Just (M)eat?

Just (M)eat?

An Analysis of Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Eco-Friendly

Labelled Food.

Jacopo Mario Triolo

An Analysis of Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Eco

Master Thesis, Marketing Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

First Supervisor: Second

Just (M)eat?

An Analysis of Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Eco

Labelled Food.

Master Thesis, Marketing Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

Jacopo Mario Triolo Contact details: Borneoplein, 5-2

9715 GM, Groningen (NL) jacopo.triolo@gmail.com

First Supervisor: Dr. Jenny van Doorn Second Supervisor: Dr. Jing Wan

2

An Analysis of Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Eco-Friendly

3 ABSTRACT

Despite the growing awareness of problems related with consumers’ food disposal and consumption behaviour, little research is performed on whether countermeasure could be effective for a shift toward more sustainable consumption patterns (Prothero, et al., 2011). The environmental burden, in term of pollutant emissions and exploitation of natural resources, could be lowered through a reduction in the consumption of meat and dairy products, which represent the edibles with the highest level of environmental repercussion (Baroni, et al., 2007).

In this perspective, this is one of the first studies that investigates consumers’ buying intentions for eco-friendly labelled products, while considering a relative vice (meat) and virtue (meat substitutes) items. The purpose to assess whether eco-labelling systems could make consumers less resistant to change their eating habits toward less impactful food.

Starting from existing literature and throughout an online questionnaire, 160 respondents are exposed to different labelled or unlabelled product for one of the two categories, and subsequently their quality evaluation and purchasing intentions are measured and analysed.

In line with the expectations, the results of the multiple regression analysis show that a multi-criteria eco-friendly label carrying the product’s related environmental information, increases the consumers’ willingness to buy the labelled food differently across category. Specifically, the label influences the consumer’s overall quality perception, which subsequently has an influence on his/her intention to buy.

4 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

The environmental burden related with food production and consumption is becoming a serious problem with numerous repercussion in term of pollutant emissions, exploitation of natural resources and also world hunger and malnutrition (Gustavsson, et al., 2011;Watch World Institute, 2004). Reducing the production and consumption of food, that are strongly impactful for the eco-system, is seen as a key element for reducing this issue and for preserving the environment for future generations (Baroni, et al., 2007). In this perspective retailers, food services and consumers are those actors with the greatest potentiality to reduce issues related to the consumption and disposal of food in the developed world (Vermeir, et al., 2006).

Eco-friendly labelling systems are seen as a useful tool for making consumers more aware about the implication of their groceries’ decisions, and for shifting their consumption patterns toward more sustainable levels. Although numerous researches analyse the effect related to the application of such labelling schemes, little attention has been given to these effects across different categories of food.

Therefore, the problem statement and aim of this study are meant to answer the following research question within two separate category of food: “Can a more accessible eco-labelling system, providing environmental information, be a tool for enhancing consumers’ willingness to adopt more sustainable food products, and thus making them less resistant to change eating habits?”.

In this research, 160 Italian and international individuals were exposed to a specific product and asked to fill in an online questionnaire. Similar to former expectations, this research found that the presence of product’s related environmental features may enhance consumers’ quality perception, which subsequently increases consumers’ buying intentions for the relative virtue products. Contrarily, when the label is combined with relative vice products (as meat), consumers’ rely on other characteristics, associating the presence of the label with a lower level of quality, which in turn decreases the consumer’s intentions to purchase.

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS: ABSTRACT ... 3 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ... 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS: ... 5 1 INTRODUCTION ... 7 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ... 10

2.1 Actual Consumption Behavioural pattern ... 11

2.1.1 Meat and meat substitutes: Consumptions’ trends ... 12

2.2 Overview of existing Eco-labelling system ... 13

2.3 Consumers’ Overall Quality Perception toward Sustainable food ... 16

3 CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESIS... 17

3.1 Conceptual model ... 17

3.2 The impact of “Zero-Impact” label’s presence on Overall Quality Perception ... 19

3.3 The impact of a “Zero-Impact” label on consumers’ buying intentions for meat and meat substitutes ... 21

4 METHODOLOGY ... 23

4.1 Study Design ... 23

4.2 Sample and Data Collection ... 24

4.2.1 Questionnaire and Stimuli ... 24

4.3 Plan of analysis ... 26

4.3.1 Reliability and Factor Analysis ... 26

4.3.2 Multiple Regression Analysis ... 27

5 RESULTS ... 27

5.1 Descriptive Statistics ... 28

5.2 Reliability and Factor Analysis ... 29

5.2.1 Cronbach’s Alpha ... 29

5.2.2 Factor Analysis ... 30

5.3 Multiple Regressions ... 31

5.4 Hypotheses Validation ... 34

6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 35

6.1 General Discussion ... 35

6.2 Managerial Implications ... 36

6.3 Limitation and suggestion for further research ... 38

REFERENCES: ... 39

7 1 INTRODUCTION

In the last few decades, the environmental impact of food production and consumption have become a phenomenon of growing concern under different perspectives and with several related consequences in term of malnutrition, food safety, CO2 emissions and deforestation (Baroni, et al., 2007; Gustavsson, et al., 2011). Environmental degradation is not a new concern among the global community, and the first discussion about this issue is collocated around the late 1960s, likewise successively, due to the increasing pressure of the production systems on the environment, the topic had been investigated deeply with the aim to understand the antecedents of this trend, as well as to find possible solutions (Gallastegui, 2002).

The consumption phase, in European countries, accounts for 20/30% of the environmental impact of households and it represents the dimension where food is to a significant extent wasted, even if it is still suitable for human utilization. Findings mentioned above emphasize the central role played by consumers’ behavioural consumption patterns, also revealing that once the goods are produced, designed and delivered into the market, there is not much that can be done to avoid environmental damage (Gallastegui, 2002). In this perspective, it has been reported that all the actors within the supply chain need to make possible for consumers to choose less environmentally harmful products (Grankvist, et al., 2007), and subsequently reducing the presence of less eco-friendly goods within the market (Thogersen, 2001).

Consumers’ reactions became consequently crucial in order to protect the eco-system and to manage the actual behavioural consumption pattern, in such a way that it would shift towards more sustainable eating habits and production procedures (Gallastegui, 2002). Sustainable consumption is based on a decision-making process that takes the consumer’s social responsibility into account, in combination with individual needs and wants (Meulenberg, 2003). In other words, it can be defined as the use of goods and services that are related with an higher quality of life in term of concepts such as: healthiness, environmental sustainability and safety. Moreover, the products that should be consumed are produced with the aim to minimize the use of natural resources, toxic materials and emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle, in order to not jeopardize the needs of future generations (Norwegian Ministry of Environment, 1994).

8 As reported by the research of Baroni et al. (2007), which investigated the environmental impact of food production and disposal combined with different dietary patterns, vegetarian and vegan diets could play an important role in preserving natural resources and in reducing hunger and malnutrition in poorer nations, due to their lighter impact on the eco-system compared with omnivorous diets (Gussow, 1994; Fox, 1999). However, a deviation from a more meat-based diet in favour to an increased direct consumption of plant foods is not an easily achievable goal.

The study of Vermeir et al., (2006) demonstrated that every day consumption practices are still heavily driven by convenience, habit, value for money, personal health concerns, hedonism, individual responses to social and institutional norms and, most importantly, these practices are likely to be resistant to change. For instance, the difficulty of establishing a broad acceptance for meat substitutes is mostly related with the fact that these types of products are relatively new and, more importantly, they stay behind in term of overall consumers’ quality evaluations (Hoek, et al., 2011). The latter dimension is the most critic in order to forecast the consumer’s purchasing behaviour (Tsiotsou, 2006). Specifically, meat substitutes are defined as meat replacers, alternatives, or analogy (Davies &Lightowler, 1998; McIlveen, Abraham, & Armstrong, 1999; Sadler, 2004), and they are primarily vegetable based food products that contain proteins made from pulses (mainly soy), cereal protein, or fungi.

Although both popularity and presence of vegetarian and vegan products are constantly increasing within the market, the share of these goods is still unequivocally smaller than standard food (some time even under 1%) and they are not even considered as a truly alternative during consumers’ groceries decision. Thus, even if meat substitutes score higher on animal and environmental friendliness attributes than to meat (Van der Lans, 2001), consumers seems to rely more on other key dimensions of a product, such as: price, quality, convenience, and brand familiarity (Carrigan, et al., 2001). As a result, besides these goods are intended to attract new consumers especially among meat lovers, currently they are primarily used by vegetarians and semi-vegetarians with a strong emphasis on health and ethical quality aspects (Hoek, et al., 2004; Janda, et al., 2001; McIlveen, et al., 1999; Sadler, 2004).

9 However, within the existing literature, these reported positive effects are rarely empirically verified, and actual eco-labelling systems are found to be poorly understandable, due to the multitude of different type of label and the high level of diversity among the totality of labelled information, which makes consumers intention to buy this category really low (Bernue, et al., 2003; Dendler, 2014; Grankvist, et al., 2007; Vermeir, et al., 2006). According to several studies aimed to find feasible strategy to improve eco-labelling systems (Graça, et al., 2015; Grankvist, et al., 2007; Vlaeminck, et al., 2014), in the current research will be tested a multi-crieteria labelling system (named “Zero-Impact”) based on prodcuts related Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA), in order to make easier for consumers, the exploitation of labelled features. Given the completedness and the intuitiveness reported for these type of lebel (Vlaeminck, et al., 2014) while in the short run these may increase the consumer awareness and the opportunity to engage in more sustainable actions by adopting more sustainable food items (Thogersen, 2001), in the long run it has been reported that the promotion through socialization and national institutions of right values, such as universalism, benevolence, self-direction and honesty (Vermeir, et al., 2006), are important drivers for enhancing sustainable behaviour patterns (Thogersen, 2001).

In this perspective, the following study seeks primarily to test whether the application of such a label may drive consumers behaviour toward the consumption of more sustainable food, and by doing so, it will take into account consumers’ buying intentions, as well as consumers’ overall quality perceptions. Furthermore, as reported above, vegetarian and vegan eating habits (meat/fish/ dairy products’ avoiders) are associated with the lowest level of environmental impact, but due to low awareness, familiarity and quality evaluations that consumers hold toward alternatives products such as meat substitutes (e.g. tofu, soya, etc.), these goods are rarely considered during consumers’ groceries decisions, especially when examining highly appreciated food like meat (Baroni, et al., 2007; Graça, et al., 2015; Hoek, et al., 2011). Basing on the reasons above, this research will investigate the effect exerting by the “Zero-Impact” label, specifically taking into account two different categories of food products. The aim is to assess whether the label has a direct relation with consumers’ quality inferences, to what extent it is likely to influence consumers’ buying intentions (also considering quality perception), and finally how this effects are likely to change across different categories of food.

To conclude, the goal of the current paper leads to the following problem statement:

“Can a more accessible eco-labelling system, providing environmental information, be a tool for enhancing consumers’ willingness to adopt more sustainable food products, and thus making them

10 The issue will be investigated through several research questions:

1. “To what extent the presence of the “Zero Impact” label carrying Life-Cycle Analysis insights could lead to an increase of purchasing intentions toward an eco-sustainable product?”

2. “Can the effect on purchasing intentions be stronger across different categories of food, such as virtuous and vice (respectively, Meat substitute and Meat)?”

3. “Can overall consumers’ quality evaluation toward the sustainable product be influenced by the “Zero-Impact” label? Do they result in higher consumers’ buying intentions?

4. “Do the “Zero-Impact” influences overall consumers’ quality perception differently for relative vice and virtue food?”

Starting from the existing literature and by answering to the research questions formulated, this paper provides deeper insights about the relationship between the environmental impact arising from food consumption and disposal and consumers’ behavioural pattern, likewise possible long term strategies suitable for reducing the environmental impact and wastage along the food supply chain. The following represents the structure of the papers: chapter two examines the existing literature on the research topic; chapter three features the conceptual model of the study and the hypotheses development; chapter four addresses the methodology of the research, chapter five portraits the results, and finally, chapter six provides the implications of the researched issue and future recommendations.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

11 2.1 Actual Consumption Behavioural pattern

An evolution of the current pattern of consumers’ consumption behaviour, is for clear reasons needed. For instance, it has been reported that the exploitation of natural resources is not uniformly distributed across countries: Europe, North America and Japan, which represent about 15% of the world population, are directly and/or indirectly responsible for an estimated 80% of planetary resources consumption and toxic pollution (Gladwin, et al., 1997). Water consumption represents by itself the most concerning outcome arising from production and livestock: it accounts for about 41–46% of its overall impact; but more importantly, animal farming and agriculture are responsible for almost 70% of freshwater consumption on the planet, while the portion for domestic purpose counts just for the 8% (Watch World Institute, 2004).

Although the public opinion is aware of these critic implications, reducing or finding an alternative for the consumption of meat turned out to be a challenging task. Grankvist et al., (2002) demonstrated that people often engage in actions against the environment, despite they hold attitudes that are positive towards environmentally friendly behaviour. Several researches show that 52% of consumers were interested in purchasing ‘‘earth-sustainable’’ foods, but they did not purchase those foods owing to the perceived barriers of lack of availability, followed by inconvenience and price (Robinson, et al., 2002). The phenomenon cited above has been called the “Attitudes–Behavioural Gap” (Vermeir, et al., 2006) and it has been considered one of the critic dimensions towards the achievement of a greater pattern of sustainable consumption. In addition, Carrigan et al., (2001) found that also overall perceived product quality and brand familiarity are viewed as important barriers for purchasing eco-friendlier goods.

12 Before introducing the concept of eco-labelling system, the next sub-section will provide an overview about the actual consumers’ behaviour toward relative vice (meat) and virtue (meat substitutes) food in the current food market, specifically in terms of their relative consumption trends and overall quality perception.

2.1.1 Meat and meat substitutes: Consumptions’ trends

Within the existing literature, distinctions in term of type of food have been widely used by marketing scholars in order to test the validity of their research’ findings and effects across different categories (Hui, et al., 2009; Milkman, et al., 2008; Mishra, et al., 2011). The main reason for the relevance of those dimensions within the field is that consumers associate food’s consumption with various and different values, which in turn influence their buying behaviour (Batra, et al., 1990). Evidences regarding meat and meat substitutes are clearly provided by previous studies, and the most relevant findings can be summarised in term of actual behavioural pattern and overall consumers evaluations.

First of all, the current consumers’ behaviour reveals a clear superiority for meat products in term of consumption frequency, with a three or more times per week for meat-based meals against two or less times per week for meat substitutes (Aurelia, 2002). By comparing market shares of these categories, it can be seen that meat substitutes shows a lower percentage, ranging between 1% and 2% compared to meat (De Bakker, et al., 2010). Further, considering the value that consumer associate to these categories, it has been reported that the consumption of meat is strongly associated with an high hedonic values (Graça, et al., 2015) such as experiencing fun, amusement, fantasy and sensory stimulation (Babin, et al., 1994). Conversely, advocated of vegetarianism had reported utilitarian associations, related with the adoption of a less carnivorous diet, such as: personal health, concern with cruelty to animals, matters for world hunger, and concern with damage to the environment (Dietz, et al., 1995).

13 sustainable features (Baroni, et al., 2007). In support to the assumption reported above, several authors reported that meat substitutes stayed behind in overall product evaluation, particularly in the sensory appreciation, as well as over different attributes such as price and luxury (Aiking, et al., 2006; McIlveen, et al., 1999; Van der Lans, 2001).

One of the main reasons that might help to explain the differences among these two goods, is the consumers’ familiarity and awareness. While meat substitutes are products relatively new for the market (Sadler, 2004), the consumption of meat-based meals is deeply embedded to the eating habits across several countries and cultures (de Boer, 2006; Parfitt, et al., 2010).

To sum up, besides the cultural embeddedness, products that are meant to replace meat, such as: tofu, soya and other vegetable protein, score significantly low in term of overall consumers’ quality perception, which it has been widely defined as one of the most important dimension toward forecasting consumers’ willingness to buy (or to pay) during shopping situations (Tsiotsou, 2006; Van Doorn, et al., 2010).

2.2 Overview of existing Eco-labelling system

Attempts aimed to solve issues related with food wastage and household consumption, have ranged from green taxes and the definition of property rights to strict bans and other regulatory measures (Gallastegui, 2002). However recently, ‘environmental labelling’ or ‘eco-labelling’ systems have been reported as one of the most prominent measures to facilitate more sustainable behavioural patterns, by providing consumers’ relevant ethical information of the good, aimed to influence their subsequent purchasing intentions (Dendler, 2014).

Studies show that only few consumers have an high awareness or comprehension of the real sustainable characteristics of products (Vermeir, et al., 2006). The main reasons behind this trend is the poor communication of the benefits carried by this goods to consumers, in such a way that they are unable to make informed purchasing decisions and to acknowledge for the related implications on the food supply chain (Dickson, 2001; Verbeke, 2005). In other words, the less information available and/or the more complex and contradictory this information is, the more uncertain consumers may be regarding what products to choose. Labelling systems, or more specifically eco-friendly labels, can generally be described as the product related information that seeks to inform consumers about the effects on the environment of the production, consumption and waste phases of the products/services consumed (Gallastegui, 2002).

14 used in B2B contexts, Type III labels, which use pre-set indices and give quantified information about products based on independent verification, are rarely found in environmental fields (Zarrilli, et al., 1997). Type I label is instead reported as the label more likely to carry eco-sustainable claim for non-durable goods, and according to Gallastegui (2002) they can be described as products of third party certification programmes, usually government supported and voluntary. The main objective of Type I label is to certify both products and production processes by clearly providing information related to the entire life cycle of the product, and also by comparing them with other alternative within the same category (Gallastegui, 2002). Consequently, it seeks to encourage the actors within the food supply chain, such as producers, retailers and governments to increase the environmental standards of products/services, hence generating a strong sense of corporate social responsibility among business entities (Acquaye, et al., 2015).

Besides these reported positive outcome, the study of Grunert, (2011), which analysed the eco-labelled food market from a consumers perspective, reported six main barriers toward the exploitation of labelled information, which specifically are: (i) exposure does not lead to perception (some consumers may simply do not notice the label, because most purchases are made habitually); (ii) perception leads only to peripheral processing (consumers do not spend effort in understanding the label’s mean); (iii) consumers make ‘wrong’ inferences (they see the label, make effort to understand the meaning, but draw the wrong inferences); (iv) eco-information is traded off against other criteria (e.g. the price may be higher, the taste is not good, the family prefers something else); (v) lack of awareness and/or credibility (consumers who want to make sustainable choices may find it hard to carry them out in practice); and (vi) lack of motivation at time of choice (while consumes have a positive attitude towards sustainability, this attitude is not so strong that it affects behaviour in all situations where sustainability may be a criterion). As a result, even when consumers are motivated to and willing to consume more eco-friendly products, they have little access to a product's overall environmental quality and have to rely on heuristics or rule of thumbs for making their purchasing decisions, such as whether a product is organic or local (Scheibehenne, et al., 2007).

As a confirmation of the study above, other investigations revealed that there is a large contrast between the actual labelled goods features versus consumer’s objective knowledge and perception of labels (Verbeke, et al., 1999; Verbeke, et al., 2006), as well as, that consumers, due to lack of time and financial resources, during the purchase situation prioritise other aspects, such as price and quality, rather than sustainable features (Neergaard, et al., 2002)

15 can lead to an increase of the consumers’ understanding and response toward labelled information. Specifically these data are relative to the product’s environmental impact in term of: global warming potential, primary energy use, water use, land and pesticide use. Although stand-alone environmental indicators such as the carbon and water footprint or traceability information, are becoming increasingly popular (Kehagia, et al., 2007; Lin, et al., 2014), they do not provide to consumers a clear indication of the overall environmental impact since they are a trade-offs between CO2-emissions, water and land use (Gerbens-Leenes, et al., 2003). Likewise, other marketing scholars found that the existing labelling schemes too often emphasize only one single environmentally relevant factor, such as whether a product is organic, its carbon emissions or its place of origin (Van Amstel, et al., 2008; Grunert, et al., 2014).

With the same aim and following the suggestions above, Dendler (2014) reported as one possible approach, the creation of a single labelling program that includes an easily recognized mark, a rating system to compare products (e.g. four stars ranking scale), an environmental nutrition label to provide additional information for experienced environmental purchasing professionals and an online database of additional environmental factors for experts. It has been reported that when environmental product declarations provides detailed information in addition to comprehensive and quantitative data regarding the product’s whole life cycle, consumers seem to prioritise the environmental aspect of a product, and furthermore, such insights are expected to trigger positive judgements about the reliability of the label (Palm, et al., 1998; Solér, 2001).

Considering the findings reported above, it can be assumed that the implementation of some form of ‘meta’ scheme that condenses existing product labels and other communication measures into an overarching sustainability message, could be a feasible approach to increase the consumers’ accessibility to eco-labelled features (Dendler, 2014). However, it has been proved that the adoption of an eco-label, not always mean the acquisition of the correspondent eco-labelled product (Thøgersen, 2002).

Eco-labels are tools for assisting consumers in their decision-making, hence, a consumer who has adopted an eco-label, will repeatedly and consistently considers the labelled information when choosing products in a certain category. According to several marketing scholars, in order to forecast whether product the consumer will choose, the overall consumers’ quality evaluations toward the item and its related category, become one of the most critic dimension to measure (Tsiotsou, 2006).

16 2.3 Consumers’ Overall Quality Perception toward Sustainable food

This concept is one of the most explored within the marketing literature, and the reason why it holds such huge interest from scholars of marketing, is primarily related to its centrality for consumers’ purchasing intentions and behaviour.

Perceived quality has been defined as the consumer’s judgment about a product’s overall excellence or superiority (Tsiotsou, 2006), and it has been clearly differentiated from the concept of objective quality. While objective quality refers to the actual technical excellence of the product that can be verified and measured (Monroe, et al., 1985), perceived product quality is a global assessment of the preference toward the item itself, that are characterized by a high abstraction level and referring to a specific consumption setting (Zeithaml, 1988). In other words, perceived product quality represents all the perceptions that consumers feel about the product relatively to a determinate context (e.g. shopping situation).

Although it has been demonstrated that overall perceived product quality is an antecedent of consumers’ buying intention, as well as consumers’ satisfaction (Tsiotsou, 2006), within existing literature, references about how consumers value ethical and sustainable product’s characteristics are very scarce and usually contradicting.

Broadly, it can be seen that sustainability is not always an asset, even if most consumers care about social and environmental issues (Luchs, et al., 2010). In support of the statement above, and as mentioned in the previous section, besides consumers view sustainable products positively, on the other hand, there is evidence that increasing product ethicality may not always increase preference, neither overall quality perception.

17 As possible resolution of these confounding papers, more recently Luchs et al., (2010) propose that the degree to which sustainability enhances preference, depends on the type of benefit consumers most value for the product category in question. Thus, the level of consumer’s perceptions will depend on consumer’s personal need, values, and category’ most valued attributes. Specifically, the research was based on the idea that ethical and sustainable messages can carry with them the associations of being “gentle”, while contrarily, the absence of such features is mostly related with being an individual strongly concerned with personal goals and success, even if it comes at a cost to others (Kanov, et al., 2004). The concept explained above is the theory of socio-cultural messages, and according to Luchs et al., (2010), it can be transferred to the context of product judgement. As main finding, this paper reveal that within product categories where gentleness-related attributes were valued, ethical and sustainable features becomes an assets enhancing consumers’ evaluations and preferences; while on the other side, in product categories in which strength-related attributes were valued, sustainability could be a liability that may undermine the consumer’s buying intentions.

To summarize, it can be assumed that associations with ethicality and sustainability will differentially drive preference for sustainable products, depending on the primary benefits ought in the product category. For this reason it is expected that the labelled information may influence consumers differently, in regard of whether food category the labelled product belongs to.

3 CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESIS 3.1 Conceptual model

The central cornerstone for this paper is the perspective by which, among high-medium income countries, the environmental impact, which is mainly related to consumers’ consumption and disposal behaviour, could be lowered by a shift toward more sustainable behavioural patterns (Carrigan, et al., 2001; Hoek, et al., 2004).

18 Barcos, et al., 2013). Therefore, in the last decades, both at the national (e.g. in Sweden, France, UK, Germany, Taiwan, Korea, USA) and at the company level (e.g. Tesco, Boots, Walkers, Timberland, Casino etc.), numerous eco-friendly labels have been created and/or implemented (Dendler, 2014). As a result, the current eco-label index already lists 460 ecolabels in 197 countries, and 25 industry sectors, focusing on sustainability related issues (http://www.ecolabelindex.com//). According to several researches, the multitude and the high degree of diversity across all labels carrying product’s related sustainable information are both those factors which make difficult for consumers the utilization of such insights as a reliable standard to differentiate between dirty and green products and to evaluate the overall quality of the item (Van Amstel, et al., 2008; Lozano, et al., 2010; Schumacher, 2010).

Since eco-labelling systems that are actually employed within the market show a low level of understanding among consumers, as well as an high level of inefficiency especially for specific categories (Dendler, 2014; Gallastegui, 2002; Grunert, et al., 2014; Luchs, et al., 2010), as seen in figure 1, the study assumes that the application of a more accessible and understandable eco-friendly label (“Zero-Impact”) may increase the effectiveness of environmental information resulting in higher consumers’ overall quality perception, which in turn it is expected to boost the consumers’ purchasing intentions toward the labelled good.

Specifically for this paper, consumer’s overall quality perception has been defined as the opposite concept of objective product quality, which mainly refers to the actual technical excellence of the product that can be verified and measured (Monroe, et al., 1985), while this concept is mostly related with extrinsic cues of the product (such as provenience, CO2 emission, etc.).

19 motivation to buy the item, for relative virtue category, environmental information may enhance the consumers’ inferences of quality and, in turn, their intentions to buy the item.

To sum up, the current research considers that the presence of an eco-friendly label may drive consumers’ buying intentions toward more sustainable consumption patterns, by triggering the overall quality perceptions toward less impactful goods, with an expected variation across different types of food.

3.2 The impact of “Zero-Impact” label’s presence on Overall Quality Perception

Although the definition of eco-friendly label relates most to a means to inform and persuade consumers towards consumption of more sustainable products, few scholars believe that in the current market, labelled information is becoming one central element for the product quality evaluation.

Prior studies have posited that consumers are increasingly paying attention to credence quality attribute, (Steenkamp, 1990), due to a growing concerns among society in regard of concepts as: food safety, healthiness, convenience, locality, traceability, ethicality, animal welfare, etc. (Corcoran, et al., 2001; Issanchou, 1996; Wandel, et al., 1997). Specifically, credence quality attribute has been defined as the good’s characteristics that cannot be determined with the usage of the product, because instead of being relates with the physical and experiential features of the item (e.g. tastiness, colour, etc.), these attributes are deeply rooted into the social and ethical aspects of

Zero-Impact Label

Overall Perceived

_{product Quality}

Buying Intentions

Vice and Virtue categories

H1; H2 _H4

20 the product and its related life cycle (Vermeir, et al., 2006; Becker, 2000). The research of Olson et al., (1972) reported that such information was found to be viewed as the dominant means for communicating to consumers the quality level of the product, and furthermore Becker (2000) demonstrates that when credence quality attributes are communicated throughout labelled information, the label acts as a trusted extrinsic cue, becoming the search of quality available at the time of shopping. For instance, it has been reported that traceability information is viewed as an indispensable tool for assuring consumers in regard to the product safety and quality standards (Verbeke, 2001).

Considering the reasoning above, as well as the features reported throughout the “Zero-Impact” label (carbon emissions, traceability information, energy, water, land and resources exploitations), it can be assumed that the application of this new eco-labelling systems have the potential to deliver more value to consumers (Bernues, et al., 2003; Hobbs, et al., 2005; Verbeke and Ward, 2005), by fulfilling their needs for credible and reliable information (Verbeke, 2001). However, as reported within existing literature, in order to evaluate consumers’ willingness to buy (or to pay) food product, the effect of sustainable and ethical clues may depend strongly on whether product category is take into account (Hui, et al., 2009; Milkman, et al., 2008; Mishra, et al., 2011; Van Doorn, et al., 2010).

According to these findings, the current theoretical framework supposes that the impact of sustainable and ethical labelled information on overall quality perception depends critically on the product type, in particular whether the product is vice (meat) or virtue (meat substitutes). Although these items are perfect alternatives of each other in terms of nutritional quality (Baroni, et al., 2007), usually they are perceived as really different by consumers under several perspectives, such as overall consumption evaluation, quality perception and ethical features (Hoek, et al., 2011).

21 the “Zero-Impact” label could become a liability within a category as vice food, in which hedonic and strength-related values (such as: fun, enjoyment, power, tastiness) are the most considered for evaluating products (Luchs, et al., 2010). In line with the reported findings:

H1(a): The presence of the “Zero-Impact” label negatively influences the consumer’s quality perception for relative vice products, such as meat.

On the contrary, for the virtue category (meat substitutes) it is expected a positive effect arising from the presence of ethical claim and sustainable information. If gentle-related values are the criteria on which consumers rely the most for making evaluation for a specific category of product, the “Zero-Impact” label could be an asset that results in an increased consumers preferences toward the product, which will be perceived as having more quality (Luchs, et al., 2010).

Therefore, contrarily to the meat condition, the congruity between product type and its utilitarian claim will lead to a greater consumer’s liking toward the goods:

H1(b): The presence of an eco-friendly label positively influences the consumer’s quality perception for relative virtue products, such as meat-substitutes.

3.3 The impact of a “Zero-Impact” label on consumers’ buying intentions for meat and meat substitutes

In order to investigate the potential effect originated by the exploitation of sustainable labelled information without considering the overall consumers’ quality perceptions, this model will analyse the consumer’s purchasing intentions for both less impactful products, as his/her implicit willingness to shift eating habits toward more sustainable behaviour. As reported in the literature section, sustainable behaviour is defined as a decision-making process that takes into account the consumers’ social responsibility, in addition to individual needs and wants (Meulenberg, 2003), and also that it is linked to personal values, such as universalism, benevolence, honesty, idealism, equality, freedom, and responsibility (Vermeir, et al., 2006).

22 purchasing decisions are embedded with their history of behaviours, which strongly influences future actions and decisions (Bargh, 2006). Numerous research suggest that preferences among alternatives can be affected systematically by consumers' prior actions (Dhar, et al., 1999; Novemsky, et al., 2005). In other words, it can be assumed that not all exposures have the same priming effect resulting in purchasing of the green product or acting morally; conversely other processes, relative with prior actions, such has licensing, can negate or even replace the priming effect (Monin, et al., 2001; Sachdeva, et al., 2009).

As an example, the process of moral licensing is defined as the context in which people are under the risk that their next action may be (or may be perceived) as morally dubious, thus individuals can derive confidence from their past moral behaviour, such that an impeccable track record increases their propensity to engage in otherwise suspect actions (Merritt, et al., 2010).

According to the process of moral licensing, as well as to the priming effect generated by the mere exposure to green products, it can be assumed that the sustainable traits of the “Zero-Impact” label may result in different consumers’ purchasing intentions across relative vice and virtue food categories. It has been demonstrated that meat substitutes represent the most ethical and prudent choice in terms of environmental sustainability attributes compared to meat, scoring higher on every eco-friendly dimensions (Baroni, et al., 2007; Carrigan, et al., 2001; Milkman, et al., 2008). Thus, it can be assumed that the purchasing and consumption of these goods are more likely to be associated with moral and ethical behavioural patterns, meaning that for these products the mere exposure to the label has the potentiality to enhance consumers’ pro-social behaviour. In line with these considerations:

H2(a): The presence of a “Zero-Impact” label will result in a higher level of consumers’ buying intentions for relative virtues food (meat substitutes), compared with the unlabelled product

condition.

Conversely, the consumption of relative vice food, as meat product, represents a more self-interested action that is more likely to be associated with immoral or unethical acts. Moreover, it is assumed that the risk to appear immoral to others, leads consumers to behave in a subsequent positive action in order to restore or maintain the self-moral image. This process has been called compensation or cleansing (Blanken, et al., 2014; Mazar, et al., 2010; Merritt, et al., 2010).

23

H2(b): The presence of a “Zero-Impact” label will result in a higher level of consumers’ buying intentions for relative vices food (meat), compared with the unlabelled product condition.

4 METHODOLOGY 4.1 Study Design

The aim of the current study is to investigate to what extent the presence of labelled sustainable information may influence the consumer’s buying intention, respectively for a relative vice (meat) and virtue food (meat substitutes). The model assumes that the potential effect arising from the label could firstly influence the consumers’ overall quality perception, which subsequently may result in higher purchasing intentions. Specifically the independent variable (Zero-Impact label) it is expected to influence the consumers’ quality perception, as well as, their overall buying intentions, differently across food categories.

For the reasons reported above, the study consists in a factorial 2 (Zero-Impact label versus no Zero-Impact label) by 2 (Meat versus Meat Substitutes) between participants design (as seen in table 1), in order to avoid confounding variable due for instance to the sequence effects, order effects and practice effects (McFerran, et al. 2010).

With the aim to collect the data needed to test the validity of the hypotheses formulated, an online survey was conducted, precisely during the month of November.

Table 1: Study design 2 by 2 between participants

Moreover, participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions of the experiment, to ensure the validity of the results (Aronson, et al., 1998). For each different condition, participants were exposed either to a meat or a meat substitutes product, with or without the Zero-Impact label. Subsequently, they were asked to express their quality perception and buying intention. Two different products, beef-burgers and vegetarian-burgers, were showed respectively to participants in order to measure to what extent the characteristics of the conditions were likely to influence consumers’ evaluation (see Appendix 1 and Appendix 2).

Meat Meat Substitutes

Zero-Impact Label Condition 1 Condition 2

24 4.2 Sample and Data Collection

The study was conducted with the help of an online platform, which permits a complete autonomy, anonymity, user-friendliness on answering the questions, and the involvement of people with a sufficient knowledge of technology (Malhotra, et. al., 2007). Furthermore, respondents were selected through the use of social network (e.g. Facebook and Linkedln), and then they were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions of the experiment. Accordingly, they were divided in 4 different groups: two Treatment Groups which were asked to evaluate the labelled items, and two Control Groups assigned to the assessment of the products without the eco-friendly label. Considering the design selected for the research, 160 participants were required to complete the questionnaire and to validate the forecasted hypotheses.

4.2.1 Questionnaire and Stimuli

In this section the questionnaire is presented in terms of its structure, measurements and stimuli. Overall the online survey consisted in twelve different questions grouped in eight specific blocks. While the first and the last blocks were aimed to introduce and conclude the survey, and the second was tailored to randomly assign respondent to one condition (as seen Appendix 2), the other five were set with the purpose of respectively assessing one of each dimensions considered within the conceptual model. Furthermore, an overview of these dimensions is provided to summarise the selected scale and each corresponding measurement.

Concept Items Scale Source

Dependent Variable:

Purchasing Intentions

- I would like to try this product. 7 point Likert scale anchored by strongly disagree to

strongly agree.

(Mayers, et al., 1997)

- I would be willing to buy this product if I happened to see it in a store.

- I am likely to seek out for this product with the aim to purchase it.

- I would patronize this product. - Please indicate on the response scale from 0 to 10 to which extent you would be willing to purchase the product evaluated previously. 11 point scale anchored by 0 (No chance) to 10 (Certain). (Thomas F., 1966) Mediator:

Product's overall quality Evaluation

25

- This is a high quality product. 7 point Likert scale anchored by strongly disagree to

strongly agree. - This product is (1) not at all healthy to

(7) very healthy.

- This product is very much suited as part of a healthy diet.

- This product delivers an important contribution to my health.

- All in all, I would be satisfied with this product.

7 point Likert scale anchored by strongly disagree to

strongly agree.

(Homburg, et al., 2005)

- This product is likely to meet my expectations.

- This product is likely to provide an ideal consumption experience. - Overall, I would be completely satisfied with this product.

- This product has been prepared in an environmentally friendly way.

7 point Likert scale anchored by strongly disagree to

strongly agree.

(Lindeman M., et al, 2000)

- This product has been produced in a way which has not shaken the balance of nature.

- This product has been produced in a way that animals‘ rights have been respected.

Control Variable:

Environmental concern

- We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.

(Dunlap, et al., 2000) - When humans interfere with nature it

often produces disastrous consequences. - Humans are severely abusing the environment.

- Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.

- The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations.

- Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature. - The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated.

26

- If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.

Control Variable:

Health consciousness

- I try to protect myself against health hazards I hear about.

(Moorman, 1990) - I am concerned about health hazards

and try to take action to prevent them. - I try to prevent health problems before I feel any symptoms.

- I don't worry about health hazards until they become a problem for me or someone close to me.

- There are so many things that can hurt you these days. I'm not going to worry about them.

- I often worry about the health hazards I hear about, but don't do anything about them.

- I don't take any action against health hazards I hear about until I know I have a problem.

- I'd rather enjoy life than try to make sure I'm not exposing myself to a health hazard.

- I don't think health hazards I hear about will happen to me.

Control Variable:

Demographic

- What is your age? (Govindasamy&

Italia, 1999) - What is your gender?

- What is your level of education? - What is your actual occupation? Table 2: Scales and Measurements

4.3 Plan of analysis

The data in analysis will be processed through Spss predictive analytics software, which enables to test and measure the influence existing between the variables taken into account. The statistical investigation follows a step-wise approach, which development is explained in the following stage.

4.3.1 Reliability and Factor Analysis

27 internal consistency of the scale and thus validate the scores reported for each measured dimensions. Moreover, a factor analysis will be performed to further assess the quality of the scales. Once that the validity of the measurements is confirmed, the average scores of the multiple items for each variable will be calculated, in order to be used in subsequent analyses.

4.3.2 Multiple Regression Analysis

Five different models will be created in order to precisely reveal those effects that are relevant for answering the research questions of the thesis. The models can be described as follow:

 Model 1: it takes into account the independent variable (label) in addition to the control variables of the model, while considering consumers’ buying intentions as outcome of the model. The actual objective is to test the direct effect of the conceptual model;

 Model 2: in addition to the first model, it takes also in consideration the effect arising from different category of food in combination with the label, while maintaining consumers’ buying intention as dependent variable;

 Model 3 (a and b): this model is tailored to investigate the role played by consumers’ overall quality perception in relation to the presence of the label across category of food and also to the relative consumer’s buying intentions. Furthermore, it consists in two separate sub-models: while within the “3.a” is measured the consumers’ quality perception in term of presence (vs. Absence) of label, while, within the “3.b” these two dimensions are taken into account together in order to measure how they are likely to influence consumers’ buying intention toward the items;

 Model 4: the last model is aimed to assess to what extent the effect studied in the previous model is likely to change across type of food.

According to the results of the analysis, which will be presented in the next section, the hypothesis of the study will be validated consequently. As a conclusion, the managerial implication, limitation of the paper and suggestions for further research will be provided.

5 RESULTS

28 and the data collected. Secondly, the results of the reliability analysis, which examines the internal consistency of the scales will be represented. Moreover, the main output of the factor analysis will be mentioned. Subsequently, the data resulting by the 5 different multiple regression analyses will be discussed. Finally, the hypotheses validation will indicate which of the hypotheses formulated in the third chapter are supported and which are rejected.

5.1 Descriptive Statistics

Overall, 160 respondents completed correctly the questionnaire, distributed through Facebook and Linkedln. The questionnaire was available for three days and was opened by 265 people. However, only 160 respondents were selected since they completed entirely the questionnaire and, therefore, can be used for the analysis. The socio-demographics characteristics of the 160 respondents are provided in table 3.

Attribute Levels Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 74 46,25%

Female 86 53,75%

tot. 160 100

Age Lower than 25 63 39,38%

25 - 50 93 58,12%

Over 50 4 2,5%

tot. 160 100

Level of Education High School 24 15%

Bachelor Degree 88 55%

Master degree, PhD, etc... 48 30%

29

Actual Occupation Student 78 48,75%

Employed 62 38,75%

Self-employed / Entrepreneur 16 10%

Unemployed 4 2,5%

Retired 0 0

tot. 160 100

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics

The sample consists of 74 males (46,25%) and 86 females (53,75%). The majority ofthe respondents is lower than 50 years old (97,50%) and is endowed with a bachelor (55%) or master degree (30%). In conclusion, the actual occupation for the majority of the sample is student (48,75%) followed by employed which ranges around 38%. Furthermore, the mean and the standard deviation of the scores on the various constructs of the questionnaire are calculated, taking in consideration the constructs derived from the previous researches (see table 4).

5.2 Reliability and Factor Analysis

Since all the items used within the research are based on previous studies already validated, it can be assumed that the scales measure the examined variables reliably. However, the reliability analysis has to be performed in order to check the internal consistency of the scales. Finally, a factor analysis will be performed to examine how the factors solution would change and to double check the reliability of the scales.

5.2.1 Cronbach’s Alpha

30 variable of that scale. Hence, the Cronbach’s Alpha for all the scales of the actual research with more than 1 item was executed; herewith it can be seen the results of the analysis:

Factor Cronbach’s Alpha Improvements Means Standard Deviation

Overall Quality Perceptions

0,941 4,98 1,619

Buying Intentions 0,933 Item 1 deleted 4,73 1,842

Environmental Concern

0,812 Items 5 and 7 deleted

5,18 1,304

Health Concern 0,851 Items 1, 2, 3 deleted

3,87 1,461

Table 4:Reliability Analysis.

Table 5 shows that overall, the alpha scores above 0,8 meaning that the minimum level for accepting the scale has been respected. However, as reported within the last column (Improvements), looking at the “Cronbach’s Alpha If Item deleted”, those items that showed an high score has been deleted in order to further increase the internal consistency for each construct. Specifically, deleting Item 1 within the second dimension increased the Cronbach’s Alpha from 0.902 to 0.933; for the scale of environmental concern, the exclusion of Item 5 and 7 would increase the Cronbach’s Alpha from 0.689 in the first test to 0.812; and lastly, the Health Concern measurement was reduced of 3 items, with an increase from 0.608 to 0.851 in term of internal consistency. To sum up, it can be stated that all the items that are take into account hold a great level of internal consistency and, moreover are able to represent each specific variables.

5.2.2 Factor Analysis

31 factor analysis should yield reliable and distinct factors. In addition, the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Sig. = 0,000) revealed that the factor analysis is appropriate for these data. By analyzing the results and especially looking at the scree plot, a 4 factors’ solution is chosen. Looking at the loading of the rotated component matrix, it can be seen a strong similarity with the previous division made according to the literature (see Appendix 3). Indeed, almost every item is split in the same way. Finally, according to Cronbach’s Alpha and Factor analysis, the reliability of each scale was proved, thus all the items have internal consistency, and thus are able to represent the specific variables.

5.3 Multiple Regressions

As reported within the Methodology section, in order to test the effects expected within the conceptual model, five different models has been tested separately. Below is reported an overview of the results for each model.

Factor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3.a Model 3.b Model 4

Label 0,150* 0,347* 0,169* 0,023 (n.s) 0,562* Product Category 0,347* 0,562* Label*product category -0,344* -0,685* OverallQualityPerception 0,681* EnvironmentalConcern 0,299* 0,305* 0,214* 0,214* HealthConsciousness 0,125 (n.s.) 0,095 (n.s) 0,233 0,171 (n.s) R2 0,129 0,19 0,133 0,468 0,314 R2 adjusted 0,112 0,163 0,117 0,462 0,291 F (Significance) 7,704 7,211 8,01 69,191 14,082 n.s. = not significant ; *= p < 0,05

Table 5: Overview of models’ regression analysis

32 beta coefficient of 0.150. Considering the control variable of the model, it can be seen that while the level of environmental concern of consumers had a significant positive effect on purchasing intention (p-value < 0.05; standardised beta coefficient = 0,299), the consumer’s level of health consciousness resulted to be not significant. This can be due to the fact that the majority of participants were young students, whom usually rely more on other aspects in order to make a purchasing decisions.

The second model considers, in addition to the first, the effect arising from different category of food in combination with the presence of the label, while maintaining as outcome variable consumers’ buying intentions. The multiple regressions revealed that, firstly also the second model is overall significant (Sig = 0.000; F = 6.922, R-squared = 0.190) and secondly that, as forecasted in the third chapter, the effect exerted by the presence (vs. absence) of an eco-friendly label on the consumers’ intentions to purchase a food item is likely to change across vice and virtue category. Indeed, in addition to the significant effect of label and environmental concern, it was found a significant moderator effect arising from whether the labelled food was relative vice or virtue. Looking at table 7, it can be seen that for the relative vice item the application of the “Zero-Impact” label resulted in a decreased level of purchasing intentions compared to the control condition. Contrarily, within the virtue condition, participants reported a stronger intention to buy only for the labelled item. In conclusion, the highest VIF was equal to 1.033 indicating a low multicollinearity within the model.

33 The third model was divided in two sub-models in order to assess the potential mediator role played by the overall consumers’ quality perception toward the product. As reported previously, since the direct effect was already verified (Model 1), while the first part of the model measures the effect between the label and the level of quality inferences that consumers make toward the product, the second includes the consumers’ intentions to buy the specific item, as dependent variable.

The first analysis’ outcome reported that the model created was overall significant (Sig .< 0.000; F = 8.01; R-squared = 0.133), while the standardized beta coefficient revealed a significant positive effect on the dependent variable for each dimensions considered. This means that the presence of the label may increase the consumers’ overall quality perception (0.169), and that this effect may be greater when an individual care about the environment (0.214) and about his/her health (0.233). Also the second model was found to be overall significant (Sig. = 0.000) with the highest amount of explained variance, as the demonstrated R-squared was equal to 0.468. Furthermore, looking at the standardized beta coefficient reported, it can be seen that, by including the consumers` overall quality perception in combination with the label, the already tested significant relation between the label and consumers’ buying intentions, became not significant. As reported in table above, while quality perceptions are reported to have a strong positive effect on consumers’ buying intentions (0.681), the reported P-value for the label was equal to 0.700, meaning that the effect exerted by the presence (vs. absence) of the Zero-Impact label is fully mediated by the level of overall quality perception, that consumers hold toward a product. To conclude, the F-value measured was equal to 69.191 and the highest VIF amounted to 1.053, confirming the absence of multicollinearity among the dimensions analysed.

34

Table 7: Overall Quality Perception for relative vice and virtue category

5.4 Hypotheses Validation

Based on the results of the analysis performed, the results of the hypotheses generated in chapter 3 are provided, as shown in the table 8 presented below.

Hypothesis Results

H1(a): The presence of the “Zero-Impact” label negatively influences the consumer’s quality perception for relative vices

product, as meat goods.

SUPPORTED

H1(b): The presence of an eco-friendly label positively influences the consumer’s quality perception for relative virtue product, as

meat-substitutes goods.

SUPPORTED

H2(a): The presence of a “Zero-Impact” label will result in a higher level of consumers’ buying intentions for relative virtues food (meat substitutes), compared with the unlabelled product condition.

SUPPORTED

H2(b): The presence of a “Zero-Impact” label will result in a higher level of consumers’ buying intentions for relative vices food (meat),

compared with the unlabelled product condition.

NOT SUPPORTED

35 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The aim of this study was to investigate deeply the barriers that consumers perceive for shifting their eating habits toward a more sustainable consumption patterns, that are usually defined as the “Attitude-Behavioural gap” (Vermeir, et al., 2006). Specifically, it tested whether the presence of an eco-friendly label may increase consumers’ overall quality perception and, subsequently, their relative purchasing intentions toward more sustainable food.

In this chapter will be discussed the hypotheses formulated previously, based on the results. Starting from answering the research questions of the paper, will be provided a general discussion of the results together with the validated hypotheses of the model. Second, the managerial implication derived from the results will be presented, and finally, the limitations of the study and the suggestions for further research will be discussed.

6.1 General Discussion

In line with expectations, this paper demonstrated that an eco-friendly label carrying the products’ related lifecycle information has the potentiality to enhance a shift toward a more sustainable patterns of food consumptions (Grankvist, et al., 2007; Vlaeminck, et al., 2014). Specifically, it demonstrates that the presence of the Zero-Impact label is likely to increase consumers’ purchasing intention toward a more sustainable food product, by directly influencing their product’s overall quality perception.

However, it has been demonstrated that the exposure to such a label (as the Zero-Impact) influences consumers differently across different categories of product. While for the relative vice product, the wholesomeness carried by the eco-friendly label leaded consumers to make less positive quality inferences, considering the relative virtue choice, it assured the features claimed by the label resulting in a greater level of consumers’ overall quality perception.

36 A potential reason behind this effect could be related to the definition of moral licensing and the actual procedures of this research. According to Merrit et al., (2010), moral licensing is defined as the context in which people are under the risk that their next action may be (or may be perceived) as morally dubious. However, considering that the survey was conducted online and anonymously, it is plausible that only few respondents experienced the above reported social pressure.

To summarize all the considerations above, the manipulated eco-friendly label, presented as Zero-Impact, was likely to increase the consumers’ purchasing intentions toward a relative virtue products, by directly arising its relative overall quality perception held by consumers. This could mean that, a more accessible and intuitive label scheme is likely to serve as trusted extrinsic cue, becoming for consumers the search of quality on which rely during shopping situations (Bernues, et al., 2003; Hobbs, et al., 2005; Verbeke and Ward, 2005). Furthermore it can be a tool assuring the consumers empowerment, which is the process of educating consumers in order to be completely autonomous and responsible for their consumption decisions (Thøgersen, 2005).

6.2 Managerial Implications

This study provides some relevant findings for governments and actors implicated with the management and regulation of the food market, from production to distribution, all along its supply chain. In specific, the following analysis empirically demonstrated that the application of an eco-friendly label carrying product’s related environmental information may become an important asset enhancing consumers’ quality perception and buying intentions toward a relative virtue food, as reported for the manipulated vegetarian burger. Starting from this perspective and considering the main findings reported in the results section, the actual study may represent the starting point for further analysis for the identification of market opportunities, by the definition and creation of a new segment within the food market.

While looking at a long term horizon, the analysed sample, which is characterize by a majority of young people (lower than 25 years old) international students (bachelor and master degree) and employed, can be considered as the new emerging green consumers, the generation that will become the future households’ groceries decisions makers (D'Souza, 2004). Under this point of view, the applications of the label could have several positive implication at the individual and aggregate levels.