products are known, it might be interesting to perform further research where a traffic light label is applied to indicate true prices. Research
25 has shown that traffic light labels work (Sonnenberg et al., 2013; Thorndike et al., 2014), therefore a translation of the true prices in this form might give consumers a clearer overview.
6. Appendices 6.1 Menu Frederix
26 6.2 Flyer True price meat products
6.3 Calculation meat products
Based on the figures from CE Delft (2018):
Meat product: External costs + subsidies – external benefits
Pork (100 g) € 0.41
Beef (100 g) € 0.49
Chicken (100 g) € 0.18
The following equation is used:
𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡 = 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡 + 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑡 + 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑡 − 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑡
1. Sandwich Filet americain: the selling price is € 7.50. The sandwich contains 100 grams of Filet Americian. Filet Americian contains 40 grams pork and 25 grams beef. The additional costs are: 0.4 x 0.41 + 0.25 x 0.49 = € 0.29
27 2. Holy Moly BLT sandwich: the selling price is € 7.00. The sandwich contains 60 grams bacon (pork). The additional costs are: 0.41 x 0.6 = € 0.25
𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑦 𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑦 𝐵𝐿𝑇 𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑤𝑖𝑐ℎ = 7.00 + 0.21 = € 7.21 3. Holy Moly BLT salad: the selling price is € 8.50. The salad contains 75 grams bacon (pork). The additional costs are: 0.41 x 0.75 = 0.31
𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑦 𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑦 𝐵𝐿𝑇 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑑 = 8.50 + 0.31 = € 8.81
4. Add bacon or ham: the selling price is for both € 1.00. Both contains around 25 grams pork. The additional costs are: 0.41 x 0.25 = € 0.10
28 6.4 Treatment intervention
29 6.5 Questionnaire
Part 1 – True Price questions 1. Did you read the true price flyer?
o Yes
o No, because
o Not interested o Not important
o Too complicated (in terms of appearance) o Other (please specify)
………
………
2. While reading the flyer did you fully understand the meaning of the true price?o Yes
o No, because
o Not interested o Not important
o Too complicated (in terms of appearance) o Other (please specify)
………
………
3. If you understood the true price meaning, can you reproduce it?o Yes, a true price means
………
………
o No4. Do you think the true price of meat is: o Low
o Medium o High
30 o I do not know
5. The true price influenced my food choice o Yes, by consuming no meat
o Yes, by consuming meat o No
o I do not know
6. What did you eat today at Frederix? o Meat dish
o Vegetarian dish o Other (e.g. fish)
Part 2 - Statements
1. I feel meat should be more expensive to reflect its true price o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neither agree nor disagree o Agree
o Strongly agree
2. People would eat less meat if they know the true price of meat o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neither agree nor disagree o Agree
o Strongly agree
3. I feel that meat is already too expensive o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neither agree nor disagree o Agree
31 4. The true price of meat is important
o Strongly disagree o Disagree
o Neither agree nor disagree o Agree
o Strongly agree
5. If you would like to know the results of the study, please note your email:
……….
6.6 Histograms Statements32 7. Bibliography:
Apostolidis, C., & McLeay, F. (2016). Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat consumption through substitution. Food Policy, 65, 74–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.11.002
Bajželj, B., Richards, K. S., Allwood, J. M., Smith, P., Dennis, J. S., Curmi, E., & Gilligan, C. A. (2014). Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 4(10), 924.
Baltussen, W., de Adelhart Toorop, R., de Blaeij, A., de Groot Ruiz, A., Janssens, B.,
Logatcheva, K., ... & Ponsioen, T. (2017). Maatschappelijke effecten van voedsel (No. 2017-022). Wageningen Economic Research.
Blonk, H., Pluimers, J., Broekema, R., Mediation, V., Instituut, L. S., Vu, M., … Drunen, M. van. (2011). Economische dimensie verduurzaming voedselproductie Bijlagen. Blonk Milieu Advies, Gouda.
Bunte, F., Van Galen, M., Kuiper, E., & Bakker, J. (2007). Limits to growth in organic sales: Price elasticity of consumer demand for organic food in Dutch supermarkets. The Hague: LEI Wageningen UR.
CE Delft. (2018). De echte prijs van vlees. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppp009 Dagevos, H. & Voordouw, J. (2013) Sustainability and meat consumption: is reduction
realistic? Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 9:2, 60-69, DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2013.11908115
De Bakker, H. C. M., & Dagevos, H. (2010). Vleesminnaars, vleesminderaars en
vleesmijders: duurzame eiwitconsumptie in een carnivore eetcultuur (No. 2010-003). LEI Wageningen UR.
De Bakker, E., & Dagevos, H. (2012). Reducing meat consumption in today’s consumer society: questioning the citizen-consumer gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(6), 877-894.
DeFrance, S. D. (2009). Zooarchaeology in complex societies: political economy, status, and ideology. Journal of archaeological research, 17, 105-168.
FAO. (n.d.-b). Food labelling. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/ag/humannutrition/foodlabel@172033/en/
FAO. (n.d.-a). Full-cost accounting. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/full cost-accounting/en/
33 FAO. (2006). Livestock a major threat to environment. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html FAO. (2015). Natural Capital Impacts in Agriculture. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/natural-capital
Grunert, K. G. (2011). Sustainability in the food sector: A consumer behaviour perspective. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, 2(3), 207-218.
Grunert, K. G., Hieke, S., & Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food products: consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy, 44, 177-189.
Henchion, M., McCarthy, M., Resconi, V. C., & Troy, D. (2014). Meat consumption: Trends and quality matters. Meat science, 98(3), 561-568.
Horne, R. E. (2009). Limits to labels: The role of eco‐labels in the assessment of product sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. International Journal of consumer studies, 33(2), 175-182.
IVM, Drunen, M. Van, Beukering, P. Van, & Aiking, H. (2010). De echte prijs van vlees. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppp009
Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2012). Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food quality and preference, 25(1), 9-22.
Koistinen, L., Pouta, E., Heikkilä, J., Forsman-Hugg, S., Kotro, J., Mäkelä, J., & Niva, M. (2013). The impact of fat content, production methods and carbon footprint
information on consumer preferences for minced meat. Food Quality and Preference, 29(2), 126-136.
Latvala, T., Niva, M., Mäkelä, J., Pouta, E., Heikkilä, J., Kotro, J., & Forsman-Hugg, S. (2012). Diversifying meat consumption patterns: Consumers' self-reported past behaviour and intentions for change. Meat Science, 92(1), 71-77.
McCarthy, M., O'Reilly, S. O., Cotter, L., & de Boer, M. (2004). Factors influencing consumption of pork and poultry in the Irish market. Appetite, 43, 19–28.
McNie, E. C. (2007). Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental science & policy, 10(1), 17-38.
Mytton, O., Gray, A., & Rutter, H. (2007). Could targeted food taxes improve health? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61, 686–694.
Nicholson, W., & Snyder, C. (2011). Microeconomic theory: Basic principles and extensions. European Commission (2011). Analysis associated with the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient
34 Europe Part. System, 147(2011), 578–579. https://doi.org/SWD(2013) 527
Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (2003). Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78(3 SUPPL.), 660–663. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/78.3.660S
Popkin, B. M. (2006). Global nutrition dynamics: the world is shifting rapidly toward a diet linked with noncommunicable diseases. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 84(2), 289-298.
Popp A, Lotze-Campen H, B. B. (2010). Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Global Environmental Change, 20(3), 451–462.
Reisch, L., Eberle, U., Lorek, S., Reisch, L., Eberle, U., & Lorek, S. (2017). Sustainable food consumption: an overview of contemporary issues and policies 7733.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2013.11908111
Röös, E., Ekelund, L., & Tjärnemo, H. (2014). Communicating the environmental impact of meat production: Challenges in the development of a Swedish meat guide. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73, 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.037 Röös, E., & Tjärnemo, H. (2011). Challenges of carbon labelling of food products: a
consumer research perspective. British Food Journal, 113(8), 982–996. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701111153742
Salazar, H. A., Oerlemans, L., & van Stroe‐Biezen, S. (2013). Social influence on sustainable consumption: evidence from a behavioural experiment. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(2), 172-180.
Schouten, C. (2018). Kamerbrief reactie CE Delft werkelijke kosten van vlees. Retrieved from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2018/04/19/kamerbrief met-reactie-op-bericht-van-ce-delft-dat-de-werkelijke-kosten-van-vlees-hoger-liggen Sonnenberg, L., Gelsomin, E., Levy, D. E., Riis, J., Barraclough, S., & Thorndike, A. N.
(2013). A traffic light food labeling intervention increases consumer awareness of health and healthy choices at the point-of-purchase. Preventive medicine, 57(4), 253 257.
TEEB. (2015). TEEB for Agriculture & Food: an interim report. Retrieved from http://img.teebweb.org/wp
content/uploads/2016/01/TEEBAgFood_Interim_Report_2015_web.pdf TEEB. (2018). TEEB for Agriculture & Food: Scientific and Economic Foundations.
35 Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C.R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and
happiness. New York: Penguin Books
Thorndike, A. N., Riis, J., Sonnenberg, L. M., & Levy, D. E. (2014). Traffic-light labels and choice architecture: promoting healthy food choices. American journal of preventive medicine, 46(2), 143-149.
True Price, PwC, & Deloitte. The business case for true pricing: why you will benefit from measuring, monetizing and improving your impact. (2014).
Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., Nayga Jr, R. M., & Verbeke, W. (2014). Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat. Food Policy, 49, 137-150.
Verbeke, W., & Viaene, J. (1999). Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat consumption in Belgium: empirical evidence from a consumer survey. Food Quality and Preference, 10, 437–445.
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude - Behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecological economics, 64(3), 542-553.
WBCSD (2018). The Social & Human Capital Protocol. Retrieved from
https://www.wbcsd.org/Clusters/Social-Impact/Social-and-Human-Capital-Protocol Weidema, B. P., Wesnae, M., Hermansen, J., Kristensen, I., & Halberg, N. (2008).
Environmental improvement potentials of meat and dairy products. Sciences New York (Vol. 23491). https://doi.org/10.2791/38863
