Carbon labeling and consumer attitudes

Abstract

Background: There is growing pressure in some of New Zealand’s export markets for product information on sustainability credentials and on carbon emissions with several schemes under development worldwide. The aim of this study is to assess in two key markets consumer attitudes, knowledge and preferences towards sustainability; including carbon emissions information on food products. Method: Focus groups and surveys in the UK and Japan. Results: This study finds evidence that consumers in both countries desire labels that display sustainability credentials. Differences were observed between countries in terms of perceived knowledge about specific issues. Similar preferences for environmental product features were observed. Conclusion: The information gained from this study may support producers’ and manufacturers’ labeling policy and practices.

Figure 1.  Consumer preferences for environmental label claims.

Chi-squared test for H₀: no differences between country distributions, rejected for all cases.

Figure 2.  Knowledge of participants of various environmental and social issues.

Chi-squared test for H₀: no differences between country distributions, rejected for all cases.

Many consumers are concerned about the environmental and social impacts of the products they purchase, and seek out products that have sustainability credentials that can be verified [1,2]. One credential that has recently been introduced is the carbon emissions from the production of food shown on a carbon label[101]. There are several schemes of carbon labels under development worldwide.

Values, attitudes and perceptions on environmental and sustainability issues have been investigated in a large number of studies worldwide [1,3]; however, only a few studies have been published on how consumers evaluate sustainability credentials of food products, including carbon emission information and carbon labeling, and even fewer studies have examined cross-country comparisons [4–6]. This article aims to assess consumer attitudes towards the display of carbon emissions and how this relates to other sustainability credentials of food products in the UK and Japan, as these are key export markets for New Zealand. New Zealand depends heavily on its agricultural exports; increasing pressure in key export markets such as the UK and Japan for information on sustainability credentials of products, including the carbon emissions associated with products throughout the product life cycle, has the potential to affect domestic production and trade in New Zealand. This research is part of a wider research study that also includes a choice modeling analysis estimating consumers’ willingness to pay for sustainability credentials on food labels [7]. In this article the working definition of sustainability is derived from most cited definition provided by the UN World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” and therefore encompasses environmental, economic and social dimensions [8]. GHG emissions are assumed to include all sources of emissions and are measured in CO₂-e throughout this article.

The article is structured as follows: the next section presents an overview of the development and use of carbon labeling; the development of these labels are then assessed and compared with other sustainability credentials and consumer attitudes towards these; the methodology of the study is then outlined, followed by a presentation and discussion of the results; finally, brief conclusions are made.

Development of carbon labels & consumer attitudes

This section reviews the development of carbon labeling with a brief account of their source and methodology to provide context to their introduction and likely development. This is followed by a review of the literature on the response of consumers to carbon labeling alongside other sustainability credentials.

The introduction and development of labeling of sustainability credentials has arisen from changes in consumer attitudes and purchase behaviors alongside retailers marketing strategies, and is continuing to grow [1]. More recently, carbon labeling has been introduced to reflect a particular sustainability credential and relates to concern about climate change. As these new carbon labels evolve, it is important to understand how these affect consumers purchasing decisions as well as how the display of carbon emissions is evaluated alongside other sustainability credentials on labels to enable producers to react accordingly.

▪ Carbon labels & their development

Most carbon labels inform the consumer of the amount of CO₂ embedded in a product. These are typically presented in numerical form and may include information about emissions reductions being achieved in the product’s distribution [9]. A carbon label aids consumers to make an informed choice and to understand the carbon footprints of products or services they purchase [10,11,102]. However, the methodology used to calculate these emissions varies between labels. Brief discussions of these methodologies are provided below to illustrate the differences between schemes, their relative length of time in operation and likely development. Whilst the review concentrates upon the UK and Japan, other countries’ labels have been included to illustrate how the existence of labels is developing and where further research maybe focused.

Through a review of literature and other sources, the authors of this study identified 22 schemes worldwide, most of which were in early stages of development. A summary of these are provided in Table 1, which also (where available) shows the methodology used, the country in which they apply, the year in which the scheme was launched and the number of products covered.

A UK quasi-nongovernmental organization, the Carbon Trust, took the lead in the development of carbon labeling goods and introduced the Carbon Reduction Label in 2006. Products bearing this label are required to reduce emissions by 20% within 2 years following certification or they lose the right to use the label [102]. In January 2007, Tesco announced it would carbon footprint 70,000 of its products investing GB£500 million using the Carbon Reduction Label. Currently, Tesco labels 500 products from six different product categories [12,103]. However, Tesco announced recently that it would review the use of its Carbon Reduction Label, partly as a consequence of customer feedback showing they had difficulties in understanding the label [104].

A carbon labeling scheme was introduced in Japan in 2009, with retailers voluntarily attaching the Carbon Footprint Label to their products. Since February 2010, two products carrying the label (wiener sausage and ham made of pork loin) have been available in stores throughout Japan. The label includes an image of a lead weight with the letters ‘CO₂’ in the centre, with the attached carbon weight of the product in bold letters above. The attached carbon weight value is an approximation of the amount of carbon released across the entire life cycle of the product [105,106].

Other countries have followed suit. In 2009, South Korea initiated a program to certify carbon content in consumer goods. Their voluntary labeling scheme involves two types of labels: the GHG Emission Certificate, which states the product’s carbon footprint (by GHG in grams), illustrated by a CO₂ image; and the CO₂ low label, which verifies that low levels of carbon have been emitted in the production of the product, with the product’s carbon footprint displayed [107]. Two basic sets of criteria underlie the CO₂ low label, the Minimum Carbon Emission Amount Criteria and Minimum Carbon Reduction Criteria. The former varies between different product categories, while the latter is fixed at a basic reduction rate of 4.24% across the entire life cycle of a product within 3 years [13].

Other initiatives include a climate certification scheme in Sweden, which aims to reduce the negative impact on the climate from food production but also to increase the competitiveness of food producers [14]. In Switzerland, products are being labeled ‘Approved by Climatop’ if their production emits less CO₂ than similar products [108]. In France, one retailer applies a carbon label to 3000 of its food products and another is already labeling all its home-brand products [109,110]. In Thailand, a labeling scheme was launched in 2009, with more than 450 labeled products from 100 companies [111].

The labels and schemes have used a variety of standards and an initial criticism was the absence of a uniform standard to measure carbon emissions [15]. The Carbon Trust, the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the British Standard Institute took the initiative and developed the Publicly Available Specification 2050[16,17]. This is an independent GHG emissions quantification standard for products and services and its methodology draws on both the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s GHG protocol [18] and the International Organization for Standardization Standard 14064 [19] on GHG quantification and reporting [17].

However, there is still debate about the methodologies used and their complexity as well as the argument that the science behind their measurement is uncertain [15,20]. For example, whether this should be a full life cycle assessment approach [21] that takes into account associated carbon release through processes involved in raw material procurement, production, distribution and sale, utilization and maintenance, and disposal and recycling [105,106]. The issue with life cycle assessment relates to the volume of data required and its availability and accessibility [22].

Despite those acknowledged issues, the use of carbon labels is continuing, therefore it is important to understand how consumers evaluate the display of those carbon emissions by themselves and alongside other sustainability labels for food products. Therefore, the following section will review relevant literature on consumer attitudes to sustainability credentials including carbon labels.

▪ Consumer concerns & attitudes for sustainability credentials

There have been a range of studies assessing the importance of sustainability credentials of products and services for consumers in different countries. This section reviews these studies concentrating on those relevant to carbon labels and climate change and the relationship between these and other sustainability credentials. Ideally, this review would concentrate upon the countries of key interest to the study, that is Japan and the UK; however, due to the lack of studies in these countries, studies of other countries have been included.

Results from a recent survey in Europe on sustainable consumption and production showed that the information on the environmental impact of a product is likely to influence consumption habits of European citizens [5]. The majority of participants stated that a product’s impact on the environment is an important variable when deciding which product to buy (49% stated ‘rather important’ and 34% ‘very important’); only 4% responded this is ‘not important at all’. Results showed that recycling and reusability was the most desired environmental attribute a product label could offer. The proportion saying this is important ranged from 57% in Finland to 18% in Latvia. The display of the product’s GHG emissions was selected as the least important by all participants compared with the other environmental product attributes (e.g., recycling/reusability, environmentally friendly packaging and ecofriendly sources). However, interestingly, many survey participants favored mandatory carbon footprint labeling. A total of 90% percent of respondents in Croatia and Greece were in favor of such labeling, compared with 47% of participants from the Czech Republic. This was the only country where less than half of respondents favored such labeling.

A 2007 survey, with 14,220 participants across 21 countries, showed that approximately 68% of consumers were concerned about climate change. Within this, over 95% of participants claimed to be involved in activities aimed at reducing the negative impacts of climate change. Recycling was one of the most commonly selected activities, with German respondents showing the highest engagement (93%) and Indians the lowest (12%). However, fewer participants (20%) were involved in activities that offset their personal carbon emissions, of these Brazilians showed the highest engagement (43%) and UK respondents the lowest (8%) [6].

Research New Zealand conducted a survey in 2007 to investigate the perceptions of New Zealanders towards sustainability issues such as global warming, climate change and carbon footprinting [23]. The study developed seven consumer segments derived from a model developed by Defra in the UK [24]. Consumers were categorized by their ability and willingness to care for the environment and their perceived knowledge about certain sustainability issues. The consumer segment with the highest perceived knowledge about climate change (69%), global warming (70%) and carbon footprinting (53%) were categorized as the ‘positive greens’. This represented 14% of New Zealand’s population and consumers in this segment reported being particularly environmentally friendly. This is in contrast with the segment of ‘honestly disengaged’, which represented 1% of New Zealand’s population. Consumers in this group were the least likely group to care for the environment. The largest segment was the ‘waste watchers’ (39% of the population) who indicated they did a few environmentally friendly things [23].

▪ Consumer concerns & attitudes for carbon labels

Although there is some literature regarding public perceptions of the relationship between climate change, carbon labels and other sustainability credentials across countries as reviewed above [5,6,23], there is still little research on consumer attitudes towards carbon labels [9]. Four such studies are reviewed in this section. The study by Berry et al. used expert interviews, focus groups and a survey (which included a subset of questions on carbon footprinting) to assess the role carbon labeling could play in stimulating low-carbon purchase behavior [25]. Results showed that nearly 40% of respondents find the information on existing carbon labels very helpful but almost 60% of the respondents desired more information about the climate change impacts of the products they purchase. The researchers argued, however, that it is too early to evaluate if on-pack carbon labeling affects consumers purchase decisions. Similarly, Gadema and Oglethorpe showed that food consumers in the UK do not feel well informed enough to make purchasing decisions based on carbon footprint labels [4]. However, there is evidence that consumers are increasingly interested in the environmental impact of food, although traditional factors such as quality, taste and price are still dominating purchase decisions. Likewise, Upham et al. demonstrated that consumers’ willingness to use carbon labels for product selection is very low, particularly because the public found it very difficult to make sense of labeled GHG emissions without additional information [9]. Roos and Tjarnemo used results from studies on labeling of organic products to explore how these might apply to the area of carbon labeling food [26]. They speculated that there are a number of reasons why organic labeling does not increase premiums or purchases that might apply to carbon labeling of food. The reasons are “…perceived high price, strong habits for governing food purchases, perceived low availability, lack of marketing and information, lack of trust in the labeling system, and low perceived customer effectiveness.” The researchers argued that some of these reasons are even greater obstacles for the sale of carbon labeled food products than for organic products, as these do not bring any direct personal benefits to the consumer [26].

To summarize, the reviewed literature on consumers’ attitudes and preferences for certain product attributes showed that preferences differ both for different sustainability credentials and between different countries. Furthermore, it was shown that most research has investigated consumer attitudes towards product labels claiming sustainability credentials, while only a few studies have examined preferences towards carbon emissions information on food. Therefore, this research contributes to the existing literature by examining the attitudes of consumers in two key New Zealand export markets (the UK and Japan) to carbon emissions information alongside other sustainability credentials. It further explores consumers’ attitudes and preferences for certain label claims, including carbon emissions display and the knowledge they have on various sustainability issues. This provides information on how consumers could react to carbon labeling schemes and can inform further analysis and development of carbon labeling.

Methodology

A number of methods to elicit consumer attitudes and preferences are available. These generally include market surveys, which can be open-ended, semistructured or structured [27,28]. These can be administered through a number of formats including face-to-face interviews, postal and phone surveys [27]. The research was carried out by the Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit at Lincoln University in New Zealand and due to the distance to the samples to be surveyed and the number of survey responses required for statistical analysis, this study used a structured, self-administered survey in both the UK and Japan. This was administered through Qualtrics™, a web-based survey system. Respondents were given a link to the online survey and by clicking on the link the Qualtrics interface opened and questions were shown consecutively to the respondent.

The sampling strategy involved the recruiting of participants from an online panel database of consumers. Each survey was stratified by the countries’ age and household income distributions. The sample was randomly distributed within the regions in Japan and in the UK. The original survey was in English. For the Japanese survey the questionnaire was translated into Japanese (Kanji) by a professional translation service.

The survey was designed in reference to previous research and literature and from stakeholder consultation and results of focus groups in New Zealand [5,6,23,29]. Ideally, the focus groups would have been held in the UK and Japan; however, resources did not permit this. Nonetheless, the focus group meetings gave an indication for consumer preferences for specific environmental label claims and awareness and perceptions of sustainable, particularly carbon labeling and, thus, helped to inform the design of the survey.

The key sustainability credentials used in the survey were: recyclability/reusability; made from environmentally friendly sources; ecofriendly packaging; and GHG emissions. These four credentials were selected from the literature review as having been shown as important label claims in previous surveys [5,6,29].

The questionnaire was designed and structured utilizing predominantly Likert scales [30]. Although there seems to be controversy whether Likert scales are a good instrument for measuring attitudes [31,32], and alternative scales exist (e.g., attitudinal/behavioral statements), for this study Likert scales were selected as they are an established and widely used instrument [33,34], also due to their simplicity in construction, development and use and their likeliness to provide reliable results [35].

The survey was comprised of a range of questions constructed to assess the public perception of certain product features, consumer attitudes to specific environmental label claims, and knowledge held regarding social and environmental information in the UK and Japan (Supplementary Data). Human Ethics approval was obtained from the Human Ethics Committee of Lincoln University before the online survey was carried out in each country in July 2010.

Descriptive statistics were used to determine the knowledge, attitudes and preferences of the respondents towards sustainability issues and carbon labeling. In addition, p-values for a chi-squared test of the null hypothesis (H₀) of no difference between sample distributions were calculated as a statistical test of difference between the results from the Japanese and UK respondents.

Results & discussion

The results of the survey provided information on the knowledge, attitudes and preferences of consumers in Japan and the UK towards credentials of food. As stated above, the sample size was 880 participants, 440 in each country. Respondent demographics for both countries are presented in Tables 2 & 3. The sample was biased towards the older generation in the UK; otherwise it reflected the demographic distribution of the general population in the UK and Japan.

▪ Consumer preferences for environmental labels in the UK & Japan

Based on a five-point Likert scale varying from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’, participants were asked if they would like to see the display of the following included on a label:

	▪ Recyclability/reusability;
	▪ Made from environmentally friendly sources;
	▪ Ecofriendly packaging;
	▪ GHG emissions.

As shown in Figure 1, information on a package’s recycling and reusability was the most desired label claim in both countries, with high proportions of people selecting ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ (UK 89%; Japan 74%). Interestingly, over half of the participants in the UK strongly agreed that this information should be included on a label compared with only one in five people in Japan.

The second most desired label claim was whether a package is ecofriendly, with 79% of UK respondents and 65% of Japanese respondents selecting ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ to the display of this attribute on a product label. This was followed relatively closely by the claim made from environmentally friendly sources, with 72% of UK respondents and 61% of Japanese respondents selecting ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ to the display of this attribute on a product label.

In both countries, the display of GHG emissions on a label was the least desired information compared with the other environmental label attributes, although 46% of UK respondents and 39% of Japanese participants did at least agree to include the GHG emissions in a label. These results for the display of GHG emissions on a label are in line with the Eurobarometer study presented above, in which survey participants in Europe rated the display of GHG emissions on an environmental label lower than the other listed alternatives (recycling/reusability, environmentally friendly packaging and ecofriendly sources) [5]. Similarly, Gadema and Oglethorpe showed that the display of carbon emissions is ranked lower than other product attributes [4]. In their study, survey participants rated the display of carbon emissions as the second lowest attribute out of 14. Consumers were primarily concerned with the traditional factors of quality, taste and price.

▪ Consumer knowledge about sustainability issues in the UK & Japan

To assess perceptions and attitudes about specific environmental and social issues, participants were asked about their knowledge of general sustainability issues on a five-point Likert scale varying between ‘a lot’ and ‘never heard of it’. These issues were carbon offsetting, CO₂ emissions, carbon footprint, global warming, climate change, sustainability, animal welfare and water footprint.

Figure 2 shows that the overall knowledge of respondents was reasonable, with the majority indicating that they had a ‘fair amount’ or a ‘little’ knowledge of the majority of issues presented.

In the UK survey, the most well-known issues were animal welfare and global warming. The vast majority (95%) claimed to know at least ‘a little’ about global warming, and 92% at least ‘a little’ about animal welfare. This is followed by climate change, sustainability, carbon footprint and CO₂ emissions, which the majority (85% or more) knew at least ‘a little’ about, and over a third of respondents knew a ‘fair amount’ or more. This was consistent with the findings by Thornton, who showed in Defra’s survey for public attitudes and behaviors towards the environment that almost half of the UK respondents claimed to know at least ‘a fair amount’ about carbon footprint and the majority of respondents claimed to know either ‘a lot’ or ‘a fair amount’ about climate change (61%), global warming (65%) and CO₂ emissions (52%) [36].

The results showed that the least known issues in the UK survey were carbon offsetting and water footprint. The vast majority (67%) knew only ‘a little’ or had only ‘heard of’ carbon offsetting; and for water footprint in particular, over a third (37%) of participants had ‘never heard’ of this.

In Japan, CO₂ emissions, global warming and climate change were the most well-known, with approximately 20% or more of participants claiming to know ‘a lot’ about each. The issue of global warming received the highest proportion of respondents (30%) claiming to know ‘a lot’. Similar to the UK, respondents were not overly knowledgeable on carbon offsetting, with the majority (54%) selecting to know ‘a little’ about this. In Japan, the least known issues were carbon footprint, sustainability and water footprint. Almost half (47%) had ‘not heard’ about carbon footprint, and the majority had ‘not heard’ of sustainability (56%) and water footprint (59%). The reasons why these terms were less familiar could be numerous. In both Japan and the UK, water footprint is a recently, but not extensively, used term. However, the fact that a higher proportion of UK respondents understood the terms carbon footprint and sustainability than their Japanese counterpart could be through the use of these terms in the respective countries. This is an interesting conclusion in itself for New Zealand exporters and is an area for further research, in particular further research of terms used in the different countries to explain sustainability and its credentials.

Comparatively, respondents in Japan were more likely to claim they knew ‘a lot’ about an issue (i.e., exceeding 20% of respondents) than those in the UK (only a few issues had 10% or more claiming to know ‘a lot’). Interestingly, Japan also had more respondents who did not know about certain issues; in three cases, almost half respondents had ‘never heard’ of the issue. In contrast, in the UK, with the exception of water footprint, less than 10% of people had ‘never heard’ of each topic. However, in the majority of cases, all respondents had at least ‘heard of’ the issues.

Conclusion

There have been various schemes put in place to meet retailers and consumer demands for information on sustainability credentials including carbon labeling schemes. This is where producers and retailers label goods with the amount of carbon emissions produced by this product. Such schemes are being adopted in many countries including the UK, USA, France, Japan and Switzerland. Most of these schemes are under development.

This study surveyed consumers in the UK and Japan to assess consumer attitudes on the display of carbon emissions on food products, alongside their knowledge and preferences towards sustainability credentials. Overall, the results of this study find evidence that consumers in the UK and Japan desire labels that display sustainability credentials. Results showed that consumers in the UK and Japan have similar preferences for the desired label information on the product with recycling/reusability information ranked highest and GHG emissions display ranked lowest. Perceived knowledge about specific environmental and social issues showed similarities and differences between the countries, with sustainability and carbon footprint not well known by Japanese participants and well known by their UK fellows. Water footprint was not known well by respondents from both countries. Further research would be useful to clarify why 56% of Japanese have not heard about the term sustainability. Another interesting finding is that almost 50% of Japanese respondents stated to have not heard about the term carbon footprint, considering their perceived knowledge about other carbon-related terms such CO₂ emissions and carbon offsetting. The researchers suggest that the good knowledge of carbon footprint in the UK may be because of the carbon footprint labeling of one of the major supermarket chains in the UK [1]. Similarly, the good knowledge of CO₂ emissions, global warming and climate change in Japan may be generated by the government initiatives towards climate change and carbon labeling. Thus, as stated earlier, further research of the terms used and how they are interpreted in the different countries would be useful.

To conclude, carbon labeling is in its infancy and further research is required to investigate consumer’s ability to understand carbon labeling. This would indicate their ability to interpret the range of different carbon labeling approaches and subsequently inform about which approach is better. Further research is required to compare existing carbon labels schemes. To the best knowledge of the researchers, there are currently no such studies available. The next steps include discrete choice modeling for certain product attributes. In addition, consumers’ attitudes and comprehensibility of different label designs will be examined, varying from pure text to pictorial, and to a combination of these two, in UK and Japan. This will provide further information in developing an effective carbon label, particularly on how carbon labels should be designed and which format should be used.

Future perspective

The current move towards food product labels with sustainability credentials, including carbon emissions information, seems set to continue into the future, although difficulties in relation to consumer understanding of the labels persist and may need to be addressed for carbon footprint labels to gain traction. This is more difficult when the method of developing carbon labels is not consistent. Thus, an important obstacle to develop a carbon label lies in harmonizing the different global methodologies that exist to calculate, verify, certify and report on GHG emissions.

Table 1.  Carbon labels and characteristics, 2011.

Name of scheme	Operator/certifier	Public/private	Launchyear	Nation of origin	Accounting method	Number of companies	Products andservices
Approved by Climatop	Climatop^®	Private	2008	Switzerland	ISO 14040	11	65
Bilan CO2	E Leclerc	Private	2008	France	ISO 14040/ISO 14044	1	20,000 price tags
Carbon Connect	Carbon™ Counted Standards	Private	2007	Canada	Unspecified LCA	Unknown	22
Carbonlabels.org	Conscious Brands™	Private	2008	Canada	Unspecified LCA	Unknown	Unknown
Carbon Reduction label	Carbon Trust	Public	2008	UK	PAS 2050	20	3829
carboNZeroCert™ program, CEMARS™	CarboNZero	Private	2008	New Zealand	PAS 2050/ISO 14064	87	∼246
CarbonFree^® Certified	Carbon Fund	Private	2007	USA	PAS 2050/ISO 14044^†	16	77
Climate Conscious Carbon Label	The Climate Conservancy	Private	2007	USA	Unspecified LCA	Unknown	Unknown
Climate Certification for the Food Chain	KRAV^®, Svenskt Sigill, Kvalitetssystem AB	Private	2010	Sweden	ISO 14040	7	61
Cool CO2 label	KEITI	Public	2009	South Korea	PAS 2050	Unknown	>360
Eosta Climate Neutral	TUV Nord	Private	2008	Holland	ISO 14040/ISO 14044^†	Unknown	Unknown
German Product Carbon Footprint Project	Product Carbon Footprint Project	Public	2008	Germany	Unspecified LCA	8	10
Timberland’s Green Index^® Scheme	Timberland	Private	2007	USA	Unspecified LCA	Unknown	8
Indice Carbone Casino	Casino France	Private	2008	France	Methode Bilan Carbone^®	1	629
METI Carbon Footprint System	METI	Public	2009	Japan	ISO 14040/14044^†/ISO 14067^‡	Unknown	460
Pilot Californian carbon label	California State Senate Carbon Labeling Act 2008	Public	2009	USA	Unspecified LCA	Unknown	Unknown
SGS Carbon Neutrality	SGS	Private	2007	Switzerland	GHG protocol/ISO 14064	Unknown	Unknown
Stop Climate Change	AGRA-TEG	Private	2007	Germany	PAS 2050/GHG protocol	11	Unknown
Taiwan BSI Product Carbon Footprint	BSI	Public	2010	Taiwan	PAS 2050/ISO 14001^§	Unknown	Unknown
Thailand Carbon Reduction Label	Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization	Public	2009	Thailand	PAS 2050	100	458
TUV Nord Cert	TUV Nord	Private	2008	Germany	ISO 14001^§/EMAS	Unknown	Unknown
Zurueck zum Ursprung	Hofer	Private	2009	Austria	Unspecified LCA	Unknown	79

^†The ISO 14044 standard provides the requirements and guidelines for an LCA [37].

^‡The ISO 14067 provides the requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication of carbon footprint products [38].

^§The ISO 14001 standard provides the general requirements for an environmental system [39].

AGRA-TEG: Agrar- und Umwelttechnik GmbH Goettingen; BSI: British Standard Institute; EMAS: European Ecomanagement and Audit scheme [40]; ISO: International Organization for Standardization; KEITI: Korea Environmental Industry and Technology Institute; KRAV: KRAV Ekonomisk förening; LCA: Life cycle analysis; METI: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry Japan; PAS: Publicly Available Specification; SGS: Société Generale de Surveillance; TUV: TechnischerUeberwachungsverein.

Table 2.  Summary demographics of survey participants†.

Category	UK (%)	Japan (%)
Gender
Male	45	50
Female	55	50
Age
15–19	0	4
20–29	5	15
30–39	8	18
40–49	13	12
50–59	17	18
60+	56	33
Living environment of participants
Urban	23	48
Suburban	46	44
Rural	31	7
Relationship status
Single	15	31
Married	57	61
Other	27	7
Education
Junior high school	14	2
High school	30	30
Junior college	1	19
University degree/tertiary level qualification	44	43
Postgraduate degree	7	4
Other	4	1

^†Based on 440 responses in each country.

Table 3.  Income distribution of survey participants.

Income (GB£)^†	Distribution (%)
UK
<15,000	19
15,001–40,000	42
40,001–60,000	17
60,001–100,000	8
>100,001	3
Prefer not to answer	11
Japan
<15,196	12
15,197–26,594	16
26,595–41,791	27
41,792–64,585	22
>64,586	18
Prefer not to answer	5

^†The income ranges differ between the UK and Japan as incomes were elicited in respondents’ domestic currency.

Carbon label

Carbon labels and carbon reduction labels are a new initiative to help consumers’ understanding of the carbon footprints of products or services they purchase. Carbon labels show the amount of CO₂ and other GHGs emitted during the production, distribution, use and disposal of a product. Carbon reduction labels display the reduction of carbon emissions that has been achieved during the production, distribution, use and disposal of a product.

Carbon footprint

Technique for measuring the exclusive total amount of GHG emissions from a product or activity within a supply chain.

Publicly Available Specification 2050

Independent GHG emissions quantification standard for products and services developed by the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the British Standard Institute and the Carbon Trust.

International Organization for Standardization

Series of international standards dealing with carbon accounting, and labeling of products and services produced by different organizations internationally. These ISO standards include International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14025, ISO 14064-1 and ISO 14067-1. The standards provide a reference framework for quantifying and communicating GHG emissions between organizations, and to consumers and other interested parties. They also ensure that products and services have characteristics such as quality, environmental friendliness, safety, reliability, efficiency and are interchangeable.

Life cycle assessment

Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle. Within this, a ‘product system’ is a chain of activities linking the raw material extraction and/or manufacture with the processing, use and disposal of a product. In the ISO standards the term ‘product’ includes services.

Executive summary

Carbon labeling schemes

	▪ There is pressure in some markets for displaying information on a product’s GHG emissions emitted during the production, distribution, use and disposal the product.
	▪ Schemes to achieve this are under development but in their infancy. In 2012, there were approximately 22 carbon labels documented.

Consumer concerns & attitudes

	▪ There is evidence that consumers are increasingly interested in the environmental impact of food products they purchase although traditional factors such as quality, taste and price are still ranked higher.
	▪ There exists little literature on consumer attitudes towards displayed carbon labels.
	▪ >Four studies on public perceptions of carbon labels were reviewed.
	▪ These showed that consumers desire more information about the climate change impacts of the products. However, it was shown that food consumers do not feel well informed enough to make purchasing decisions based on carbon footprint labels because they found it very difficult to make sense of labeled emissions values without additional information.
	▪ It is argued by many researchers that the influence of labels on consumers purchase behavior is still unknown.

Consumer attitudes, knowledge & preferences in the UK & Japan

	▪ The method of this study included a survey of 880 people in the UK and Japan. The survey included a range of questions constructed to assess consumer attitudes, knowledge and preferences towards the display of carbon emissions and how this relates to other sustainability credentials of food products.
	▪ Overall, the results of this study find evidence that consumers in the UK and Japan desire labels that display sustainability credentials.
	▪ Similar preferences for environmental labels were observed with recycling/reusability ranked highest and GHG emissions lowest in both countries.
	▪ Differences were observed between Japan and the UK in terms of perceived knowledge about specific issues such as sustainability and carbon footprint, which were not well know by Japanese participants and well known by their UK fellows. Water footprint was not known well by respondents from both countries.

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.future-science.com/doi/suppl/10.4155/CMT.12.50

Acknowledgements

Special thanks go to P Dalziel who greatly assisted revising the manuscript. The authors also thank the four referees whose comments improved an earlier draft.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This project was partially funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and ZESPRI International Limited. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.