Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Erica Varese
 -- 2006 2023-11-05 17:45:47 |
2 Reference format revised.
Lindsay Dong
 Meta information modification 2006 2023-11-06 02:27:40 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Kabaja, B.; Wojnarowska, M.; Ćwiklicki, M.; Buffagni, S.C.; Varese, E. Environmental Labelling. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51161 (accessed on 08 July 2024).
Kabaja B, Wojnarowska M, Ćwiklicki M, Buffagni SC, Varese E. Environmental Labelling. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51161. Accessed July 08, 2024.
Kabaja, Bartłomiej, Magdalena Wojnarowska, Marek Ćwiklicki, Stefania Claudia Buffagni, Erica Varese. "Environmental Labelling" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51161 (accessed July 08, 2024).
Kabaja, B., Wojnarowska, M., Ćwiklicki, M., Buffagni, S.C., & Varese, E. (2023, November 05). Environmental Labelling. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51161
Kabaja, Bartłomiej, et al. "Environmental Labelling." Encyclopedia. Web. 05 November, 2023.
Environmental Labelling
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su151813751

Environmental labelling is one of the environmental management tools, one of the main tasks of which is to make ecological products more visible and thus make it possible to distinguish ecological products from conventional products quickly. Ecological products are products that consist of safe materials and nontoxic ingredients that can be reused and do not have a negative impact on the environment throughout their lifecycle.

environmental labelling environmental products consumption behaviours

1. Introduction

When making everyday purchases, the conscious consumer must struggle not only with the marketing activities of producers of goods or carefully thought-out sales strategies of stores but also with a huge amount of information contained on small and very colourful product packages. In this field, environmental labelling must compete with all the information on the packaging, because the main goal of it is to distinguish environmentally safe products throughout their lifecycle, and, after all, encouraging consumers to buy such products is crucial for the current far-reaching policy of sustainable development [1]. The increase in sales of ecological products and the elimination of those whose production or use causes a significant burden on the natural environment is possible thanks to the proper identification of these products by consumers. In this context, environmental labelling is considered to be one of the best tools to promote ecological products that influence purchasing decisions [2][3][4]. Theoretically, this tool should, therefore, facilitate the choice of ecological products by consumers; however, they often do not have enough expertise and time to analyse the products they buy for a long time [5], and in the case of environmental labelling, knowledge and awareness are the essential keys for correct interpretation of environmental signs. Despite the emergence of environmentally conscious consumers in the West during the 1960s and 1970s (in response to the environmental impacts of industrial development), some consumers are still not actively engaged in green consumer groups [6]. The main barrier for these consumers, particularly in developing countries, is still the higher costs associated with environmentally friendly products, as highlighted by [7].
Due to the fact that environmental labelling is used in different countries, it should be emphasized that each country has its own unique socioeconomic conditions and resources at its disposal; thus, decisions made by consumers with regard to purchasing ecological products vary [8][9]. The research presents varying perspectives that call for additional investigation to better understand the underlying factors that shape the attitudes of young consumers towards the concept of sustainability, specifically with regard to ecolabels, as noted by [10]. Generation Z is more uniquely diverse than any previous group of college students [11]. According to Pew Research Center, Generation Z students spend approximately 9 h per day on their cell phones. This heavy reliance on mobile technology has significant implications not only for how this generation learns, but also for how instructors should deliver instructional material. The instant gratification and immediate frustration that come with this wired environment can impact their learning experience. Furthermore, the average attention span of Generation Z individuals has decreased to 8 s, compared to 12 s for Millennials [11]. John Ratey from Harvard Medical School referred to this trend as “acquired attention deficit disorder”. Generation Z students’ brains have become wired to process complex visual imagery, making visual approaches to teaching more effective than other methods [12]. This trend can be interesting in the case of choosing ecological products, i.e., products with environmental labels.

2. Environmental Labelling 

2.1. Environmental Labels Used for Consumer Products

Environmental labelling is one of the environmental management tools, one of the main tasks of which is to make ecological products more visible and thus make it possible to distinguish ecological products from conventional products quickly [13]. Ecological products are products that consist of safe materials and nontoxic ingredients that can be reused and do not have a negative impact on the environment throughout their lifecycle [14]. This is of particular importance in the context of the ever-increasing number of products and services on the market, because, as a consequence, these products are considered to be of greater value than conventional products [15], and consumer choice can significantly contribute to reducing the negative impact on the environment [16]. Thanks to environmental labelling, the asymmetry of information about the ecological characteristics of products between producers and consumers is reduced [17].
Analytical research on consumer preferences regarding the labelling of products with environmental labelling conducted in six European countries (Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Denmark) indicates that of all the nationalities covered by the study, the inhabitants of Italy were the most willing to pay more for products featuring the EU organic logo. In turn, the citizens of the Czech Republic and Denmark believed that more expenditure should be invested in symbols issued under the patronage of their governments. Moreover, it has been shown that higher ratings in terms of trust, credibility, standards, and a label control system translate into higher ratings for environmental labels [18].
Despite the increasing number of consumers expressing concerns about the socioenvironmental impact of their purchases [19][20], there is often a lack of corresponding behaviours that align with these attitudes, as evidenced in the literature [21]. This disconnection, commonly known as the “attitude–behaviour gap”, poses significant challenges for policymakers, companies, and nonprofit organizations that seek to promote sustainable consumption [22].
Research on the role played by environmental labelling indicates a research gap, as few studies have analysed the impact of various labels on purchasing decisions on Generation Z, which is due to the relatively large number of such labels and significant differences in recognition levels in individual countries.

2.2. Environmental Labelling as a Trigger of Purchase for Ecological Products

Consumer research [23] also confirms that health and environmental issues are the main determinants shaping the decisions of respondents when it comes to buying ecological food products. This fact is confirmed by the results of the “2020 Food & Health Survey” (IFIC) report, in which 59% of respondents considered sustainable development issues important when purchasing food. At the same time, 60% did not know whether their food choices were environmentally friendly. Despite this fact, there are numerous studies that confirm the willingness of consumers to pay more for ecological products. This is the case with such products as beef [24], biscuits [25], chocolate [26], fruit [27] tomato purée [28], and fish [29][30]. Another study [31] demonstrated the willingness of consumers to pay a higher price for items in the production of which endangered animal species do not suffer, which also indicates considerable consumer sensitivity.
Chen [32] made an important observation regarding environmental messaging aimed at consumers, showing that formulating negative messages about the state of the environment has a considerable impact on consumer behaviour. Environmentally destructive content created a more convincing message for consumers and triggered purchasing responses for ecological products.
According to research conducted in Eastern Europe, the factors that weaken interest in products with environmental labels include high prices (60%) and difficulties finding them in stores (17%) [33]. Annunziata, Mariani, and Vecchio [34] drew attention to the problem of low label visibility, which suggests that label visibility has a significant impact on consumers’ decisions to buy and use ecological products. Another purchasing barrier is inadequate knowledge, which limits understanding of environmental labelling on products [35][36][37]. This problem can be solved through more campaigns and educational programmes aimed at the public [38]. An effective information policy aimed at individual market segments can help disseminate knowledge of the assumptions of sustainable development.

2.3. Consumer Trust in Environmental Labelling

Consumer confidence in labelling has been the subject of frequent research, which indicates a need to convince consumers of the necessity to use products bearing environmental labels [39][40][41][42][43]. Trust has a considerable impact on attitudes and purchasing behaviour on the market. According to the Theory of Planned Behaviour model, trust has a positive and significant impact in that it reinforces purchasing behaviour and reduces the gap in the intention–behaviour relationship [44]. Therefore, it is a prerequisite for creating a market for green products [45].
A lack of trust in environmental content and statements undermines the willingness of consumers to buy such products [46]. Consumers are afraid of finding themselves in a situation where, when paying a higher price for a product, they may be cheated in this way [47]. After all, the ecological features and attributes of products are very often difficult, or even impossible, to verify even after making a purchase. Therefore, trust and credibility are inherent factors motivating consumers to choose products with environmental labels [48].
One factor that clearly undermines the credibility of ecological products is misleading and unfounded information regarding the proenvironmental characteristics of products, i.e., the practice of “greenwashing” [49]. Greenwashing is an unethical approach adopted by enterprises or organizations which in their external communications foster an image that is more ecological than is the case in reality [50]. Undoubtedly, such actions have a negative impact on consumer confidence. Unfortunately, labels are a common tool used by companies to advertise unsubstantiated proenvironmental activities. This is probably due to the many advantages of directing market communication through labels. 
Trust in labels and producers may also be undermined by occasional scandals involving acts of deliberate falsification in the production of ecological products, including food [51]. Regulatory weaknesses and imperfect regulatory systems have enabled the misapplication of environmental labelling on the marketplace [52][53], thereby undermining the credibility of the overall system [54]. For example, more than half of all end consumers in the United States (USA) expressed a lack of confidence in a product’s ecological characteristics, as confirmed by its environmental labelling [55].

2.4. Areas of Improvement for Environmental Labelling

An analysis of environmental labelling studies also reveals a number of limitations associated with the environmental labelling systems currently in use [56][57][58]. The problems identified include saturation and an overabundance of labels and environmental content. Some studies indicate that this may lead to confusion and discouragement of consumers, and, in the longer term, to sceptical attitudes towards environmental labelling [52]. The ubiquitous and parallel existence of multiple labelling systems makes it difficult for consumers to learn about all of them [58]. Too many environmental labelling claims and excessive environmental information turn out to be ineffective [59]. In addition, there are still proposals to create new systems, such as NaturSkånsom in Denmark [57], which would result in even more labels.
In addition to an excessive number of labels, another major concern is their form. Consumers are clearly more in favour of using graphic logos and are not satisfied with information in word form alone [18]. Rihn, Wei, and Khachatryan [60] reached similar conclusions. According to their research, logotypes attract more attention than text-based labels. Moreover, an additional effect of using logos is that consumers were ready to pay more for their presence on products than for labels in the form of text [60]. The differences resulting from the use of different forms of labels were also investigated by [61]. They determined that consumers attach more importance to products with environmental labels [62].
With regard to the graphics of environmental labelling, experiments have been conducted that show that products promoted with these labels featuring the colour green undermine perceptions of the effectiveness of products such as cleaning products or cosmetics [63].
In several cases, researchers pointed to the need for environmental labelling certification by a third party, which was seen as a necessary requirement for increasing trust and credibility [64][65][66]. Such a course of action may counter the image of unreliability associated with some labels that has been identified in the literature [67]. It should be emphasized that, in accordance with ISO 14024, the type I environmental labelling program [68] is based on a multicriteria assessment procedure conducted by a third party responsible for granting permission for environmental labels on products. This label indicates the environmental preference of the labelled product within the product category resulting from a lifecycle analysis. The purpose of Type I environmental labelling is to reduce environmental impact of products and services by identifying those that meet specific environmental preference criteria. The authors of [69] indicate that Type I environmental labelling is based on the concept of eco-efficiency. Thus, the supervision of environmental labelling carried out by independent organizations ensures greater credibility for the standards and the label control system, which translates into a higher rating for the environmental label [18]. Another activity that can increase sales of ecological products is the involvement of supply chain actors, especially direct sellers. 

References

  1. Lanero, A.; Vázquez, J.-L.; Sahelices-Pinto, C. Halo Effect and Source Credibility in the Evaluation of Food Products Identified by Third-Party Certified Eco-Labels: Can Information Prevent Biased Inferences? Foods 2021, 10, 2512.
  2. Aertsens, J.; Mondelaers, K.; Verbeke, W.; Buysse, J.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. The influence of subjective and objective knowledge on attitude, motivations and consumption of organic food. Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 1353–1378.
  3. Smith, S.; Paladino, A. Eating clean and green? Investigating consumer motivations towards the purchase of organic food. Australas. Mark. J. 2010, 18, 93–104.
  4. Yau, Y. Eco-labels and willingness-to-pay: A Hong Kong study. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2012, 1, 277–290.
  5. Brach, S.; Walsh, G.; Shaw, D. Sustainable consumption and third-party certification labels: Consumers’ perceptions and reactions. Eur. Manag. J. 2018, 36, 254–265.
  6. Mostafa, M.M. A hierarchical analysis of the green consciousness of the Egyptian consumer. Psychol. Mark. 2007, 24, 445–473.
  7. Guevara, M.I.P.; Chaitoo, R.; Smith, M.G. Canada’s Environmental Choice Program and its Impact on Developing-Country Trade. In Eco-Labelling and International Trade; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 1997; pp. 159–188.
  8. Koos, S. Varieties of Environmental Labelling, Market Structures, and Sustainable Consumption Across Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Organizational and Market Supply Determinants of Environmental-Labelled Goods. J. Consum. Policy 2011, 34, 127–151.
  9. Gruère, G.P. An Analysis of the Growth in Environmental Labelling and Information Schemes. J. Consum. Policy 2014, 38, 1–18.
  10. Kabaja, B.; Wojnarowska, M.; Cesarani, M.C.; Varese, E. Recognizability of Ecolabels on E-Commerce Websites: The Case for Younger Consumers in Poland. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5351.
  11. Shatto, B.; Erwin, K. Moving on From Millennials: Preparing for Generation Z. J. Contin. Educ. Nurs. 2016, 47, 253–254.
  12. Hallowell, E.M.; Ratey, J.J. Driven to Distraction: Recognizing and Coping with Attention Deficit Disorder; Anchor Books: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
  13. Johnston, R.J.; Roheim, C.A. A battle of taste and environmental convictions for ecolabeled seafood: A contingent ranking experiment. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2006, 31, 283–300.
  14. Mufidah, I.; Jiang, B.C.; Lin, S.C.; Chin, J.; Rachmaniati, Y.P.; Persada, S.F. Understanding the consumers’ behavior intention in using green ecolabel product through Pro-Environmental Planned Behavior model in developing and developed regions: Lessons learned from Taiwan and Indonesia. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1423.
  15. Houe, R.; Grabot, B. Assessing the compliance of a product with an eco-label: From standards to constraints. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2009, 121, 21–38.
  16. Strebel, J.; O’Donnell, K.; Myers, J.G. Exploring the connection between frustration and consumer choice behavior in a dynamic decision environment. Psychol. Mark. 2004, 21, 1059–1076.
  17. Delmas, M.A.; Lessem, N. Eco-Premium or Eco-Penalty? Eco-Labels and Quality in the Organic Wine Market. Bus. Soc. 2017, 56, 318–356.
  18. Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 25, 9–22.
  19. Wojnarowska, M.; Sołtysik, M.; Prusak, A. Impact of eco-labelling on the implementation of sustainable production and consumption. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2021, 86, 106505.
  20. Giesbrecht, M.; Wolse, F.; Crooks, V.A.; Stajduhar, K. Identifying socio-environmental factors that facilitate resilience among Canadian palliative family caregivers: A qualitative case study. Palliat. Support. Care 2015, 13, 555–565.
  21. Newholm, T.; Shaw, D. Studying the ethical consumer: A review of research. J. Consum. Behav. 2007, 6, 253–270.
  22. Young, W.; Hwang, K.; McDonald, S.; Oates, C.J. Sustainable consumption: Green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 18, 20–31.
  23. Abdulsahib, J.S.; Eneizan, B.; Alabboodi, A.S. Environmental Concern, Health Consciousness and Purchase Intention of Green Products: An Application of Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2019, 5, 868–880.
  24. Li, X.; Jensen, K.L.; Clark, C.D.; Lambert, D.M. Consumer willingness to pay for beef grown using climate friendly production practices. Food Policy 2016, 64, 93–106.
  25. Cooper, S.L.; Butcher, L.M.; Scagnelli, S.D.; Lo, J.; Ryan, M.M.; Devine, A.; O’sullivan, T.A. Australian consumers are willing to pay for the health star rating front-of-pack nutrition label. Nutrients 2020, 12, 3876.
  26. Rossi, C.; Rivetti, F. Assessing young consumers’ responses to sustainable labels: Insights from a factorial experiment in Italy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10115.
  27. Khachatryan, H.; Rihn, A.; Wei, X. Consumers’ Preferences for Eco-labels on Plants: The Influence of Trust and Consequentiality Perceptions. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2021, 91, 101659.
  28. Aprile, M.C.; Punzo, G. How environmental sustainability labels affect food choices: Assessing consumer preferences in southern Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 332, 130046.
  29. Sigurdsson, V.; Larsen, N.M.; Pálsdóttir, R.G.; Folwarczny, M.; Menon, R.V.; Fagerstrøm, A. Increasing the effectiveness of ecological food signaling: Comparing sustainability tags with eco-labels. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 139, 1099–1110.
  30. Menozzi, D.; Nguyen, T.T.; Sogari, G.; Taskov, D. Consumers’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Fish Products with Health and Environmental Labels. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2650.
  31. Tseng, M.L.; Sujanto, R.Y.; Iranmanesh, M.; Tan, K.; Chiu, A.S. Sustainable packaged food and beverage consumption transition in Indonesia: Persuasive communication to affect consumer behavior. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 161, 104933.
  32. Chen, R.J.C. From sustainability to customer loyalty: A case of full service hotels’ guests. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2015, 22, 261–265.
  33. Țigan, E.; Brînzan, O.; Obrad, C.; Lungu, M.; Mateoc-Sîrb, N.; Milin, I.A.; Gavrilaș, S. The consumption of organic, traditional, and/or european eco-label products: Elements of local production and sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9944.
  34. Annunziata, A.; Mariani, A.; Vecchio, R. Effectiveness of sustainability labels in guiding food choices: Analysis of visibility and understanding among young adults. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 17, 108–115.
  35. Chekima, B.; Syed Khalid Wafa, S.A.W.; Igau, O.A.; Chekima, S.; Sondoh, S.L. Examining green consumerism motivational drivers: Does premium price and demographics matter to green purchasing? J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3436–3450.
  36. Xie, B.; Wang, L.; Yang, H.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, M. Consumer perceptions and attitudes of organic food products in Eastern China. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 1105–1121.
  37. Ateş, H. Understanding Students’ and Science Educators’ Eco-Labeled Food Purchase Behaviors: Extension of Theory of Planned Behavior with Self-Identity, Personal Norm, Willingness to Pay, and Eco-Label Knowledge. Ecol. Food Nutr. 2021, 60, 454–472.
  38. Gutierrez, A.; Thornton, T. Can Consumers Understand Sustainability through Seafood Eco-Labels? A U.S. and UK Case Study. Sustainability 2014, 6, 8195–8217.
  39. Atkinson, L.; Rosenthal, S. Signaling the green sell: The influence of eco-label source, argument specificity, and product involvement on consumer trust. J. Advert. 2014, 43, 33–45.
  40. Thøgersen, J.; Ölander, F. Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: A panel study. J. Econ. Psychol. 2002, 23, 605–630.
  41. Nuttavuthisit, K.; Thøgersen, J. The Importance of Consumer Trust for the Emergence of a Market for Green Products: The Case of Organic Food. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 140, 323–337.
  42. Buratto, A.; Lotti, L. The impact of salient labels and choice overload on sustainability judgments: An online experiment investigating consumers’ knowledge and overconfidence. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 107, 104846.
  43. Thøgersen, J.; Haugaard, P.; Olesen, A. Consumer responses to ecolabels. Eur. J. Mark. 2010, 44, 1787–1810.
  44. Sultan, P.; Tarafder, T.; Pearson, D.; Henryks, J. Intention-behaviour gap and perceived behavioural control-behaviour gap in theory of planned behaviour: Moderating roles of communication, satisfaction and trust in organic food consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 81, 103838.
  45. Kam-Sing Wong, S. The influence of green product competitiveness on the success of green product innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2012, 15, 468–490.
  46. Premazzi, K.; Castaldo, S.; Grosso, M.; Raman, P.; Brudvig, S.; Hofacker, C.F. Customer Information Sharing with E-Vendors: The Roles of Incentives and Trust. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2010, 14, 63–91.
  47. Thøgersen, J. Green Shopping. Am. Behav. Sci. 2011, 55, 1052–1076.
  48. Daugbjerg, C.; Smed, S.; Andersen, L.M.; Schvartzman, Y. Improving Eco-labelling as an Environmental Policy Instrument: Knowledge, Trust and Organic Consumption. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2014, 16, 559–575.
  49. Kim, E.H.; Lyon, T.P. Greenwash vs. Brownwash: Exaggeration and undue modesty in corporate sustainability disclosure. Organ. Sci. 2015, 26, 705–723.
  50. Arouri, M.; El Ghoul, S.; Gomes, M. Greenwashing and product market competition. Financ. Res. Lett. 2021, 42, 101927.
  51. Varese, E.; Cesarani, M.C.; Wojnarowska, M. Consumers’ perception of suboptimal food: Strategies to reduce food waste. Br. Food J. 2023, 125, 361–378.
  52. Lyon, T.P.; Montgomery, A.W. The Means and End of Greenwash. Organ. Environ. 2015, 28, 223–249.
  53. Miller, A.M.M.; Bush, S.R. Authority without credibility? Competition and conflict between ecolabels in tuna fisheries. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 137–145.
  54. D’Souza, C.; Taghian, M.; Lamb, P. An empirical study on the influence of environmental labels on consumers. Corp. Commun. 2006, 11, 162–173.
  55. Jin, J.; Zhuang, J.; Zhao, Q. Supervision after certification: An evolutionary Game Analysis for Chinese environmental labeled enterprises. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1494.
  56. Prieto-Sandoval, V.; Mejía-Villa, A.; Ormazabal, M.; Jaca, C. Challenges for ecolabeling growth: Lessons from the EU Ecolabel in Spain. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 856–867.
  57. Autzen, M.H.; Hegland, T.J. When ‘sustainability’ becomes the norm: Power dynamics in the making of a new eco-label for low-environmental-impact, small-scale fisheries. Mar. Policy 2021, 133, 104742.
  58. Heyes, A.; Kapur, S.; Kennedy, P.W.; Martin, S.; Maxwell, J.W. But What Does it Mean? Competition between Products Products Carrying Green Labels When Consumers Are Active Acquirers of Information. SSRN Electron. J. 2019, 7, 243–277.
  59. Moon, S.-J.; Costello, J.P.; Koo, D.-M. The impact of consumer confusion from eco-labels on negative WOM, distrust, and dissatisfaction. Int. J. Advert. 2017, 36, 246–271.
  60. Rihn, A.; Wei, X.; Khachatryan, H. Text vs. logo: Does eco-label format influence consumers’ visual attention and willingness-to-pay for fruit plants? An experimental auction approach. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2019, 82, 101452.
  61. Grunert, K.G.; Hieke, S.; Wills, J. Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy 2014, 44, 177–189.
  62. Xuan, B.B. Consumer preference for eco-labelled aquaculture products in Vietnam. Aquaculture 2021, 532, 736111.
  63. Pancer, E.; McShane, L.; Noseworthy, T.J. Isolated Environmental Cues and Product Efficacy Penalties: The Color Green and Eco-labels. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 143, 159–177.
  64. Gorton, M.; Tocco, B.; Yeh, C.H.; Hartmann, M. What determines consumers’ use of eco-labels? Taking a close look at label trust. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 189, 107173.
  65. Varese, E.; Cesarani, M.C.; Bollani, L.; Kabaja, B.; Wojnarowska, M. Consumers’ Perception Towards Quality Certifications: Is this the Key to Help Rural Areas’ Resilience? In Economic Growth in the Conditions of Globalization: Conference Proceedings; INCE (National Institute for Economic Research): Chişinău, Moldova, 2022; Volume 1, pp. 298–307.
  66. Delmas, M.A.; Gergaud, O. Sustainable practices and product quality: Is there value in eco-label certification? The case of wine. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 183, 106953.
  67. Buunk, E.; van der Werf, E. Adopters versus non-adopters of the Green Key ecolabel in the Dutch accommodation sector. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3563.
  68. ISO 14024:1999; Environmental Labels and Declarations—Type I Environmental Labelling—Principles and Procedures. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1999.
  69. Bjørn, A.; Strandesen, M. The Cradle to Cradle Concept—Is It Always Sustainable? GreenBiz: Oakland, CA, USA, 2008.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Environmental Studies
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Bartłomiej Kabaja
,
Magdalena Wojnarowska
,
Marek Ćwiklicki
,
Stefania Claudia Buffagni
,
Erica Varese
View Times: 250
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 06 Nov 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback