final report - european...

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE GENERAL ENVIRONMENT

Directorate A – Green Economy

ENV.A.1 – Eco-Innovation & Circular Economy

Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information Request for Specific Services for the implementation of the Framework Contract no.

EAHC-2011-CP-01

Final Report

Authors:

Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva, Pietro Tornese, Giuseppe A. Veltri and George Gaskell

PRESENTED IN CONSORTIUM: BY LSE & PARTNERS

Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

2

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Technical Secretariats of all pilots for their participation in the Pilot

phase of this project: Batteries and accumulators; Decorative paints; Hot and cold water supply

pipes; Household detergents; Intermediate paper product; IT equipment; Leather; Metal sheets;

Footwear; Photovoltaic electricity generation; Stationery; Thermal insulation; T-shirts;

Uninterruptible Power Supply; Beer; Coffee; Dairy; Feed for food-producing animals; Marine

fish; Meat (bovine, pigs, sheep); Olive oil; Packed water; Pasta; Pet food (cats & dogs); Wine.

Ewelina Marek for her contribution at the beginning of the study. Lastly, we would like to thank

DG ENV, particularly our EC project officer Imola Bedo for her detailed and relevant comments

that helped us improve the final version of this report, as well as Michele Galatola and Benedetta

Nucci for their ongoing support throughout the project.

Disclaimer

This report was produced in response to the Request for Specific Services for the implementation

of the Framework Contract no EAHC-2011-CP-01 for the provision of an “Assessment of different

communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information”. The content of this

report represents the views of the contractor and is its sole responsibility; it can in no way be

taken to reflect the views of the European Commission or other body of the European Union.

The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this report,

nor does it accept responsibility for any use made by third parties thereof. More information on

the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).


3

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 10

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 13

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY .......................................................................................................................... 13 1.2 METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................................... 14 1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT ........................................................................................................................... 15

2 SUPPORT TO PILOTS, ACTIVITIES AND ASSESSMENT ......................................................... 17

2.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................ 17 2.2 PILOTS SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 18

2.2.1 Wiki space ............................................................................................................................................. 18 2.2.2 Conference calls .................................................................................................................................. 19 2.2.3 Webinars ................................................................................................................................................ 19

2.3 PILOTS ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................................................................... 20 2.4 PILOTS COMMUNICATION VEHICLES ............................................................................................................... 21 2.5 ANALYSIS OF THE PILOT TESTS ....................................................................................................................... 22 2.6 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE PILOT PHASE .................................................................................................. 24

3 STAKEHOLDERS’ PERSPECTIVES ..................................................................................................... 25

3.1 RETAILERS: WORKSHOP .................................................................................................................................. 25 3.1.1 Background and objectives ............................................................................................................ 25 3.1.2 Complementary tests........................................................................................................................ 25 3.1.3 The role of retailers and the environmental footprint .......................................................... 26 3.1.4 Remarks ................................................................................................................................................. 27

3.2 CONSUMERS: FOCUS GROUPS ........................................................................................................................ 27 3.2.1 Background and objectives ............................................................................................................ 27 3.2.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 27 3.2.3 Environmental Footprint: perceptions, experiences and knowledge .............................. 28 3.2.4 Influence of the different communication vehicles for providing environmental

footprint information ......................................................................................................................................... 33 3.3 SMES: ONLINE SURVEY .................................................................................................................................. 41

3.3.1 Background, objectives and methodology ................................................................................ 41 3.3.2 SMEs characteristics.......................................................................................................................... 42 3.3.3 Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 44

3.4 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE STAKEHOLDER TESTING ................................................................................ 59

4 WEIGHTING EXERCISE: EXPERT AND LAY KNOWLEDGE ..................................................... 62

4.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................... 62 4.2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................ 63

4.2.1 Design ..................................................................................................................................................... 63 4.2.2 Sample ................................................................................................................................................... 69 4.2.3 Fieldwork ............................................................................................................................................... 74

4.3 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................................... 75 4.4 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE WEIGHTING EXERCISE ................................................................................... 79

5 ONLINE EXPERIMENTS: CERTIFICATION, WILLINGNESS TO PAY AND ECOLABEL 80

5.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................... 80 5.2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................ 81

5.2.1 Study on Certification and Trust .................................................................................................. 81 5.2.2 Study on Willingness to Pay and PEF ......................................................................................... 84 5.2.3 Study on Ecolabel............................................................................................................................... 86


4

5.3 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................................... 87 5.3.1 Study on Certification and Trust .................................................................................................. 87 5.3.2 Study on Willingness to Pay ........................................................................................................... 95 5.3.3 Study on Ecolabel............................................................................................................................... 98

5.4 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EXPERIMENTS ............................................................................................... 100

6 FURTHER STUDIES................................................................................................................................ 101

6.1 BRICK AND MORTAR TEST ............................................................................................................................. 101 6.1.1 Design ................................................................................................................................................... 101 6.1.2 Methodology and sample .............................................................................................................. 102 6.1.3 Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 103

6.2 SMARTPHONES AND APPS: A SCOPING REVIEW ........................................................................................... 107 6.2.1 Mobile use and access in Europe ................................................................................................ 107 6.2.2 Mobile in-store shopping ............................................................................................................... 108 6.2.3 QR codes as an example ............................................................................................................... 112

6.3 LESSONS LEARNED ........................................................................................................................................ 117

7 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 120


5

List of figures

Figure 1 Overall framework ........................................................................................... 14

Figure 2 Overview of the methods used .......................................................................... 15

Figure 3 Support on the communication phase wiki space ................................................. 18

Figure 4 Overview of pilot feedback by method ............................................................... 20

Figure 5 Overview of pilot tests by target group .............................................................. 20

Figure 6 Overview of pilot tests by method ..................................................................... 20

Figure 7 Overview of pilot tests by CV ............................................................................ 21

Figure 8 Environmental Footprint Labels ......................................................................... 35

Figure 9 Point of Sale example ...................................................................................... 37

Figure 10 Receipts example .......................................................................................... 38

Figure 11 Mobile app example ....................................................................................... 39

Figure 12 Website examples ......................................................................................... 39

Figure 13 Website example ........................................................................................... 40

Figure 14 Sectors (Q1) ................................................................................................. 42

Figure 15 Breakdown by class size (Q2) ......................................................................... 42

Figure 16 Level of resources devoted to improving the environmental performance as % of 2016

turnover (Q4) ....................................................................................................... 42

Figure 17 Market scope (Q6) ......................................................................................... 43

Figure 18 Commercial activity (Q7) ................................................................................ 43

Figure 19 B2B type of products (Q8) .............................................................................. 43

Figure 20 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q12, Q13) ........................................ 44

Figure 21 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q12, Q13) by sector .......................... 44

Figure 22 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q13) by class size (Q2) ..................... 45

Figure 23 Environmental concerns (Q16, Q17) ................................................................ 45

Figure 24 Environmental concerns (Q16, Q17) by sector .................................................. 46

Figure 25 Environmental concerns (Q17) by class size (Q2) .............................................. 46

Figure 26 Environmental information demand (Q14, Q15) ................................................ 47

Figure 27 Environmental information demand (Q14, Q15) by sector .................................. 47

Figure 27 Environmental information demand (Q15) by class size (Q2) ............................. 47

Figure 29 Environmental policy topics (Q20) ................................................................... 48

Figure 30 Environmental topics: Natural resources (Q22) ................................................. 49

Figure 31 Environmental topics: Human health (Q21) ...................................................... 50

Figure 32 Environmental topics: Natural resources (Q23) ................................................. 50

Figure 33 Environmental performance (Q25) ................................................................... 51

Figure 34 Environmental information target (Q27) ........................................................... 51

Figure 35 Environmental information assessment (Q28) ................................................... 52

Figure 36 B2B Communication vehicles use (Q29) ........................................................... 52

Figure 37 B2B potential Communication vehicles (Q30) .................................................... 53

Figure 38 B2B communication vehicles effectiveness (Q31) .............................................. 53

Figure 39 B2C communication vehicles used (Q32) .......................................................... 54

Figure 40 B2C possible communication vehicles (Q33) ..................................................... 54

Figure 41 B2C communication vehicles effectiveness (Q34) .............................................. 55

Figure 42 LCA drivers (Q36) ......................................................................................... 56

Figure 43 LCA inhibitors (Q37) ...................................................................................... 57


6

Figure 44 Product Environmental Footprint (Q35) ............................................................ 58

Figure 45 General public survey procedure ..................................................................... 63

Figure 46 Screen 1 ...................................................................................................... 64

Figure 47 Screen 2 ...................................................................................................... 64

Figure 48 Experts survey procedure ............................................................................... 66

Figure 49 Summary of results ....................................................................................... 78

Figure 50. Experimental design ..................................................................................... 81

Figure 51 Study on Certification and Trust – Choice example ............................................ 82

Figure 52 Study on Willingness to Pay – Choice example .................................................. 84

Figure 53 Study on Ecolabel – Choice example ................................................................ 86

Figure 54 Study on Certification and Trust - How much would you trust the following to certify

the accuracy of environmental information on consumer products? ............................. 90

Figure 55 Study on Certification and Trust - Would the following have the expertise to provide

accurate PEF information on consumer products?...................................................... 90

Figure 56 Study on Certification and Trust - Would the following have the expertise to verify

accurate PEF information on consumer products?...................................................... 91

Figure 57 Study on Certification and Trust - Do you think they could be relied on to act in the

public interest regarding product environmental information? ..................................... 91

Figure 58 Study on Certification and Trust - In the development of PEF information for

consumers, how effective would the following actors be? ........................................... 92

Figure 59 Study on Certification and Trust - Who should lead the development and introduction

of PEF information? ............................................................................................... 92

Figure 60 Study on Certification and Trust - If it is found that a company has intentionally

misinformed the public about the environmental performance of a product, which of the

following would be most appropriate? ...................................................................... 93

Figure 61 Study on Certification and Trust – Factors (self-declared) that influence the decision

of buying a t-shirt ................................................................................................. 93

Figure 62 Study on Certification and Trust - Factors that influence the decision of buying a laptop

.......................................................................................................................... 94

Figure 63 Study on Certification and Trust - Factors that influence the decision of buying a milk

carton ................................................................................................................. 94

Figure 64 Study on Willingness to Pay – Social context.................................................... 97

Figure 65 Study on Willingness to Pay - To what extent do you believe are the following groups

of people around you concerned and engaged about environmental issues? ................. 97

Figure 66 Study on Willingness to Pay - To what extent do you discuss with the following groups

of people around you about environmental issues? ................................................... 98

Figure 67 Study on Ecolabel –Respondents who have seen the Ecolabel logo before, by country

.......................................................................................................................... 98

Figure 68 CV logos tested ............................................................................................ 101

Figure 69 Labels tested in the brick and mortar exercise ................................................. 101

Figure 70 Poster ......................................................................................................... 102

Figure 71 Sample distribution – exit interviews .............................................................. 103

Figure 72 Reactions to the CVs ..................................................................................... 103

Figure 73 Most noticed CVs .......................................................................................... 104

Figure 74 Purchasing drivers ........................................................................................ 105

Figure 75 Favourite CV ................................................................................................ 105

Figure 76 Perceptions of the two CV logos ..................................................................... 106

Figure 77 Impact on the retailer’s brand image .............................................................. 106


7

Figure 78: Individuals who used a portable computer or a handheld device to access the internet

away from home or work, 2012 and 2016 ............................................................... 107

Figure 79 Product and services m-marketing design ....................................................... 109

Figure 80: Mobile shopper journey and research questions .............................................. 110

Figure 81 Consumer behavioral drivers and barriers ....................................................... 117

Figure 83 Study on Certification and Trust – choice sets .................................................. 164

Figure 84 Experiment 1 - Fieldwork .............................................................................. 170

Figure 85 Study on Certification and Trust - Variables ..................................................... 171

Figure 86 Study on Willingness to Pay – Choice sets ....................................................... 173


Figure 88 Study on Willingness to Pay - Variables ........................................................... 177

Figure 89 Study on Ecolabel – Choice sets ..................................................................... 180


Figure 91 Study on Ecolabel - Variables ......................................................................... 184


8

List of tables Table 1 Environmental Footprint midpoints definitions ...................................................... 36

Table 2 SMEs fieldwork ................................................................................................ 41

Table 3 Hierarchical structure of impact categories .......................................................... 62

Table 4 Technical specification of samples for the online survey ........................................ 69

Table 5 Target sample by country and age group ............................................................ 70

Table 6 Target sample by country and gender ................................................................. 70

Table 7 Target sample by country and education level...................................................... 70

Table 8 Sampling errors by country ............................................................................... 71

Table 9 Weights by country .......................................................................................... 72

Table 10 Technical specification for the experts survey ..................................................... 72

Table 11 Expert respondents by country and gender ........................................................ 72

Table 12 General public fieldwork .................................................................................. 74

Table 13 Experts fieldwork ............................................................................................ 75

Table 14 General Public Summary statistics – Endpoints ................................................... 75

Table 15 Experts Summary statistics – Endpoints ............................................................ 75

Table 16 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Human Health)............................ 76

Table 17 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Human Health) ..................................... 76

Table 18 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Environment) ................... 77

Table 19 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Environment) ............................ 77

Table 20 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Resources) ...................... 77

Table 21 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Resources)................................ 78

Table 22 Study on Certification and Trust – Sample specification ....................................... 83

Table 23 Study on Willingness to Pay – Sample specification ............................................. 85

Table 24 Study on Ecolabel – Sample specification .......................................................... 87

Table 25 Study on Certification and Trust – Most effective labels ....................................... 88

Table 26 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Laptop) ............................................ 89

Table 27 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (T-shirt) ............................................. 89

Table 28 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Milk) ................................................ 89

Table 29 Study on Willingness to Pay – Most effective labels ............................................ 95

Table 30 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (Laptop) ................................................. 96

Table 31 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (T-shirt) .................................................. 96

Table 32 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (Yogurt) .................................................. 96

Table 33 Study on Ecolabel – Most effective labels .......................................................... 99

Table 34 Study on Ecolabel – Results (Laptop) ................................................................ 99

Table 35 Study on Ecolabel – Results (Detergent) .......................................................... 100

Table 36 Research areas and unexplored questions ........................................................ 110

Table 36 Study on Certification and Trust – Target sample by country and age group ......... 169

Table 37 Study on Certification and Trust - Target sample by country and gender .............. 169

Table 38 Study on Certification and Trust - Target sample by country and education level ... 169

Table 39 Study on Willingness to Pay – Target sample by country and age group ............... 176

Table 40 Study on Willingness to Pay - Target sample by country and gender .................... 176

Table 41 Study on Willingness to Pay - Target sample by country and education level ......... 176

Table 42 Study on Ecolabel – Target sample by country and age group ............................. 183

Table 43 Study on Ecolabel - Target sample by country and gender .................................. 183


9

Table 44 Study on Ecolabel - Target sample by country and education level ....................... 183


10

Executive Summary

The European Commission’s work on the development of the Product/Organisation

Environmental Footprint (PEF/OEF) method started in 2010 in reaction to complaints from the

business sector about difficulties due to the proliferation of environmental labels/certification

schemes and with some companies making unsubstantiated or unverifiable ‘green’ claims. In

2010 the Council adopted the conclusions asking the Commission to develop a harmonised

method for the calculation of the life cycle environmental performance of products. In 2013 the

College adopted the Communication "Building the Single Market for Green Products"

(COM/2013/0196 final). This Communication included a Commission recommendation

(179/2013) establishing methods to calculate the environmental footprint of products (PEF) and

organisations (OEF). These methods were published in the Official Journal (OJ L 124, 4.5.2013,

p. 1–210). In this publication it was asserted that these methods were not intended to directly

support comparisons or comparative assertions, i.e. claims of overall superiority or equivalence

of the environmental footprint of one product compared to another. It stated that such

comparisons would require the development of additional PEF category rules or OEF sector rules

to complement the general guidance, in order to further increase methodological harmonisation,

specificity, relevance and reproducibility for a given product-type. Such category rules and sector

rules were the intended focus of Pilot phase.

The development and testing of communication vehicles involved a programme of research

spanning three years. It involved sector associations; large, medium and small enterprises;

environmental sustainability experts and European citizens. Pilot studies were initiated to

develop product environmental footprint category rules (PEFCRs) and to test the effectiveness

of different vehicles for communicating PEF information. Of 51 initiatives spanning a wide range

of sectors, 27 concerned PEF communication in business to business (B2B) contexts and 24 for

business to consumer (B2C). The communication vehicles tested included labels, declarations,

reports, web pages and traditional PR – videos, banner, info-graphics, ads and newsletters. The

studies used a range of methods including surveys, interviews, workshops and focus groups to

assess output measures of target audience attention and understanding; changes in purchaser

(B2B) and consumer behaviour/ behavioural intentions (B2C); the influence on attractiveness of

the product/reputation of the organisation, and potential environmental impacts from

organisational change.

Supporting these Pilots, the Consortium (the authors of this report) conducted a number of

complementary studies aimed at developing and testing insights from the Pilot studies, filling

gaps with studies of stakeholders who were under-represented in the Pilots and providing an

evidence base for policy making on some key issues. The complementary studies included a

workshop with retailers; focus groups with members of the public, and an online survey with

SMEs. Investigations on key issues included studies with experts and citizens assessing the

relative importance of different midpoint and endpoint impact categories; experiments to

determine the effectiveness of different communication vehicles; the framings of persuasive

messages; consumers’ willingness to pay for environmentally sustainable products; confidence

in different sources certifying PEF information, and an in vivo study of shoppers.

Based on the studies conducted within the PEF/OEF Pilot phase, a number of conclusions

concerning communication vehicles, and stakeholders’ views and likely responses to PEF and

OEF information can be drawn.

Converging lines of enquiry, both quantitative and qualitative, show that the greater majority of

European citizens express concerns about sustainability and feel a moral obligation to protect

the environment for future generations. While they are interested in receiving information about

the environmental impact of products, the environmental performance of products is not among

the main criteria affecting consumers’ purchase decisions. Currently price, quality, brand and

availability are more relevant considerations in many product categories. In some categories,

environmental performance of products is an important attribute, suggesting that, over time,

environmental performance has the potential to become more influential.

The commercial and business sectors and in particular large and medium sized enterprises

acknowledge the inevitability and increasing importance of environmental sustainability,


11

anticipate important benefits for both B2B and B2C activities, and support European

standardisation. The benefits include improving brand values, the opportunity to compare

products on their environmental performance, driving up the quality of products in terms of their

environmental products, higher quality of products, and last but not least, a level playing field

with common rules for across the EU.

Retailers agree on the increasing public awareness of environmental sustainability and

appreciate their contribution along with companies and government. With the exception of food,

the Retailers’ research points to consumers paying less attention to the environmental footprint

of products bought on a regular basis or used within a short timeframe. It is with newly

introduced lines, big or expensive purchases items (e.g. cars and household appliances), and

products that impact their own or their children’s health that the environmental impact is an

issue.

Some of the environmental impact categories are beyond comprehension for the public. While

they a familiar with impacts such as climate change, CO2 emissions, energy and water

consumption, the use of technical/scientific terms such as acidification, terrestrial eutrophication

and eco-toxicity is simply not understood. And, the concept and links to products of Life Cycle

Analysis is not readily accessible.

On the design of communication vehicles, the evidence points to the following characteristics to

maximise effectiveness.

• An emphasis on clarity, simplicity and transparency.

• Avoiding numeric and scientific terms (e.g. kg CO2-eq / kg), these are too complex.

• Using graphics, bar charts and colour scales

• Emulating the readily understood Traffic light and Energy Labels

• Certification from named, independent and trusted sources

• Offering QR codes, bar codes, links, websites and banners for those who want further

information.

• The most effective label is PEF label, A-E rating and an average product score

Whether to use positive message framing -‘Protect the environment for our children’ or a

negative framing - ‘Our children will suffer if we ignore the environment’ the findings are

equivocal. In an experiment the negative frame had a large and significant effect. By contrast,

in the field study, the brick and mortar test, it was the positive frame that shoppers thought

would have the greatest impact.

Other findings on consumers’ decision making are that:

A PEF label has a greater effect on choice that either the Ecolabel or a PEF plus the

Ecolabel

4 in 10 shoppers said that they would pay a little more for environmentally sustainable

products. The Retailers agreed with this but said the premium should not be large.

Consumer organisations and the European Commission are cited as trusted sources for

the certification of PEFs

Turning to enterprises, the SMEs’ online survey shows that a significant number of mid-sized

SMEs, in particular those in agriculture and industry, with an active commitment to

environmental issues. About half of the SMEs consulted have an internal environmental policy

in place, often based on LCA indicators and covering topics such as climate change, water use,

land use, but also topics related to human health, such as toxicity and cancer, and natural

resources. About one third of the SMEs publish information on environmental issues targeted at

their clients. In the B2B activities labels are seen as the most effective communication vehicles,

followed by PR campaigns, environmental reports, product passports and environmental product

declarations. B2C enterprises reported using websites, leaflets and labels to communicate


12

environmental information and see websites and POS product advertisement as the most

effective vehicles.

For SMEs organizational awareness, customer satisfaction and improvements of environmental

practices are cited as the motivators of their environmental policies. However, constraints were

mentioned including problems collecting data, the costs of personnel and/or external experts. A

standardised approach with a common methodology should help to overcome these barriers.

The outcomes of the Pilot tests and the complementary studies support the development and

implementation of Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and Organisation Environmental

Footprint (OEF) methods. But the findings also flag up a tension.

On the one hand the PEF concept based on end and mid points is a scientific approach to LCA.

It reflects ‘systemic thinking’ characterised by esoteric terminology, abstraction, quantification

and complexity. Necessarily so, as the environmental impacts of a product over the life cycle

are complex. On the other hand, the public (and many in enterprises) while committed to

environmental sustainability, do not think in systemic terms. They are ‘narrative thinkers’ who

are more persuaded by stories, pictures and graphics than by quantified facts. They will switch

off from complex information and from information removed from everyday experience. The

tension for the roll out of PEFs is how can validity of information be achieved at the same time

as simplicity? Without validity consumers who seek to purchase environmentally sustainable

products may be misled; but if the PEF information is valid but too complex consumers will

ignore it.

The challenge for policy is to translate scientific knowledge into public knowledge, to continue to

cultivate verbal support for PEFs/OEFs and to provide opportunities and an appropriate decision

architecture to convert good intentions into sustainable consumption. This should be seen as

an incremental process over time and not the result of a one-off campaign or single policy

intervention. To achieve an impact on companies, consumers and Member States there is a

need:

For policy makers and scientists to agree an initial and simplified strategy for PEF and

OEF measurement bearing in mind that perfection should not be the enemy of the good.

To raise awareness about the agreed PEF/OEF method among all the stakeholders

emphasising the beneficial impact of the environmental sustainability for current and

future generations.

To achieve consensus about the communication vehicles, guided by simplicity, clarity and

transparency, and the benchmarking strategy in order to avoid information overload and

the plethora of existing claims;

To integrate and test the selected communication vehicles with other product/business

information currently in place.


13

1 Introduction

1.1 Background of the study

In the EU, consumers are facing a cacophony of diverse and non-comparable environmental

information. Many EU citizens think that existing product labels are unclear and do not provide

enough information1. The current policy context is characterised by the lack of provision of

consistent, reliable and clear environmental information, despite evident interest by consumers

and stakeholders.

With the aim of enhancing the consistency of environment-related information for consumers

and business, the Commission adopted a Communication on “Building the Single Market for

Green Products”2 and a Recommendation on “The use of common methods for measuring and

communicating the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations”.3 The

Recommendation introduced two methods, the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and the

Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) – to measure environmental performance

throughout the lifecycle, recommending their use to Member States, companies, private

organisations and the financial community.

The initiative was further developed in a four-year testing period known as the "Pilot Phase”,

launched in November 2013 and completed in 2017. During this phase, a voluntary, multi-

stakeholder process was launched4 to develop product- and sector-specific rules (known as

Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules – PEFCRs and Organisation Environmental

Footprint Sectoral Rules – OEFSRs, respectively)5. In addition, the Pilot Phase aimed at testing

different approaches to verification and to communicating PEF/OEF information. Communication

vehicles (CVs) are defined as means of conveying information on the environmental performance

of a product or organisation to business partners, consumers and other stakeholder (e.g. labels,

reports, on-shelf stickers/wobblers, product declarations, websites, etc.)

Within this context, the current project “Assessment of different communication vehicles for

providing Environmental Footprint information” was carried out. Its main objectives have been:

Providing support in the definition, implementation and testing of CVs;

Gathering feedback on the effectiveness and use of CVs in terms of the following

dimensions:

– Attention and understanding by target audiences,

– Changes in purchasing intentions and/or behaviour,

– Influence on attractiveness of the product/reputation of the organisation,

– Environmental impacts from modifications of organisational internal actions;

Providing input for the evaluation of the communication stage of the Pilot Phase.

This report describes the main activities carried out from December 2014 to December 2017 to

fulfil these objectives.

1 http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/flash_arch_374_361_en.htm#367

2 COM(2013) 196, http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52013DC0196:EN:NOT

3 2013/179/EU, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:124:SOM:EN:HTML 4 PEFCR pilots cover batteries and accumulators, decorative paints, hot and cold water supply pipes, household detergents, intermediate paper product (JRC), IT equipment, leather, metal sheets, non- leather shoes, photovoltaic electricity generation, stationery, thermal insulation, t-shirts, Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS), beer, coffee, dairy, feed, fish, meat, pasta, packed water, pet food, olive oil and wine. OEFSR pilots cover retail and copper3. There are 27 pilots in total. 5 The role of PEFCRs and OEFSRs is to translate the general rules of PEF and OEF to a specific product group or sector. The rules are meant to set methodological choices in a way that it results in reproducible and consistent outcomes, enabling comparisons between the environmental performance of products and organisations, whenever feasible, appropriate and useful.

http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/flash_arch_374_361_en.htm#367


14

1.2 Methodological framework

The following figure depicts the overall framework of the project, and the interactions between

the activities carried out, the dimensions under analysis as listed above, the methodologies used,

and the stakeholders involved in the overall process.

Figure 1 Overall framework

The development, testing and feedback of the different communication vehicles has been an

iterative process aimed at reinforcing the findings as new evidence was generated through the

testing activities. In addition to the exhaustive and continuous support and feedback provided

to and gathered from the Pilots, a significant portion of the effort throughout the project by the

Consortium consisted in carrying out new, complementary studies.

These studies, carried out by the Consortium, filled in gaps in the evidence from the tests

conducted by the pilots. In addition, they generated valuable novel insights that, during the

course of the project, became the cornerstone for the policy recommendations provided.

In light of the complexity of the issues and the variable time-frames of the pilot testing, the

Consortium opted for a flexible ‘stop & go’ approach. The different studies were designed in a

sequence that facilitated the narrowing down of the ‘problem space’. The rationale is that a set

of cumulative studies, each one building on the results from the previous studies, is the optimal

approach to leveraging the collective insights from the pilots’ assessments of their

communication vehicle studies and taking these further with bespoke complementary studies.

Complementary testing involved a multi-stakeholder perspective, engaging groups that were

underrepresented during the pilot phase – such as SMEs – as well as additional groups who play

a particularly crucial role due in relation to the implementation of PEFs – such as retailers. Most

importantly, it repeatedly involved the general public as such, through large-scale multi-country

quantitative and qualitative methods. The following figure sketches more in detail the different

methods used, with the corresponding section of the report, as well as the rationale behind the

process.

WhoHow:testing

FeedbackDevelopment

Testing

Pilottesting

Consortiumtesting

Communicationvehicles

Focusgroups

Workshop

OnlineSurvey

Randomisedexperiments

Weightingexercise

Scopingreview

Brickandmortartest

Consumers

Enterprises

Retailers

Experts

What

Understandingandattention

Changesinconsumerbehaviour

Influenceonattractivenessand

reputation

Environmentalimpacts

Recommendations

How:support

WikispaceConference

callsWebinars Logbook

Pilots

Consortiumsupport

Assessmentofdifferentcommunicationvehicles

forprovidingEnvironmentalFootprint

information


15

Figure 2 Overview of the methods used

Evidence gathered in the tests by pilots was corroborated by an exploratory qualitative study,

which included focus groups involving consumers, followed by a workshop with retailers. Two

studies aimed at investigating the weighting and relative importance of the different

environmental mid and endpoint categories to identify the most relevant impacts, and were

directed to field experts as well as the general public.

Findings from the exploratory qualitative study and from the weighting exercise helped to narrow

down the communication vehicle options, and fed into the design and implementation of three

large online experiments. These tested their relative effectiveness of different communication

vehicles, the Ecolabel, forms of certification and willingness to pay for environmentally

sustainable products. The experimental finding were then validated through a brick and mortar

test, conducted in supermarket stores.

These studies and the earlier focus groups, signaled a specific interest among some consumers

for accessing additional information via QR codes. Therefore, the Consortium carried out a

scoping review of the field, the technology, and its uses to understand drivers and barriers for

the application to the PEF context. Finally, the consortium implemented a quantitative survey

of SMEs to complete the picture given by the pilots, as smaller enterprises tended to be

underrepresented in the pilot composition.

1.3 Structure of the report

As all the activities carried out have been reported in the previous deliverables to the EC, the

aim of this report is to summarise this information as follow:

Chapter 2 addresses the support activities provided to the pilots as well as the description

and analysis of the testing conducted by them.

Chapter 3 comprises the different activities conducted by the Consortium to gather

insights on PEF information from different stakeholders, including retailers, consumers,

and SMEs;

Chapter 4 reviews the study investigating the weighting and relative importance of the

different PEF categories, to identify the most relevant impacts;

Workshopwithretailers(§ 3.1)

Focusgroupswithconsumers(§ 3.2)

Experiment#1(Certificationandtrust)(§ 5)

Weightingexercisewithexperts(§ 4)

Inputfrompilottesting

Weightingexercisewiththegeneralpublic(§ 4)

Experiment#2(Willingnesstopay)(§ 5)

Experiment#3(Ecolabel)

(§ 5)

OnlinesurveyofSMEs(§ 3.3)

ScopingreviewofQRcodes(§ 6.2)

Brickandmortartest(§ 6.1)


16

Chapter 5 describes the results of three online experiments investigating the effects of

several issues related to consumer decision making including certification, trust, PEF

ratings, willingness to pay and a comparison with an existing label.

Chapter 6 provides the results of the two additional studies carried out, the brick and

mortar test and the scoping review of QR codes;

Chapter 7 concludes and provides the policy recommendation which will serve as an input

to the evaluation of the communication stage of the Pilot Phase.


17

2 Support to pilots, activities and assessment

2.1 Overview

The objectives of the Pilot Phase included the following:

to set up and validate the process of the development of PEFCRs OEFSRs, including the

development of performance benchmarks;

to test different compliance and verification systems, in order to set up and validate

proportionate, effective and efficient compliance and verification systems;

to test the effectiveness of different business-to-business and business-to-consumer

CVs in collaboration with stakeholders.

The tests were informed by the document “Background document for testing of communication

vehicles in the environmental footprint phase in 2013-2016”. Each pilot carried out tests and

reported to the European Commission and the Consortium responsible for this report. The role

of the Consortium was to gather feedback on the effectiveness and use of CVs in terms of:

Attention and understanding target audiences,

Changes in purchasing intentions/behaviour,

Influence on attractiveness of the product/reputation of the organisation,

Environmental impacts from modifications of organisational internal actions.

In addition, the Consortium provided support to pilots in their efforts to develop a methodology

for testing of communication vehicles. In this context, the European Commission (EC) and the

Consortium agreed on 27 January 2015 (during the kick-off meeting) that the support to the

pilots would encompass:

Indications on the most appropriate methodological approach,

Advise on statistical tools for the interpretation of findings, and

Literature reviews to gather information on the existing body of knowledge.

This support was triggered by requests from the pilots using a project-specific e-mail account,

the use of the wiki platform and webinars. The dedicated account (env_footprint@open-

evidence.com) was set up shortly thereafter. The e-mail was principally used to disseminate and

gather information from the pilots, for instance, about the upcoming webinars. In addition, in

May 2015 the European Commission reminded the Pilots that they could seek support from the

Consortium using the dedicated email address.

With the objective of building trust and fostering collaboration between the Pilot leaders and the

Consortium, a workshop was held on 27 February 2015, in Brussels. The Steering Group6 had

an opportunity to ask questions regarding the CV testing and share their concerns related to the

assessment methodology. In follow-up, a survey was circulated to the Pilots to enquire about

the current status of each of the pilot as well as their capabilities and capacities to carry out the

CV testing. The results of the survey were reported in the second interim report (D2) in June

2015.

During conference calls, held regularly between the EC and the Consortium, it was proposed to

explore the Wiki7, which had been used by the Pilots to exchange information on their progress.

For that purpose, the EC created a sandbox (i.e., a child page of the space called “EU

6 During the Environmental Footprint Pilot Phase, tests were conducted by volunteers in organisations called Technical

Secretariats, each developing the rules for their product or sector. Other actors involved in the Pilot phase included the Steering Committee (SC) and a Technical Advisory Board (TAB). The SC consists of a representative for each Member State, key stakeholder groups (SMEs, consumers, environmental NGOs), representatives of the Environmental Footprint pilots and the EC. The SC was in charge of strategic decisions and approving milestone documents. The TABs comprised experts nominated by the SC and was responsible for proposing solutions to technical challenges and advising the SC on technical issues.

7 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/Support+on+the+communication+phase

mailto:[email protected]



18

Environmental Footprint Pilot Phase”). It was a testing page of the Wiki that enabled the

Consortium to review the possible technical options and develop a proposal for the Wiki space

for support of the pilots. The proposal was presented in D2 and discussed with the EC. At the

same time the use of a Logbook was also discussed within the Consortium and with the European

Commission.

2.2 Pilots support

2.2.1 Wiki space

The Wiki space was launched in October 2015 under the name “Support on the communication

phase”, thereby replacing the “Sandbox” (which was a space restricted to the Consortium and

the Commission at the early stages of its development). In terms of the structure, it was agreed

to keep the content of the Wiki as practical as possible. The Wiki space encompassed six sections,

as illustrated in the following figure:

Figure 3 Support on the communication phase wiki space

Source: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/Support+on+the+communication+phase

In the first section, the users could find the Toolkit on CV testing8. The Toolkit provided

background information about the communication vehicles, insights from behavioural economics

as well as about methods for tests. The second section listed a number of studies, relating to

different types of communication vehicles as well as testing methods9. In addition, the

methodologies were explained to the users in the third section. In section 4, links to past as well

as forthcoming webinars along with the relevant documents were presented. The final version

8 See https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/download/attachments/116736540/Toolkit for CV testing 20150923.pdf?api=v2 9 See https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/Studies+overview

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/download/attachments/116736540/Toolkit%20for%20CV%20testing%2020150923.pdf?api=v2

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/download/attachments/116736540/Toolkit%20for%20CV%20testing%2020150923.pdf?api=v2

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/Studies+overview


19

of Logbook was made available in section 510. In the section 6, users were reminded of the

generic e-mail address with which to contact the Consortium.

1.1 10 See Background

This chapter contains the results from the three online experiments conducted by the

Consortium. The experiment were designed based on the feedback gathered during the previous

steps (focus groups, workshop, weighting exercise), where the following areas were identified

as potential complementary tests:

Certification and Trust: Should PEF labels include a certification? and which institutions

do consumers trust more?

Impact categories: To what extent are consumers concerned about different negative

impacts (e.g. on the environment, on human health) of product life cycle?

Message framing: Are consumers persuaded more by positive or negative messages?

Willingness to pay: To what extent are consumers willing to pay more for

environmentally-friendly product?

Penalisation: Should a company who intentionally misinformed the public about the

environmental performance of a product be penalised?

Ecolabel: How should a PEF label relate to the existing Ecolabel?

Accordingly, three large online experiments were designed to test the relative effectiveness of

CVs in terms of several dimensions, including:

Understanding of PEF information: declared and factual;

Attracting attention for the PEF and OEF information;

Influence on the purchasing intentions in terms of willingness to pay and increased

perceived marginal utility of the product with PEF information over one without.

Box 1 – Discrete choice experiments

To understand what influences people’s choices we used an established methodology - the discrete choice experiment. The method starts with the idea that a product or a service is a bundle of attributes. Take a car for example, where the attributes contributing to a purchase decision might be (i) number of seats, (ii) engine size and (iii) price. Each attribute may vary: (i) 2 or 4 seats; (ii)

more or less than 1500ccs engine size, and (iii) three levels of price low, medium and high.

If every combination of the levels of the three attributes is available then we have 2×2×3 = 12 possible cars to choose from. Of course real life is much more complicated – witness the range of car sizes, colours, extras, prices etc.

Let us return to the simple life where only 12 cars are available. We take two of the possible 12 cars (combinations of attributes) and ask respondents which one of the two they prefer. We then ask them to choose between another pair of cars. Knowing their preferences for every possible pairing

of the 12 cars allows us to determine the relative importance or weight of the three attributes (the number of seats, engine size and price) in their purchase decision.

The discrete choice experiments allows for the testing of several alternatives simultaneously in

a multi-country context. There are limitations to the number of CV variants that can be tested

because each one requires a separate group of respondents. The detailed nature of the

experiment entailed – as this is always the case – some trade-offs between what is desirable

and what is feasible.


20

1.2 Methodology

This section summarises the methodology used in the three experiments conducted. A detailed

description is provided as Annex.

1.2.1 Study on Certification and Trust

The experiment aimed at understanding the importance of PEF rating certification – the source

of certification, framing, and trustworthiness - on consumer decision-making process. To achieve

this aim, an online experiment was conducted in four different countries: Sweden, Spain,

Germany and Romania. This selection was based on the Special Eurobarometer 416 Attitudes of

European citizens towards the environment (2014). Sweden and Spain are countries above the

EU28 average while Germany and Romania are below the EU28 average. In addition to the

different level of environmentally consciousness, these four countries represent different

geographical locations and different levels of per-capita GDP, Sweden and Germany faring above

the EU-28 average, Spain and Romania below average.

The online experiment was performed in two steps: the experimental part using a discrete choice

experiment (Part 1) and the self-reported measures (Part 2), including questions (see sections

below) and psychometric scales. A representative sample (age and gender) of 1,500 internet

users was targeted in each country to capture variance.

Figure 50. Experimental design

A discrete choice experiment is a quantitative technique for eliciting preferences, allowing to

understand what is important in consumer decision-making process. The decisions that the

participants take in the experiment are simple. They were asked to choose a preferable product

between two on the basis of its mutually exclusive attributes (in random order). The discrete

choice experiment is the simplest of the choice techniques and has the advantage of low

cognitive complexity – the degree of task complexity and difficulty arising from the experiment.

The discrete choice experiment used two different dimensions, frames and sources of

certifications:

Three message frames: one pointing out the positive (e.g. the benefits for our health),

one pointing out the negative (e.g. the suffering of our children), and a baseline

condition.

Six different sources of certification of the environmental score

A total of 10 comparisons between two options were shown to each respondent. In conditions of

limited information about products, comparisons mean choosing between two items that have

the same rating. As with the rating, the PEF scale was maintained constant (ABCDE-style). The

design was replicated for the following three products, with 500 respondents by product:

Laptop (High cost purchase – Low frequency purchase);

T- shirt (Medium cost purchase – Medium frequency purchase);

Milk (Low cost purchase– High frequency purchase).

Each product carried an environmental label with the following attributes:

Headline “Environmental impact”;

ABCDE-scale PEF rating, which was maintained constant for all options at “B” level;

Frame, one among the following:

Part 1: Discrete choice experiment

(6'-8')

Part 2: Self-reported survey (6'-8')


21

1. Positive messages with an emphasis on the benefits:

Protect our environment to benefit our country’s children;

Protect our environment to benefit our health;

2. Negative messages with an emphasis on the risks/costs:

Our countries’ children will suffer if we ignore the environment;

Our health will suffer if we ignore the environment;

3. Baseline condition:

Protect our environment.

Source of certification:

1. None

2. National government

3. The European Commission

4. An Industry body from each country

5. A Consumer Organisation from each country

6. A third party organisation (independent body)

As an example, choice set #3 for milk in Spain is shown in the picture below.

Figure 51 Study on Certification and Trust – Choice example

A random sample of 6,000 individuals was drawn from 4 countries (Sweden, Romania, Spain,

Germany) to produce the general public survey (1,500 respondents per each of the 4 countries).

The randomization was ensured at the country level, meaning that each country was equally

represented in the survey.

In each country, the total sample was split by the number of products, so that each product

shown had the same sample. This was done to avoid task overload. For each product sample,

the study took the shape of a within-subject design. Each respondent was tested under each

condition.

Gathering the data across countries made it possible to ensure the validity and possibility to

generalise about awareness and understanding of the impact categories as well as about the

broader environmental awareness.

The following table summarises the sample specification.

Table 22 Study on Certification and Trust – Sample specification


22

Population General population aged 18 to 74 years old

Scope 4 EU Member States:

Sweden

Romania

Spain

Germany

Methodology Online survey

Sample size n=6,000 (n=1,500 respondents per country)

Quotas Age

Gender

Country

Sampling error 1.29% for overall data and 2.58% for country-

specific data

Weighting Weighting by country to be able to interpret the

overall data

Sampling Random with quotas

After the experimental part, respondents were asked the following questions, each focusing on

a specific aspect:

Certification: How much would you trust the following to certify the accuracy of

environmental information about consumer products?

Competence: Do you think the following organisations would have the expertise to

provide accurate product environmental information on consumer products? Do you think

the following organisations would have the expertise to verify accurate product

environmental information on consumer products?

Fiduciary responsibility: Do you think they could be relied on to act in the public interest

regarding product environmental information?

Effectiveness: In the development and introduction of product environmental information

for consumers how effective do you think the following would be?

Leadership: Who should lead the development and introduction of product environmental

information?

Penalties: If it is found that a company has intentionally misinformed the public about

the environmental performance of a product, which of the following would be most

appropriate?

Importance: Of the following aspects, which one do you consider the most important

when buying XXYY?

Annex IV. Certification and Trust contains a detailed description of the methodological approach.

1.2.2 Study on Willingness to Pay and PEF

This complementary test aimed at understanding the importance of a product’s price, its

environmental performance, and the PEF label’s appearance in consumer decision-making. To

achieve this aim, an online experiment was conducted in four different countries: France,

Germany, Italy and Poland. This selection is based on the same criteria mentioned in the

previous complementary test.


23

The design of this experiment could be considered as functionally equivalent to the experiment

conducted by the French government “The impact of environmental labelling on consumer

choices: lessons from a large-sample choice experiment”.

In our complementary test, respondents made choices across three product types – Yogurt,

t-shirt, and laptop. The characteristics that varied in the products’ descriptions are:

PEF description (3 levels)

o Overall PEF score;

o Overall PEF score plus three exemplary midpoints;

o Only three midpoints

PEF performance

o B/better

o D/worse

Prices)

o Baseline

o Plus 7%

o Plus 15%

The choice of midpoints reflected the work conducted by the Dairy pilot (for yogurt), the T-shirt

pilot (for t-shirt), and the IT equipment pilot (for laptops). The following midpoints were

accordingly selected:

Yogurt: Climate Change / Water use / Land use

T-shirt: Climate Change / Particular Matter / Freshwater Eutrophication

Laptop: Climate Change / Particular Matter / Resource use: metals and minerals

As an example, choice set #4 for a t-shirt in Italy is shown in the picture below.

Figure 52 Study on Willingness to Pay – Choice example

The target consisted of 1500 individuals per country and 4 countries (France, Germany, Italy

and Poland). The selection of the countries followed the same criteria of the previous experiment.

The experiment consisted of a repeated measures design for the three products (Yogurt, t-shirt

and laptop in random order) followed by a number of questions on the social context in which

the environmental concern is discussed by the participants and the socio-demographic

characteristics.

A list of questions was asked at the end of the choice experiments in all versions of the

questionnaire exploring the respondents’ opinion of the current environmental information as

they come across it in their daily lives (clarity, usefulness, etc.), their habits in terms of

sustainable consumption and their awareness of ecological issues. These questions are asked

after the choice experiments so as not to influence the product choices. In total, the average

time for answering the questionnaire is 20 minutes. The experiment was conducted over the

internet in the context of an on-line purchase, in which boxes of washing powder, yoghurt and


24

jeans are offered for sale, with each product bearing a label summarizing its environmental

impact (over its life-cycle).

A random sample of 6,000 individuals was drawn from 4 countries (France, Italy, Germany,

Poland) to produce the general public survey (1,500 respondents per each of the 4 countries).


represented in the survey. In each country, the total sample has been divided by the number of

products, so that each product shown had a similar sample. For each product sample, the study

took the shape of a within-subject design. Each respondent was tested under each condition.




The following table describes the sample specification:

Table 23 Study on Willingness to Pay – Sample specification



Germany

France

Italy

Poland



Quotas Age

Gender

Country


specific data


overall data


Annex V. Study on Willingness to Pay contains a detailed description of the methodological

approach.

1.2.3 Study on Ecolabel

The third experiment was conducted in 4 countries (France, Poland, Sweden and Slovenia). In

each country 1,000 people were surveyed. The study aimed at investigating the consumers'

choice when presented with a product displaying a PEF label as opposed to the EU Ecolabel, as

well as with labels that include both PEF information and the Ecolabel, across two products

(laptop and household detergent). It began with a “recognition” stage, where respondents were

asked whether they could recall the Ecolabel. The first stage was followed by a discrete-choice

experiment, an open-ended question, and socio-demographics.

In the experimental stage, the characteristics that varied in the products’ descriptions (laptop

and detergent) are:

1. Label (3 levels)


25

a) Ecolabel alone

b) PEF information alone

c) Ecolabel + PEF information

2. Style

a) 'Streetlight' 3 ratings (“Environmental impact: compared to similar products, this

product is better/average/worse”)

b) 5 ratings (ABCDE)

3. PEF performance

a. Worst/Red (when presented with three rating style) and D (when presented with

the 5 ratings style.

b. Average/Yellow (when presented with three rating style) and C (when presented

with the 5 ratings style.

c. Better/Green (when presented with three rating style) and B (when presented


4. Price

a) Baseline

b) Plus 7%

c) Plus 15%

As an example, choice set #7 for a detergent in France is shown in the picture below.

Figure 53 Study on Ecolabel – Choice example

A random sample of 4,000 individuals was drawn from 4 countries (France, Poland, Sweden,

Slovenia) to produce the general public survey (1,000 respondents per each of the 4 countries).







broader environmental awareness. The following table describes the sample specification:

Table 24 Study on Ecolabel – Sample specification




26

France

Poland

Sweden

Slovenia



Quotas Age

Gender

Country


specific data


overall data


Annex VI. Study on Ecolabel contains a detailed description of the methodological approach.

1.3 Findings


Certification is seen as a trustworthy label feature across all products and sources. In

the first experiment, consumer choice is positively correlated with the presence of a message

indicating that a product’s environmental rating has been certified. This is especially true among

laptop buyers, where the effect is the largest for “independent third party” certification followed

by certification issued by the European Commission. Conversely, among milk buyers a

certification from the “consumer association” seems to hold the strongest effect. Certification by

national governments and industry association are likewise positively affecting choice, but by a

lesser margin (compared to the abovementioned sources) across all products.

With regards to how the accompanying message is framed, the effect of negative messages on

consumer choice (compared to the baseline message) is quite large and significant. The most

effective frame across the three products (laptop, t-shirt, milk) seems to be the negative

message regarding children, e.g. (in English): “Our countries’ children will suffer if we ignore the

environment”. This seems to discourage consumers from the choice of a given product ceteris

paribus, and it is particularly true for t-shirt and milk buyers. The negative message on Health

(“Our health will suffer if we ignore the Environment”) has a large (negative) and significant

effect on choice as well. The difference across products is negligible. On the other hand, the

effect of the “positive” message on children (in English, “Protect our environment to benefit our

country’s children”) is not significant.

The effect of the “positive” frame on health has an opposite effect: all things equal, respondents

are less likely to choose a product whose label contains the baseline message (i.e. “protect our

Environment”) compared to a message in the vein of “Protect our environment to benefit our

Health”. Summing up, the most effective label seems to be the one combining a negative

message about children (across all products) with the third-party certification (for laptop

and t-shirt buyers) or the consumer association certification (for milk buyers).

Table 25 Study on Certification and Trust – Most effective labels

# Frame # Source

Laptop Laptop


27

1 “Our countries’ children will

suffer if we ignore the

environment”

1 “This rating has been verified by an

independent third party”

2 “Our health will suffer if we ignore

the environment”

2 “This rating has been verified by the

European Commission”

3 “Protect our environment” 3 “This rating has been verified by the

[COUNTRY] Consumer Association”

T-shirt T-shirt



environment”




the environment”



3 “Protect our environment to benefit

our country’s children” †



Milk Milk



environment”




the environment”







Note: † not significant

A discrete choice model was used. For each of the attributes, the tables show: coefficients, odds

ratios, the probability of increasing or decreasing product selection, standard errors, t-values

and p-values. In discrete choice models, each coefficient is a “part-worth” estimate, or the utility

associated with that attribute. In the analysis, the “baseline” frame (“Protect our environment”)

and the lack of certification source (“source = none”) were used as reference points, their part-

worth are structural zeroes and therefore do not appear in the following output tables. Two

columns in tables 26, 27 and 28 are important to interpret the results, one reports the odds

ratio (that is the exponential function of the estimates) and another the directly interpretable

positive or negative probability of product selection (e.g. +50% means 50% more chances of

selecting a product, -30% less chances of selecting it).

Table 26 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Laptop)

Estimate Odds ratio

Probability Std. Error t-value Pr(>|t|)

Message framing negative impact on children

-0.3463 0.70 - 30% 0.0420 -8.2417 2.220e-16 ***

Message framing negative impact on health

-0.1886 0.82 -18% 0.0350 -5.3894 7.068e-08 ***

Message framing positive impact on children

0.0178 1.01 +1% 0.0350 0.5077 0.6117

Message framing positive impact on health

0.2201 1.24 +24% 0.0400 5.5030 3.733e-08 ***

Certification: Consumer association

0.4106 1.50 +50% 0.0311 13.1940 < 2.2e-16 ***

Certification: EC 0.4429 1.55 +55% 0.0332 13.3294 < 2.2e-16 ***


28

Certification: National government

0.2446 1.27 27% 0.0376 6.5099 7.519e-11 ***

Certification: Independent third Party

0.6015 1.80 80% 0.0468 12.8638 < 2.2e-16 ***

Certification: Industry 0.2446 1.27 27% 0.0333 7.3474 2.021e-13 ***

Table 27 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (T-shirt)

Estimate Odds ratio



-0.4340 0.64 -36% 0.0420 -10.3246 < 2.2e-16 ***


-0.1746 0.83 -17%

0.0349 -4.9986 5.774e-07 ***


-0.0217 0.97 -3% 0.0349 -0.6203 0.5350482


0.1474 1.15 +15% 0.0398 3.7044 0.0002119 ***


0.3339 1.40 +40% 0.0309 10.8110 < 2.2e-16 ***



0.1713 1.18 +18% 0.0373 4.5904 4.424e-06 ***


0.3413 1.40 +40% 0.0454 7.5214 5.418e-14 ***

Certification: Industry 0.1936 1.21 +21% 0.0333 5.8137 6.110e-09 ***

Table 28 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Milk)

Estimate Odds ratio



-0.4571 0.63 -37% 0.0421 -10.8511 < 2.2e-16 ***


-0.1976 0.82 -18% 0.0350 -5.6548 1.560e-08 ***


-0.0246 0.97 -3% 0.0350 -0.7041 0.4813


0.2123 1.23 +23% 0.0399 5.3191 1.043e-07 ***


0.3915 1.48 +48% 0.0311 12.5762 < 2.2e-16 ***



0.1870 1.20 +20% 0.0376 4.9708 6.668e-07 ***


0.2900 1.33 +33% 0.0452 6.4174 1.387e-10 ***


Experimental results seem to be confirmed in the survey analysis. Consumer

organisations and the European Commission are the most trusted actors to certify the accuracy

of PEF information on products, with the share of respondents trusting “completely” or “a lot”

being 72% (Consumer organisation) and 59% (European Commission). Conversely, less than

half of respondents would trust their national government (46%) or “an independent third party”

(42%).

Figure 54 Study on Certification and Trust - How much would you trust the following

to certify the accuracy of environmental information on consumer products?


29

Source: Q2 (n=6,000)

In terms of competence, more than three-fourth of respondents believe that a consumer

organisation would have the expertise to provide (76%) and verify (74%) accurate PEF

information on consumer products. The European Commission is the next most trusted entity,

with 67% and 68% of respondents who believe the EC has the competence, respectively, to

provide and verify accurate PEF information. The expertise of industry associations, national

governments, and independent third parties seems granted for at least half of respondents.

Figure 55 Study on Certification and Trust - Would the following have the expertise

to provide accurate PEF information on consumer products?



to verify accurate PEF information on consumer products?

10%

10%

11%

18%

22%

32%

36%

35%

41%

50%

Nationalgovernment

Thirdparty

Industryassociation

EuropeanCommission

Consumerorganisation

Completely Quitealot Notverymuch Notatall Don’tknow

15%

12%

18%

24%

26%

40%

44%

47%

44%

50%

Nationalgovernment

Thirdparty

Industryassociation

EuropeanCommission


Yesdefinitely Yesprobably Probablynot Definitelynot Don’tknow


30


Likewise, respondents rely on consumer organisations and the EC to act in the public

interest about PEF information. Around 76% of participants believes that consumer

organisations can be relied on, and around 63% thinks the same of the European Commission.

Third parties (55%), industry associations (54%) and the national governments (53%) follow.

Figure 57 Study on Certification and Trust - Do you think they could be relied on to

act in the public interest regarding product environmental information?


In the development and introduction of product environmental information for

consumer products, a consumer organisation is judged as very or moderately “effective” by

82% of respondents, followed by the European Commission (73%), an industry association

(70%), a third party (66%), and the national government (63%). Around the same share of

respondents (83%) believes that consumer associations should lead the development and

introduction of PEF information, as should the European Commission (76%) and national

governments (70%), followed by industry (66%) and third parties (63%).

Figure 58 Study on Certification and Trust - In the development of PEF information

for consumers, how effective would the following actors be?

12%

18%

18%

25%

25%

44%

39%

46%

42%

49%

Thirdparty

Nationalgovernment

Industryassociation

EuropeanCommission



14%

14%

12%

20%

28%

39%

40%

43%

43%

48%

Nationalgovernment

Industryassociation

Thirdparty

EuropeanCommission




31


Figure 59 Study on Certification and Trust - Who should lead the development and

introduction of PEF information?


Finally, with regards to penalties, an overwhelming majority agrees with inflicting sanctions on

misbehaving companies. Should it be found that “a company has intentionally misinformed the

public about the environmental performance of a product”, most respondents believe that the

company should be “named and shamed in public” (80% “agree” or “completely agree”) or pay

a fine (84% “agree” or “completely agree”).

Figure 60 Study on Certification and Trust - If it is found that a company has

intentionally misinformed the public about the environmental performance of a

product, which of the following would be most appropriate?


The survey analysis sheds some light on the relative importance to customers of different

factors at the moment of buying a t-shirt, a laptop, and a milk carton. Respondents were asked

to rank a number of factors from first to last. Ranking questions calculate the average ranking

for each choice, so as to determine which factor was most preferred. We define the choice with

the largest average ranking as the most preferred. The following formula shows the calculation

of average ranking:

18%

14%

20%

27%

31%

45%

52%

50%

46%

51%

Nationalgovernment

Thirdparty

Industryassociation

EuropeanCommission


Veryeffective Moderatelyeffective Moderatelyineffective Veryineffective

PayafinePublicshaming

80% 84%


32

�̅� =∑ (𝑥𝑖𝑤𝑖)𝑛𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖𝑤𝑖

∑ 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑖=1

In the formula ‘w’ is the weight of the ranked position, and ‘x’ is the response count for the

choice. We have assigned different weights in reverse, giving the largest weight to a

respondent’s favourite choice (#1) and a weight of 1 to the least favourite choice (e.g. #5 for

laptop, and #6 for t-shirt and milk). This ensures that when the data is presented on a bar chart,

it is clear which factor is the most preferred.

Quality is the most important factor across the three products; environmental impact

is the third highest factor for t-shirt and milk buyers, and the fourth highest for laptop

buyers. With regards to t-shirts, quality is the main factor (score of 9,514) followed by price

(8,119) and environmental impact (7,424). Quality is the main factor in the purchasing process

of a laptop (7,432), although the performance (7,219) is a close second, followed by price

(6,475) and environmental impact (5,006). Likewise, milk buyers ranked quality first (score of

9,634) which is clearly distant from the country of origin (6,965) and environmental impact

(6,930).

Figure 61 Study on Certification and Trust – Factors (self-declared) that influence

the decision of buying a t-shirt


Figure 62 Study on Certification and Trust - Factors that influence the decision of

buying a laptop

Source: Q10 (n=2,000)


buying a milk carton

5036

5319

6588

7424

8119

9514

Brand

Countryoforigin

Organic

Environmentalimpact

Price

Quality

3868

5006

6475

7219

7432

Brand

Environmentalimpact

Price

Performance

Quality


33

Source: Q11 (n=2,000)

1.3.2 Study on Willingness to Pay

In the second experiment, using midpoints to express PEF yields, compared to overall scores,

to a higher consumer willingness to pay for a product with a given environmental footprint. The

combination of endpoints and midpoints has a significant but negligible effect. Notably, all things

equal, a high environmental score on a label (such as a B) has a very large positive and

significant effect on consumer choice, regardless of the PEF label style. Effects are similar across

products. Finally, the price increase effect is negative and significant. Summing up, the most

effective label seems to be the one including midpoints combined with a high score and the

baseline price.

Table 29 Study on Willingness to Pay – Most effective labels

# PEF style PEF score Price

Laptop Laptop Laptop

1 Midpoints Better (B) Baseline

2 Overall and midpoints Worse (D) +7%

3 Overall score +15%

T-shirt T-shirt T-shirt


2 Overall and midpoints

†

Worse (D) +7%


Yogurt Yogurt Yogurt



†

Worse (D) +7%



In the analysis, a discrete choice model was used. For each of the attributes, the tables show:

coefficients, odds ratio, probability (derived from the odds ratio), standard errors, t-values and

p-values. In discrete choice models, each coefficient is a “part-worth” estimate, or the utility

4762

6781

6907

6930

6965

9634

Brand

Price

Organic

Environmentalimpact

Countryoforigin

Quality


34

associated with that attribute. Two columns in tables 30, 31 and 32 are important to interpret

the results, one reports the odds ratio (that is the exponential function of the estimates) and

another the directly interpretable positive or negative probability of product selection. For

example, a PEF Score B increases almost three times and half the probability of selection for

laptops (table 30). The “endpoints only” PEF style, the “negative” PEF score (D), and the baseline

price were used as reference points. Their part-worth are structural zeroes, and therefore they

do not appear in the following output tables.

Table 30 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (Laptop)

Estimate Odds ratio

Probability Std. Error

t-value Pr(>|t|)

PEF three exemplary mid-

points

0.2703 1.31 +31% 0.0220 12.2747 < 2.2e-16 ***

Overall PEF score B plus

three exemplary mid

points

0.0732 1.07 +7% 0.0216 3.3972 0.0006809

***

Overall PEF score B 1.5022 4.49 +349% 0.0200 75.1190 < 2.2e-16

***

PRICE +15% -1.0923 0.33 -67% 0.0283 -

38.5768

< 2.2e-16

***

PRICE +7% -0.5497 0.57 -43%

0.0209 -

26.2926

< 2.2e-16

***

Table 31 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (T-shirt)

Estimate Odds ratio


t-value Pr(>|t|)


points

0.2758 1.31 +31% 0.0214 12.9106 <2e-16 ***


three exemplary mid

points

0.0371 1.04 +4% 0.0216 1.7163 0.0861

Overall PEF score B 1.3427 3.82 +282% 0.0197 68.2564 <2e-16 ***

PRICE +15% -1.4381 0.23 -77% 0.0294 -48.8561

<2e-16 ***

PRICE +7% -0.7025 0.49 -51% 0.0208 -

33.7081

<2e-16 ***

Table 32 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (Yogurt)

Estimate Odds ratio


t-value Pr(>|t|)


35


points

0.1907 1.21 +21% 0.0215 8.8570 <2e-16 ***


three exemplary mid

points

0.0270 1.02 +2% 0.0216 1.2457 0.2129


PRICE +15% -1.3995 0.24 -76% 0.0296 -

47.3038

<2e-16 ***

PRICE +7% -0.7074 0.49 -51% 0.0210 -33.6369

<2e-16 ***

Looking at the survey analysis, around seven in ten respondents (71%) think of themselves as

“environmentally-friendly” consumers, and around two-thirds (66%) repute themselves as

people who are “very concerned with environmental issues”. In terms of social context, most

respondents would not be embarrassed to be seen as having an environmentally friendly lifestyle

(70% disagree with the opposite), and do not seem to be living in a hostile context towards

environmental issues (65% disagree with the statement “I would not want my family or friends

to think of me as someone who is concerned about environmental issues”).

Figure 64 Study on Willingness to Pay – Social context


More than two-thirds of respondents (71%) have a family concerned about the environment.

More than half of respondents (58%) believe their friends to be engaged with environmental

issues. Family (68%) and friends (60%) also seem to be the groups with whom respondents

discuss the most about the environment, much more than they do with people in their local

community (40%) or with officials in their municipality (30%).

Figure 65 Study on Willingness to Pay - To what extent do you believe are the

following groups of people around you concerned and engaged about environmental

issues?

20%

20%

46%

51%

27%

30%

43%

35%

Iwouldbeembarrassedtobeseenashavingan

environmentallyfriendlylifestyle

Iwouldnotwantmyfamilyorfriendstothinkofme

assomeonewhoisconcernedaboutenvironmentalissues

Ithinkofmyselfassomeonewhoisveryconcerned

withenvironmentalissues

Ithinkofmyselfasanenvironmentally-friendly

consumer

StronglyAgree Agree Undecided Disagree StronglyDisagree


36


Figure 66 Study on Willingness to Pay - To what extent do you discuss with the

following groups of people around you about environmental issues?



In the Ecolabel study, 32.6% of respondents answered positively to the introductory question

“Have you seen [the Ecolabel] before? There is a large cross-country variation in the recognition

of the label - around half of respondents from France (51%), while less than a third in Poland

(20%), Sweden (29%), and Slovenia (31%).

Figure 67 Study on Ecolabel –Respondents who have seen the Ecolabel logo before,

by country

8%

8%

12%

21%

35%

35%

46%

50%

Peopleinthecommunity

Officialsandmunicipality

Friends

Famiy

Verymuch Quitealot Notverymuch Notatall Don’tknow

7%

9%

15%

21%

23%

31%

45%

47%



Friends

Famiy

Verymuch Quitealot Notverymuch Notatall


37


Moving on to the experimental findings of the study, the PEF label is better at influencing

consumers' preferences than both the ecolabel, and to the PEF+ecolabel combination.

The effect is large and significant. In general, the effect of all attributes is mixed and significant.

The PEF label (“Environmental impact” title accompanied by a rating) seems to be preferred over

both the “Ecolabel only” and the “mixed” (PEF + Ecolabel) solutions, for both laptops and

detergents. Not much difference is found among the two products: the “mixed” label has a

slightly higher effect on detergent buyers, while the PEF label has a relatively higher, but

negligible, effect on laptop buyers than on detergent buyers. Respondents clearly prefer the

presence of a rating, over its absence (“ecolabel only” option).

In terms of rating system, the “ABCDE” style is preferred over the “streetlight”

(better/average/worse) style. All other things equal, consumers are slightly more likely to pay

an extra +15% for environmental-friendly products. The opposite is true for a 7% increase, in

both laptops and detergents. In both cases, the price increase effect is negligible. Summing up,

the most effective label seems to be the one including the PEF component only, combined

with the “ABCDE” 5-rating style, an “average” score and a +15% price increase.

Table 33 Study on Ecolabel – Most effective labels

# Label PEF style Performance Price

Laptop Laptop Laptop Laptop

1 PEF only “ABCDE” Average (C) +15%

2 PEF + Ecolabel “Streetlight” Better (B) Baseline

3 Ecolabel only - Worse (D) +7%

Detergent Detergent Detergent Detergent




For the analysis, a discrete choice model was used. For each of the attributes, the tables show:

coefficients, odds ratios, probabilities (increased or decreased probability of selection) standard

errors, t-values and p-values. In discrete choice models, each coefficient is a “part-worth”

estimate, or the utility associated with that attribute. Two columns in tables 34 and 35 are

important to interpret the results, one reports the odds ratio (that is the exponential function of

the estimates) and another the directly interpretable positive or negative probability of product

selection. For example, the label PEF increases of 106% the chance of product selection for

laptops and 104% for detergents.

France

51%

Poland

20%

Sweden

29%

Slovenia

31%


38

The “ecolabel only” option, the “streetlight” (better/average/worse) style, the negative rating,

and the baseline price were used as reference points. Their part-worth are structural zeroes, and

therefore they do not appear in the following output tables.

Table 34 Study on Ecolabel – Results (Laptop)

Estimate Odds ratio


t-value Pr(>|t|)

Ecolabel + Overall PEF score 0.1939 1.21 +21% 0.0216 8.9899 < 2.2e-16

***

Overall PEF score only 0.7265 2.06 +106% 0.0217 33.4932 < 2.2e-16 ***

PEF 5 point rating ABCDE 0.6855 1.98 +98% 0.0147 46.7759 < 2.2e-16

***

PEF comparative performance

Average/Yellow/C

0.2356 1.26 +26% 0.0207 11.3596 < 2.2e-16 ***

PEF performance

Better/Green/B

0.1582 1.17 +17% 0.0197 8.0289 8.882e-16 ***

PRICE +15% 0.0830 1.08 +8% 0.0206 4.0312 5.550e-05 ***

PRICE +7% -0.1134 0.89 -11% 0.0196 -5.7907 7.009e-09 ***

Table 35 Study on Ecolabel – Results (Detergent)

Estimate Odds

ratio

Probability Std.

Error

t-value Pr(>|t|)

Ecolabel + Overall PEF score 0.2201 1.24 +24% 0.0216 10.2114 < 2.2e-16 ***


PEF 5 point rating ABCDE 0.7025 2.01 +101% 0.0146 48.0935 < 2.2e-16 ***


Average/Yellow/C

0.2297 1.25 +25% 0.0207 11.0883 < 2.2e-16 ***

PEF performance

Better/Green/B

0.1559 1.16 +16% 0.0196 7.9494 1.776e-15 ***

PRICE +15% 0.0872 1.09 +9% 0.0205 4.2507 2.131e-05 ***

PRICE +7% -0.0839 0.92 -8% 0.0196 -4.2836 1.839e-05 ***

1.4 Lessons learned from the experiments

Study on Certification and Trust

Certification is seen as a trustworthy label feature across all products and sources. A large and significant effect of “negative” frames on consumer choice is found.


39

The most effective label is the one combining a negative message about children with the third party (or consumer association) certification.

Study on Willingness to Pay

Using midpoints to communicate a product’s environmental performance is more effective compared to both using overall scores and using a mixed approach.

All things being equal, a high environmental score on a label has a very large positive and significant effect on consumer choice, regardless of how the label looks like.

The most effective label is the one displaying midpoints, combined with a high score

and the baseline price.

Study on Ecolabel

Only a third of respondents, selected through nationally representative samples,

recalls having seen Ecolabel before. The PEF label is preferred to both the Ecolabel, and the “PEF + Ecolabel” combination.

The effect is large and significant.

The most effective label is the one combining the PEF label with the “ABCDE” 5-rating style, an “average” score, and a +15% price increase.

2 Further studies

2.1 Brick and mortar test

2.1.1 Design

A brick and mortar test was carried out to corroborate the evidence, and to validate the

results of the online experiments in an everyday setting. The test was conducted by a research

market company (GFK) at a supermarket chain in Belgium (Colruyt), and aimed at answering

the following questions:

Do the CVs stand out in the store? Are customers triggered by the CVs to buy the

associated products?

Which CVs and formats are more effective and best suited to be tested in the future?

What is the impact of such a communication campaign on the retailer’s brand image?

Two logos were prepared for the test. Logo #1 displayed a smiley over a planet-shaped face.

Logo #2 displayed a planet Earth icon.

Figure 68 CV logos tested

Logo #1

Logo #2

Each logo was tested in the following three formats, for a total of 6 CVs:

Product sticker in the upper right corner on the product;

A pancarte in the middle of the product shelf;

A Wobbler at the beginning and the end of the product shelf.

The following figure shows the six CVs displayed.

Figure 69 Labels tested in the brick and mortar exercise


40

Format Logo #1 Logo #2

Sticker

Pancarte

Wobbler

Fieldwork was conducted in six retail stores of the same company in Belgium. Logos and the

corresponding CVs were shown in three stores each. Logo #1 was tested in Diest, Woluwe,

and Braine l’Alleud stores. Logo #2 was tested in Brasschaat, Ukkel, and Jambes. As an

additional CV, each store displayed the following poster at the entrance of their premises:

Figure 70 Poster

2.1.2 Methodology and sample

Two methodologies were used to gather data: exit interviews and in-store observations. In

the former, one interviewer surveyed shoppers at the exit of the store. Respondents were

selected based on their answer to the question: “Were you planning to buy one of the following

products when entering the store today?”

A. Diapers

B. Pork meat

C. Milk cartons

D. None of these

Respondents who gave “D” as an answer were screened out. A total of 620 exit interviews were

conducted across all stores: 305 respondents saw Logo#1, while 315 respondents saw Logo #2.

Although no quota was set, the interviewer took care of sample distribution in terms of gender,


41

age group, and shopping habits (i.e. alone or with family). Two-thirds (63%) were women, while

the remaining (37%) were men. Around 84% of respondents mainly shop at that retailer. In

terms of household composition, more than half was a member of a family with kids.

Figure 71 Sample distribution – exit interviews

Gender Age Household composition

In addition, a number of in-store observations were performed. One interviewer observed

clients visiting a specific section in the shop. Sections, specifically meat, diapers, and milk

cartons, were visited on a rotation basis. The company report that 5,686 observations were

performed: 2,602 observed customers saw Logo #1, while 3,084 customers saw Logo #2.

Around 61% of the customers were female. Some 19% were shopping with kids at the moment

of the observation, while the remaining 81% were shopping without kids. The company

estimates that 44% of the observed were aged 30-50, while 19% was younger and 37% was

older.

2.1.3 Findings

While walking in the store, around half of the customers observed slowed down (53% among

those who saw Logo #1, and 49% among those who saw Logo #2), and four in ten customers

took a closer look at the environmentally-friendly products (46% among those who saw Logo

#1, and 43% among those who saw Logo #2). Around one in four customers took the product

in their hands (26% among those who saw Logo #1, and 29% among those who saw Logo #2),

and a slightly lower share went on to buy the product carrying the label or placed near one

(23% among those who saw Logo #1, and 28% among those who saw Logo #2).

Figure 72 Reactions to the CVs

63%

37%

Female

Male

42%

25%

17%

14%2%

Couple/Married with kids living at home

Single

Couple/Married without kids

Couple/Married with kids who don’t live at homeLiving with parents

10%

37%53%

< 30

30-50

50+


42

n= 5,686

During their shopping visit, around 29% of respondents to the interview spontaneously noticed

the environmental communication. This figure refers to respondents who replied

affirmatively to the question “During your visit today, did you notice any communication, signs,

labels or marks of environmental responsiveness in this store?”. Respondents were then aided,

i.e. they were asked “We now show you the communication labels that were present in this

store. Which of the following labels have you noticed?”. The proportion of respondents who

saw at least one CV increased to 40%.

In terms of which communication vehicle (CV), the affiche (or poster) is noticed most, both

spontaneously (10%) and aided (18%). Among the labels, the sticker was noticed by 10%

(spontaneously) and 9% (aided) of respondents; the pancarte was noticed by 8%

(spontaneously) and 15% (aided) of respondents; and the wobbler was noticed by 1%

(spontaneously) and 5% (aided) of respondents.

Figure 73 Most noticed CVs

n= 620

The pancarte fared slightly better among those who saw Logo #2 (16%) than among those who

saw Logo #1 (14%). Similarly, the wobbler was noticed more often (6%) by those who saw Logo

#2 compared to those who saw Logo #1 (4%). Respondents who saw Logo #1 remember having

seen the sticker slightly more often (9%) than those who saw Logo #2 (8%). The pancarte was

also noticed more often by women (18% for Logo #1 viewers, 21% among Logo #2) then by

men (8% in both cases), who anyway are under-represented in the sample as explained before.

Among those who saw Logo #2, the sticker performed particularly better among younger

customers, having been noticed by 13% of people younger than 50 years old as opposed to 5%

among people aged 50 or older.

CVs do not appear to be the main driver to buy products. Among those respondents who

noticed one label and bought the product (n=64), nearly one in four did so because it was an

28%

29%

43%

49%

23%

26%

46%

53%

Buying product

Taking product

Closer look

Slowing down

Logo 1 Logo 2

5%

15%

9%

18%

1%

8%

10%

10%

Wobbler

Pancarte

Sticker

Affiche

Spontaneously Aided


43

“eco-friendly product”. This is higher among those who saw Logo #1 (37%) than among those

who saw Logo #2 (15%). However, only 6% of purchasers were influenced by the CV in their

purchasing decision. The figure is slightly higher for Logo #1 viewers (7%) and lower for Logo

#2 viewers (3%). Among respondents who saw the label but nonetheless decided not to buy the

product, nobody mentioned the CV as a reason not to purchase.

Figure 74 Purchasing drivers

n= 620

When asked which type of CV they would hypothetically use to communicate environmental

performance, over half of the respondents choose the pancarte label (54%). The sticker was

preferred by 27% of respondents, while the wobbler was preferred by 18% of respondents.

Reasons to justify their choice – regardless of the format – tend to include clarity, visibility, and

simplicity.

Figure 75 Favourite CV

9%

7%

3%

29%

29%

8%

15%

2%

7%

10%

15%

15%

15%

37%

5%

6%

8%

23%

23%

16%

28%

Don't know

Influenced by CV

Is good

Needed product

Habit

Other

Eco-friendly product

All Logo 1 Logo 2


44

n= 620

Overall, logo #1 is preferred to logo #2. Among all respondents, 54% prefer Logo #1. It is

especially popular among women (60%, versus 48% of men) and younger people (74%, versus

50% among those aged 50 or older). Logo #1 is especially liked because of its cheerful and

attractive character. Some people also indicate it as more visible. On the other hand, the 46%

of respondents who prefer Logo #2 does so in relation to its seriousness. Even though it is

more serious, still one out of ten prefer it, because they think it is beautiful.

Figure 76 Perceptions of the two CV logos

n= 620

In addition, the study asked respondents whether taking a stance towards environmental

footprint communication positively impacts the retailer’s brand image. Overall, the answer is

affirmative. Around 72% of the interviewees indicated that it improves their general opinion of

the retailer, and around 68% indicated it fit with the image they already have about the retailer.

In addition, around 42% of respondents are prepared to pay more for eco-friendly products.

This last figure is especially higher among women (45%, compared to 36% of men) and among

environmentally conscious shoppers (54%, versus 36% among low-sensitive shoppers). Logo

#2 has a higher impact on the retailer’s image than Logo #1 (72% versus 64%). Likewise,

54%

18%

27%

Pancarte Wobbler Sticker

73%

64%

51%

59%

54%

51%

55%

18%

78%

63%

75%

64%

58%

49%

47%

19%

Positive

Approachable

Serious

Clear

Light

Convincing

Attractive

Difficult / heavy

Labels Logo A Logo B


45

respondents who saw Logo #2 tend to have more often an improved opinion of the retailer (76%

versus 68%) and are more often prepared to pay more (43% versus 30%).

Figure 77 Impact on the retailer’s brand image

n= 620

Finally, respondents were asked to give their opinion on how a CV should look like. With regards

to the message, an overwhelming majority (95%) would rather have the CV conveying a

positive message (e.g. “Protect the environment for our children”) than a negative message

(e.g. “Our children will suffer if we ignore the environment”). There is no clear preference

between labels with letters and labels with a three-point scale. Finally, half of the respondents

think that having the possibility to access more information, e.g. through an app or

website is useful, and one third indicates that it would make them buy the product.

2.2 Smartphones and apps: a scoping review

2.2.1 Mobile use and access in Europe

ICTs have become widely available to the general public, both in terms of accessibility as well

as costs. Over the last ten years internet access grew steadily across Europe. According to

Eurostat, since 2007 the majority of EU-28 households (55%) has had internet access, and this

proportion continued to increase over the years. In 2016, the share of EU-28 households with

internet access rose to 85%, 30 percentage points higher than in 2007.

The last few years have also seen a shift in how individuals access internet. According to

Eurostat, in 2012, only 36% of Europeans have used a portable computer or a handheld device

to access the internet away from home or work. By 2016 they were 59%. Of the different devises

used by individuals, mobile phones or smart phones were the most used devices to browse the

internet in 2016, with over three-quarters (79%) of internet users. They were followed by

laptops or netbooks (64%), desktop computers (54%) and tablet computers (44%). The EU-28

average does not capture the digital divide found among the different Member States. As

reported in Figure 78, the highest proportion (82%) of individuals that have accessed internet

remotely was recorded in Denmark, while the United Kingdom, Sweden, Luxembourg, the

Netherlands and Finland also reported levels above 75% in 2016.

Figure 78: Individuals who used a portable computer or a handheld device to access

the internet away from home or work, 2012 and 2016

6%

7%

15%

8%

6%

16%

18%

15%

28%

42%

39%

25%

26%

33%

17%

Fits with image I have about the retailer

Improves my general opinion of the retailer

Prepared to pay more

Totally disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Totally Agree


46

Source: Eurostat

The lowest rates of remote internet access among the EU Member States were observed in Italy

(29%) and Poland (32%), the only two countries with 2016 levels below 40%. However, if there

is still a strong digital divide in terms of remote access to internet across Member States, it is

important to notice that the gap between the top performing and the lowest performing country

has shrunk from 63 percentage points in 2012 to 53 percentage points in 2016.

2.2.2 Mobile in-store shopping

Despite the availability and usage of smart phones research, two different systematic reviews in

the field of mobile shopping (m-shopping) show that research is still in its infancy with findings

being often geographically and methodologically constrained ,. The current research available

has identified four main areas:

m-shopping as an online distribution channel addressing the determinants of technology

acceptance and consumer profiling

Marketing viewpoint

Technology perspective tackling mobile IT infrastructure. Mobile user interface and

service and technology convergence.

Advanced technology for in-store shopping covering shopping assistant systems:

o Decision support systems (DSS), for instance, utilize the users’ request for specific

product attributes, which can also include the search for background information,

in order to support their decision-making process.

o Mobile recommender systems (MRS) aims to provide consumers with meaningful

recommendations that might be of interest.

o Navigation systems help users to reach any desired destination faster and can be

located either inside or outside of a brick-and-mortar shop.

o Mobile tracking systems are used to record consumers’ shopping movements and

time, which gives retailers new insights into consumer behavior.

The focus of this scoping review is advanced technology for in-store shopping. The main

applications of the different shopping assistant systems identified above (DSS, MRS,…) could

influence customers shopping experience in a brick-and-mortar shop environment by:

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

EU-2

8

DK

UK SE LU NL FI ES BE IE DE

AT

MT EE CY

FR HU SK SI HR PT

CZ

LV EL BG LT RO PL IT

2016 2012


47

designing a customized, real-time interaction channel between retailers and consumers;

delivering non-intrusive mobile marketing that caters to their interests, preferences and

priorities;

assisting customers in making smart purchasing decisions; and

helping in many other typical shopping situations such as navigation and payment.

All these systems and potential influences suggest the emergence of “smart” retail settings

including the use of augmented reality to generate greater customer and business value through

the use of smartphones. Smart retail settings scenarios envisage the usage of mobile

applications (apps) as self-service technology (SST) allowing customers ownership of various

aspects of provider–customer relationships such as information seeking, price scanning and

actual purchases. Within this context apps’ design becomes a hub for several elements from

product view presentation methods to product promotion, informative content and consumer

interactions. Since consumers could use their mobile devices for a variety of different shopping-

related activities, the mobile channel can be considered the new service frontier of retailers.

Figure 79 Product and services m-marketing design

Source: Magrath and MacCormicj (2013)

Nevertheless, when considering the design of m-shopping services, retailers are currently

struggling to overcome obstacles regarding the consumers’ risk perception and restrictions of

mobile devices in terms of limited capabilities and usability issues. The impact and the role of

mobile technologies, such as smartphones and other mobile devices, is a subject still little

explored. Enhancing value for customers across physical and digital touchpoints in a synergistic

fashion is becoming an increasingly complex task for retailers and many apps are simply not

meeting consumers’ needs27.

An empirical research29 on the impact of mobile device use on shopper behavior in store points

out “in a retail environment, mobile devices and new applications for smartphones allow

shoppers to scan product barcodes, compare prices across retailers or obtain digital coupons to

be redeemed in store. The usage of technologies in pre-shopping phase could help shoppers to

make better decision and being less influenced by the environment while expending less effort

inside the store. Therefore, digital tools may have positive effects on both the quality and the

efficiency of purchase decisions inside the store”.


48

However, despite shoppers' prolific use of mobile and marketers' shift of resources toward mobile

marketing, not much is known about the integration of mobile into the shopper funnel and how

to influence a shopper along and beyond the path-to-purchase: from a shopping trigger, to

purchase, consumption, repurchase, and recommendation stages.

The influence of mobile on shopping extends well beyond in-store use of mobile devices. It

affects every stage in the shopping cycle of not just the shopper but also his/her social

circle.Therefore, a new research agenda is rapidly evolving in the intersection of mobile

marketing and shopper marketing. The following figure sketches the mobile shopper journey

and the emerging research questions covering the different entities and areas of interest. This

journey involves not just the shoppers (their motivations and goals; how they search and

discover; how they evaluate the options and choices and how post purchase process is

addressed) but also the employees and organisations.

Figure 80: Mobile shopper journey and research questions

Source: Venkatesh et al. (2016)30

Each area sketched in the figure above opens unexplored questions that should be addressed

when considering the design, diffusion, adoption and assessment of smartphones in-store

shopping. The following table lists some of these questions.

Table 36 Research areas and unexplored questions

Entity Area of interest Research questions

Shopper Motivation/shopping goals

RQ-S1 How do we design mobile apps that tap into goods that are dynamic in relation to the shopping cycle and context?

Search and discovery RQ-S2 How do we better measure and enhance mobile shopper engagement?

RQ-S3 How can marketers optimize their mobile app design to best influence shoppers on their path to purchase?

Evaluation, consideration, and choice

RQ-S4 How should apps be designed to deliver rich experiences across a wide range of devices?

RQ-S5 How can marketers enhance mobile co–creation?


49

RQ-S6 How can mobile enable shoppers to serendipitously discover a potential purchase?

RQ-S7 How can marketers design a dream concierge/intelligent avatar–knowledge-based system/expert system–to assist shopping?

RQ-S8 In designing intelligent recommendation systems, how can marketers walk the fine line between creating personalized solutions but not being perceived as creepy?

RQ-S9 How can mobile create more relevant/valuable relationships with the individual shopper?

RQ-S10 How can mobile be used to create context–related and timely value to shoppers?

RQ-S11 How can the instantaneity of mobile be exploited to create different forms of instant gratification for the engaged shopper?

Post–purchase RQ-S12 How can marketers create a positive network effect among shoppers in a social network after purchase of one category through links across mobile apps?

Employee Employee roles RQ-E1 How does mobile change the shopping journey (pre, during, and post) from an employee perspective?

RQ-E2 What are the factors that create resistance toward mobile technologies from the employee perspective, and how can firms develop coping strategies to overcome this resistance?

RQ-E3 How can employees utilize the mobile device within the shopping journey to created new value propositions?

Employee metrics and incentives

RQ-E4 How can employees be incentivized to become mobile shopper marketing ambassadors?

RQ-E5 How can employees be utilized as co–creators of mobile shopping experiences?

RQ-E6 How should employee–mindset metrics be conceptualized, defined, and measured in the context of the mobile shopping journey?

RQ-E7 How should employee performance be measured throughout the mobile shopping journey?

Organisation Resource allocation and spending issues

RQ-O1 How can firms effectively develop and maintain their social capital in the context of mobile shopper marketing?

RQ-O2 How should mobile execution capability be conceptualized, defined, and measured to enhance the mobile shopping experience?

RQ-O3 How can firms effectively develop and maintain partnering networks relevant to delivering a superior mobile shopper experience?

RQ-O4 What are the right conversion metrics relating to mobile shopper marketing relative to other marketing activities?

RQ-O5 How can the return on the investment (ROI) or digital yield on mobile shopper marketing initiatives be quantified compared to that for other desktop related digital activities?

RQ-O6 How should firms spend their limited marketing budgets?

RQ-O7 How much money should be allocated to mobile versus other digital marketing activities?

RQ-O8 How should firms determine the proportion of the marketing budget that should be devoted to mobile shopper marketing?

Data–related issues– collection and management

RQ-O9 How can we harness the dynamic (time, location, weather) nature of mobile data?

RQ-O10 How can we leverage the volume, velocity, variety, veracity of mobile data and derive value for the firm?

RQ-O11 How can we value mobile data?


50

RQ-O12 What is the price of collecting the data that mobile shoppers want to share?

RQ-O13 How can we enhance data security in a mobile networked world where firms share (APIs) with their partner organizations?

Data–related issues– modeling and analysis

RQ-O14 How can we formulate effective decision models with mobile data?

RQ-O15 How can we integrate mobile data with other data, including offline activities and demographic data and develop cogent models?

RQ-O16 How can we analyze mobile data to formulate models that explain shopper behavior?

RQ-O17 How can we develop predictive models that can forecast mobile shopper behavior at both the individual and the aggregate levels?

RQ-O18 How should firms use mobile data to assist real time mobile marketing decisions?

Mobile technology

Convergence RQ-T1 As shoppers increasingly search on their mobile devices through Google and as Google becomes more powerful using shopper data, what technologies can retailers deploy to avoid becoming the fulfillment centers of Google and remain competitive?

RQ-T2 How can marketers leverage technology and use data on shoppers' past purchase patterns and voluntarily disclosed preferences for offering anticipatory solutions?

RQ-T3 How can marketers use mobile–based virtual currencies in a manner similar to M–pesa, Coke's MyCokeRewards, and China's QQ?

RQ-T4 How will new mobile payment technologies (e.g., Apple Pay, Google Wallet) and systems affect shopping?

RQ-T5 What differences in mobile shopping will emerge across North America, Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world given the differences in mobile technologies across these geographies?

RQ-T6 How can emotion–capture and analyze technology be used to better serve shopper needs?

Wearables RQ-T7 How will augmented reality reshape mobile shopping experience?

RQ-T8 Will augmented reality lead to a fundamentally different shopping cycle?

RQ-T9 How can we measure shopper emotions through wearables?

RQ-T10 How can we create compelling shopper experiences based on shopper emotional states?


All these questions raise the challenges that shall be faced to spread the use of mobiles in-store shopping. If we add to these challenges the current state of development and

research in the field of environmental footprint information and communication vehicle the level of uncertainty does not allow us to drawn solid extrapolation. On the contrary, if the level of maturity of these applications is low, it could be hypothesised that

environmental footprint information and the potential communication vehicles are not the most well-know product’s characteristics to facilitate this take off. The current

consumers’ level of awareness about environmental footprint information may not facilitate the engagement with neither mobiles in-store shopping nor with environmental information.


51

2.2.3 QR codes as an example

During the communication vehicle pilot phase some initiatives were using Quick-response code

technology (QR code) as and additional information included in their CVs. QR code allows linking

a physical product with additional information displayed in websites or apps. At its simplest,

a QR code might be embedded in a performance label printed on the product packaging.

However, as it has been described in the previous section, how these codes will be adopted by

the consumers is still unknown. The following review was conducted to investigate how

consumers react and perceive QR codes, what are the main drivers and barriers to QR codes

usage, and how QR codes can shape consumer behavior.

2.2.3.1 Diffusion

QR code technology is widely used in East Asia, especially Japan and China. According to

Shen Wei, deputy director of a Chinese research institute that specializes in QR codes, more

than $1.65 trillion of transactions used the codes in 2016, accounting for about a third of all

mobile payments in China. QR codes remain less common in Europe and North America,

despite their appearance in many fields, especially transport tickets and shipping labels.

QR codes became popular in Japan in 2002, when remote internet access was still at its early

stage. Advertisers, publishers and handset-makers teamed up to popularise QR codes as a way

to share information with customers. Japan led the field until 2012, when the use of 2D codes

in China boomed driven by the mobile payment sector. Two Chinese digital-payment platforms,

WeChat Pay and Alibaba’s Alipay, disrupted the mobile payment market by allowing people to

make contactless payments by scanning codes. A customer can either scan a merchant’s QR

code, or the merchant can scan the customer’s account code.

In Europe and North America, popular mobile payment tools are Apple Pay and Android Pay.

They use near-field communication (NFC) technology to make contactless payments. This

technology is usually only found in higher-end Android and Apple phones. The technology needed

to support Apple Pay and Android Pay is too expensive for many shops in poorer countries, while

QR code payment technology just requires sellers to provide buyers with a QR code (printed or

on a screen).

These geographical difference, make QR codes a well-established means to enable payments,

website discovery and more in certain parts of the world (East Asia), while its potential it is not

fully exploited in others (Europe and North America). These geographic gaps may soon

converge. Apple has responded to the codes’ popularity in China by updating the camera app in

iOS 11, the latest version of its mobile operating system launched in 2017. The system now

automatically recognises QR code that encodes web links, map locations, contact cards and other

data. Before the upgrade, users where required to download specific applications to be able to

scan QR codes. Apple’s upgrade means that QR-scanning will reach hundreds of millions of users

worldwide.

Interest in QR codes has grown more rapidly following Apple’s launch. Apps and websites that

allow designers to generate codes easily have gained new users. Nevertheless, Apple step

towards adopting QR codes as the infrastructure for everything from payment to web traffic may

not raise the popularity of QR codes in Europe and North America. Popularity of QR codes in

China was driven by its use for mobile payments, while NFC is already the standard for payments

In Europe and North America and it will not be challenged.

2.2.3.2 Use cases

If QR code-based mobile payments are unlikely to pick up in Europe and North America, QR code

technology use may increase using other means and applications. Here below we try to report a


52

few examples of recent QR codes applications and trends implemented in Europe and North

America. The examples focus on two main topics:

The use of QR codes to provide additional information to consumers;

Increase in popularity of QR code use in widely used apps, especially among millennials.

In 2015, the European Medicines Agency has issued guidelines to pharmaceutical companies

on how to use QR Codes in the labelling and package leaflet of centrally authorized medicinal

products. Pharmaceutical companies have now the possibility to include QR codes on their

products to provide users with readily available information extracted from the approved

package leaflet, the approved summary of products characteristics (SmPC) and/or the approved

additional risk minimisation measures as outlined in the Risk management plan (i.e. educational

material).

The QR code may also be used to provide any other information or content that is not

included in the product information annexes as such, but that it is useful to the patients/users

and non-promotional. Additional information provided via QR code should be based on the

product information. For the time being, the inclusion of the QR code cannot replace the

inclusion of the statutory information (e.g. printed package leaflet). The QR code could be

considered a way for providing updated information on medicinal products (i.e. product

information updated to the latest variation approved for the medicinal product still not

implemented in the printed version). At the moment, there has been no in-depth evaluation and

analysis of the impacts and interest of this decision on the QR Codes. The Heads of Medicines

Agencies (HMA), the network of the heads of the National Competent Authorities (NCA) whose

organisations are responsible for the regulation of medicinal products for human and veterinary

use in the European Economic Area, stated that once further experience is gained, further

analysis will be carried out on the use of QR codes.

In 2016 the United States (US) passed a federal law requiring all manufacturers to add a QR

Code to their product packaging that will link consumers to detailed GMO disclaimers.

A study conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), identify potential

technological challenges that may impact whether consumers would have access to the

bioengineering (GMO) disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods.

While the study recognises that enough shoppers own smartphones, it did admit not all people

have the applications or are savvy enough to read a QR code and may not have access to or

choose not to use cellular data.

The GMO debate in the US also started Smartlabel QR Code initiative by Trading Partner Alliance

(TPA), a grocery manufacturers association. The voluntary initiative consists in providing

consumers with additional information on food, beverage, household and personal care products

by using QR code technology.

Another potential driver that might increase the popularity of QR code technology in Europe is

its introduction in widely used applications. WhatsApp, the most popular instant messaging

application in Europe, introduced QR Codes scanning capabilities in its application. Apart from

common uses, the feature allows users to safely login on the desktop application. Snapchat, a

popular instant image sharing app, introduced Snapcodes in 2015 and an inbuilt QR Code

scanning feature in 2016. Snapcodes are customized 2D code that allow users to add friends on

Snapchat. Similarly, in 2017 Facebook introduced a Messenger Code a customised 2D code that

allow users to add friends on Messenger.

2.2.3.3 Drivers and barriers

As seen in the previous section, geographical differences in the use of the QR code already help

us explain some of the key drivers and barriers to QR code use. It may also explain why a mature

technology such as QR code may do a comeback after it failed to pick up as a marketing tool in

Europe and North America in 2010.

The need to download an app to scan QR Codes is one of the main factors in explaining the

difference between East Asia and Europe. Contrary to what is happening recently, also with the


53

introduction of iOS 11 on the market, almost no smartphone came already equipped with the

possibility to scan QR codes in the past. WeChat and Alipay were the two applications that lead

to the massive adoption of QR codes in China.

Smartphone penetration was much lower in 2010. A survey conducted in 2016 by Eurostat

on ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) usage in households and by individuals

highlighted the relevance of mobile internet access. More than 80% of persons aged 16 to 74 in

the European Union (EU) used the internet in 2016, in many cases via several different devices.

Mobile phones or smart phones were the device most used to surf the internet, by over three-

quarters (79%) of internet users. The importance of smartphone penetration as a driver of QR

code usage is also highlighted by the USDA study.

Mobile speed connection was slower in 2010 as 4G technologies were not widely available.

According to the 2017 report from the GSA Association (GSMA), Europe is the most highly

penetrated mobile region in the world. At the end of 2016, there were 456 million unique mobile

subscribers in Europe, equivalent to 84% of the population. This high penetration rate means

that there is little room for subscriber growth over the coming years. However, this is being

offset by the rapid migration to 4G networks. 4G accounted for a third of mobile connections in

Europe at the end of 2016 and is forecast to account for more than 60% of the total by 2020 as

more Europeans take up 4G devices amid growing demand for data and as 4G network coverage

increases.

The increase in mobile access to internet caused as a reaction an increase in availability of

mobile optimised websites. This trend self-reinforces the shift from desktop to mobile

browsing, easing the access of online information from mobile devices and therefore enabling a

better use of QR codes.

In terms of usage frequency, a study on college students’ awareness and use of QR codes was

carried out by Ozkaya et al. (2015). The findings indicate that the purpose of usage is

significantly related to QR code usage rate. Practical users utilise QR codes more than

experiential users and there is a positive relationship between electronic device

ownership and QR code usage. Interestingly, being an early adopter has a negative

relationship with QR code usage. Additionally, perceived usefulness of the QR code and up-to-

date electronic device knowledge do not have significant relationships with QR code usage rate.

The result of the study somewhat supports the results of the analysis conducted so far.

Smartphone penetration, mobile speed connection, easiness to scan QR codes and mobile-

optimised websites help to improve QR code technology in terms of usefulness, easiness to use,

information quality and system quality. Those good features clearly have an impact on

consumers attitude towards QR code and their intention and willingness to use such technology.

Behavioural studies show that consumer intentions and behaviours do not always match as other

factors may affect a consumer final action. The above-mentioned factors all aim at addressing

what ease QR code usage, nevertheless they do not analyse what motivates consumers to

turn to this technology to access and gather information. Smartphone-based access to

information is a promising vehicle to provide additional information to consumers, especially in

retail and point-of-purchase environments, yet what motivates consumers to turn to mobile

information is still under research. Since QR code technology relies on pull-based approaches

rather than push-style information, it becomes crucial to understand what drives consumer in

proactively use such a technology. In the field of advertising, push advertising describes

messages that are initiated by the advertiser, whereas pull advertising refers to communication

of promotional material initiated by the consumer (Barnes, 2002; Bamba and Barnes, 2007,

Unni and Harmon, 2007). By analysing the literature review on the topic, there are various

existing theories being applied for the analysis of QR Codes.

However, two theories are more frequently used. Those are the Uses & Gratifications Theory

(U&G) and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM, Davis, 1989). A research by Lucy Atkinson

(2013), investigates the role of institutional trust, involvement and market mavenism (the

extent to which a person enjoys being a source of market-related information for others) in QR

code usage to access information before purchasing sustainable products. The study uses a U&G


54

analysis. Sustainability claims about products being organic or fair trade are claims that fall

under the category of credence attributes, meaning attributes buyers cannot confidently

evaluate, even after one or more purchases (after personal experience). Thus, in lack of

alternatives, buyers tend to rely on the reputation of the brand name, testimonials from someone

they know or respect, service quality, and price (Darby and Karni, 1973; Nelson, 1974). When

available, consumers rely on eco-labels (such as the EU organic product label) to affirm the

credibility of the credence claim (Klintman, 2006; Kolandai-Matchett, 2009). However, research

shows that while consumers are continuously moving towards shopping with a morally guided

conscience they have also become more distrustful towards labels that make ethical claims such

as organic health labels and others (Kalafatis and Pollard, 1999; D'Souza et al., 2007; Mostafa,

2007; Shrum, McCarty & Lowrey,1995). QR codes can increase consumer trust by providing

additional detailed, context-specific information.

Atkinson’s study finds that government trust, buycotting (the act of deliberately buying certain

products for political, ethical, or environmental reasons) and market mavenism are positively

related to consumers’ willingness to use mobile phone-based QR code information. At the same

time, corporate trust is negatively related to QR code usage. The results suggest that there is a

need to improve institutional trust in QR code usage. According to the author, the relation

between institutional trust and QR code usage is twofold: while institutional trust enables QR

code usage, the implementation of QR Codes containing more in-depth information concerning

the precise meaning of labels and other characteristics of the products will in return also increase

the institutional trust. Furthermore, QR code content should be carefully crafted to provide

meaningful, usable information for involved consumers. Finally, consumer market mavens’

tendency to share information should be harnessed by providing QR code content that is easily

passed on to other consumers.

Atkinson’s findings are supported also by other studies in the field of QR code usage. A study by

Dong-Hee Shin et al. (2012) examines why people adopt certain new technologies, in this case

QR code, while refusing or ignoring others. The authors develop a TAM model to predict users’

intentions to continue using QR codes by integrating the model with interactivity and quality

motivations as primary determining factors. According to the study, not only any new

technology needs to be perceived as being useful in order to be accepted and assimilated

into people’s daily routines, but it also needs to be easy to use. Consumers tend to lack the

technological sophistication to understand the complex nature of QR codes, nevertheless the

scanning process should be easy. As already described above, some developments such as the

automatic inclusion of QR code scanning capabilities in most new mobile operating system has

improved the easiness of scanning QR codes. The model from Dong-Hee Shin et al. therefore

includes the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease of use.

Other factors considered in the model are information quality, system quality and interactivity.

Information quality captures the user perceived value of the output produced by a system

and can be measured by information accuracy, relevance, timeliness and completeness (Lee et

al. 2002; Parasuraman et al. 1988). System quality is a measure of the functionality of a

system, including usability, availability, reliability and response time (DeLone & McLean, 1992;

Parasuraman et al., 1988). System quality differentiate itself from perceived ease of use as it

does not relate to the interaction between the user and the system, but it only considers intrinsic

qualities of the system. Interactivity, intended as responsive interaction, is an important

feature in QR codes. The authors define interactivity as responsiveness, content sharing and

content control. By scanning a QR code, users expect an immediate response. As already seen,

QR code are increasingly used on social media and instant messaging platforms (i.e. Facebook,

Snapchat and WhatsApp) to enhance social interaction. The model also controls for intrinsic

motivation, that the authors define as subjective norm.

Dong-Hee Shin et al. finds that all the above-mentioned factors are correlated to QR code

adoption. Interactivity in particular stands out as a major driver of QR code user behaviour.

Similar results using a TAM model have also been found in Gao et. al. (2013). Furthermore, the

results imply that, while users might perceive the good features of QR codes (usefulness,

easiness to use, information quality and system quality), they may not intend to use those codes


55

unless something is confirmed. They may want to personally ensure that a QR code is secure

and dependable. Even if not directly captured by Dong-Hee Shin et al. model, as in Atkinson’s

conclusions trust seems to play an important role to transform the intention to use QR code

technology into a behaviour. According to Mallat, Rossi, Tuunainen, & Öörni (2008), institutional

trust is considered a necessity for mobile communication in general due to the spatial and

temporal distance between the communicating organization and the consumer.

The figure below sums up the consumer behavioural drivers and barriers extracted from the

literature analysed.

Figure 81 Consumer behavioral drivers and barriers

2.3 Lessons learned

Brick and Mortar test

While walking in the store, half of the customers observed slowed down. Around 40%

took a look at the product displaying the environmental CV. One in four took the

product in their hands; among them, most ended up buying it.

Once exited the shop, three in ten customers spontaneously recall the CVs. When

aided by the interviewer, the number rises to four in ten. Many noticed the affiche/poster.

Among the labels, the pancarte (in the middle of the product shelf) and the sticker

(embedded in the product packaging) were noted more than the wobbler (at the

beginning and the end of the product shelf).

Customers tend to be more aware of the shelf CVs (pancarte and the wobbler) if they

included Logo #2 (blue-and-white icon of planet Earth) than Logo #1 (a smiley face


56

on top of a coloured planet-Earth icon). Customers tend to be more aware of the product

CV (the label) if it included Logo #2.

CVs do not appear to be the main driver to buy products. Among those respondents

who noticed one label and bought the product, one in four did so because it was an “eco-

friendly product”, but only 6% were influenced by the CV.

When asked which type of CV would they hypothetically use to communicate

environmental performance, over half choose the pancarte. The sticker was preferred

by 27% of respondents, while the wobbler was preferred by 18% of respondents. Reasons

to justify their choice – regardless of the format – tend to include clarity, visibility, and

simplicity.

Overall, logo #1 is preferred to logo #2. Among all respondents, 54% prefer Logo #1.

It is especially popular among women and younger people. Logo #1 is especially liked

because of its cheerful and attractive character. Some people also indicate it as more

visible. On the other hand, those who prefer Logo #2 does so in relation to its seriousness.

Taking a stance towards environmental footprint communication positively impacts

the retailer’s brand image, according three in four respondents. Most indicated it fit

with the image they already have about the retailer. Four in ten are prepared to pay more

for eco-friendly products.

Nearly everyone would rather have the CV conveying a positive message (e.g.

“Protect the environment for our children”) than a negative message (e.g. “Our children

will suffer if we ignore the environment”). Half think that having the possibility to access

more information, e.g. through an app or website is useful, and one third indicates that

it would make them buy the product.

Mobiles and QR Codes

Despite the widespread use of mobiles, the current state of the art of mobile in-store

shopping does not seem to support the use of these applications/services among the

triggers of the environmental footprint information and its potential communication

vehicles. There are still many unsolved questions to be addressed by more mature

products/services before applying lessons learned to environmental issues.

The pick-up of QR code technology in specific parts of the world (Asia) has pushed mobile

producers and mobile system operator providers to include QR code scanning capabilities

into the default settings of new smartphones.

All those factors contribute positively to some of the drivers (usefulness, ease of use

and system quality) behind consumer behaviour decision to use QR code technology to

retrieve additional information about products.

Studies have shown how other crucial factors are quality of information provided, as

well as the interactivity and institutional trust. Ultimately, intrinsic motivation is also a

strong driver, that is nevertheless linked mainly to how digital native and used to QR

code technology consumers are.

QR code content should be carefully crafted to provide meaningful, usable information

for involved consumers, with particular attention to the quality of the information

provided.

The information retrieved through QR code technology should be easily sharable

(interactivity) through the different social media channels to incentivise consumer

willingness to use the technology.

The institution providing the information should build up consumer trust by

guaranteeing high level of privacy and reliability of the overall system. If for example

Environmental Footprint information would be provided by producers, they might be

tempted to collect cookies information about consumers accessing the information. This


57

solution could constitute a barrier to certain consumers due to privacy concerns or lack

of trust towards the producer.

QR code technology represent a cheap and smart way to provide consumers with

additional information about products. So far QR codes are the best technology available

in terms of 2D encoding techniques, even if multicolour codes might substitute this

technology in the future.

Concerns remain whether or not the technology will fully pick up in Europe even if

recent trends have made the technology more accessible. Moreover, as it is the case of

mobile in-store shopping more research is needed to transfer the lessons learned to

environmental issues.

3 Conclusions

The Commission work on the development of the Product/Organisation Environmental Footprint

(PEF/OEF) method started in 2010 in reaction to requests from business complaining about

difficulties in differentiating themselves based on environmental performance due to the

proliferation of environmental labels/certification schemes.

Moreover, in 2010 the Council adopted the conclusions asking the Commission to develop a

harmonised method for the calculation of the life cycle environmental performance of products.

In 2013 the European Commission adopted the Communication "Building the Single Market for

Green Products" (COM/2013/0196 final). The Commission Recommendation 179/2013 (OJ L

124, 4.5.2013, p. 1–210) was also adopted establishing and recommending the use of the PEF

and OEF methods to calculate the environmental performance of products (PEF) and

organisations (OEF). The Recommendation clarified that these methods are not intended to

directly support comparisons or comparative assertions, i.e. claims of overall superiority or

equivalence of the environmental performance of one product compared to another, and that

such comparisons require the development of additional PEF category rules or OEF sector rules

that complement the general guidance, in order to further increase methodological

harmonisation, specificity, relevance and reproducibility for a given product-type. Such category

rules and sector rules were developed during the pilot phase. Based on these rules, different

ways of communicating the Environmental Footprint (EF) profile of products and organisations

were tested.

The pilot phase has provided some valuable insights on the current status of the effectiveness

and use and communication vehicles. A number of conclusions can be drawn that prove of

particular relevance with view on providing support to different aspects of communication

vehicles, stakeholders’ perceptions and behaviours, and their evaluation

Overall, the development, testing and feedback of the different communication vehicles has been

an iterative process based on exhaustive and continuous support and feedback provided to and

gathered from the pilots, and complemented by evidence gathered through a multi-stakeholder

process, engaging groups that were underrepresented during the pilot phase – such as SMEs –

as well as additional groups who play a particularly crucial role due to the specificities of the

project, such as retailers. Through the involvement of the general public within the framework

of the complementary tests of both quantitative and qualitative nature, the study could

successfully fill evidence gaps left from the tests conducted within the pilots.

Communicating EF to consumers

Citizens involved in the communication tests were significantly interested in PEF information and

in the environmental impact of products in general. Whilst the main criteria driving purchase

decisions are price, quality, brand and availability (especially for products bought on a regular

basis), consumers involved showed high interest in the environmental impact of products in

general, and in PEF information specifically.


58

Situations where environmental performance becomes a key driver of purchasing decisions

include

with prices being equal, a high environmental score on a label has a very large positive

and significant effect on consumer choice;

products that are new or big, expensive, durable items (e.g. cars);

products that impact consumers' own or their children's health.

Results from the general public surveyed confirmed that citizens are especially concerned about

impacts on health. At the same time, the general public considers impacts on the environment

and natural resources as increasingly pressing problems. They also are aware of their individual

responsibility in reducing the impact on the environment, a responsibility that they know to

share with companies and governments.

We can identify a series of lessons learnt on conditions for the effectiveness of communicating

environmental footprint information to consumers.

Translate complex results into simple information: clarity, readability and transparency are

essential. Consumers find many of the Environmental Footprint impact categories difficult to

grasp. Whilst consumers have a good understanding of impacts such as climate change, CO2

emissions, energy and water consumption, the use of technical/scientific terms such as

acidification, terrestrial eutrophication and ecotoxicity is not understood. In particular,

consumers often don't grasp the link of impact categories to the specific product and the meaning

of Life Cycle Assessment results.

In line with these difficulties, consumers prefer the use of graphics, bars and colour scales to

numbers, scientific terms. Consumers gave high support to the traffic light (better, average and

worse represented with colours) and to the energy label format (A-E performance scale).

Avoid information overload. Consumers indicated that showing 3 midpoints is sufficient.

Although only a small portion of consumers consults detailed information, half of those surveyed

in the brick and mortar test prefer to have these available, e.g. through an app or website,

accessible through a QR code.

Certification proves an important element to increase trustworthiness of information. Scepticism

and mistrust is one of the main barriers towards being receptive to environmental footprint

information. The experimental evidence gathered when testing of the relative effectiveness of

communication vehicles on several dimensions demonstrates that certification is seen as a

trustworthy label feature across all products and sources. Certification must be third party or

come from a consumer association.

Framing is important. One statistically significant test identified a large and significant effect of

negative frames – messages emphasising negative environmental consequences for people – on

consumer choice. The highest impact was registered when including messages on consequences

for children. However, this result was not supported by the brick and mortar test, where nearly

everyone expressed their preference for CVs conveying a positive message (e.g. “Protect the

environment for our children”) over a negative message (e.g. “Our children will suffer if we

ignore the environment”).

Preferences considering the EU Ecolabel. Options tested were a PEF label, the EU Ecolabel and a

combination between PEF and the EU Ecolabel. The PEF label was the most preferred between

the three options, with highest preference given to an A-E type label. About one third of the

respondents recalled having seen the EU Ecolabel prior to the study, which might have influenced

results.

Consumers are ready to pay a bit more for environmentally friendly products. A +15% price

increase was acceptable for consumers for an average product on the A-E scale. This is supported

by the results from the brick and mortar test where four in ten respondents indicated to be

willing to pay more for environmental-friendly products. Furthermore, retailers confirmed that

consumers are willing to pay some extra costs for environmentally-friendly for certain products,


59

but the cost difference should not be significant. A further experiment focussing on willingness

to pay, however, found that price increase had a negative, significant effect on purchasing

intentions.

Communicating to businesses and stakeholders

Businesses acknowledge the increasing importance of environmental sustainability for

consumers and see important benefits of PEFs both for business-to-business (B2B) and business-

to-consumer (B2C) activities, among which are brand valuation, opportunity for comparison of

products in terms of their environmental products, higher quality of products, and last but not

least, common rules for both manufacturers and industries.

More than half of environmentally active SMEs know and use Life Cycle Assessment indicators.

The online SMEs’ online survey shows that a significant number of mid-sized SMEs and those

operating in agriculture and industry are committed to environmental issues. Environmental

concern is likewise higher among medium-sized enterprises and in the primary and secondary

sectors. Similarly, the demand for environmental information is lower in the service sector and

among micro-sized enterprises. About half of the SMEs consulted have an internal environmental

policy in place, often based on LCA indicators and covering topics such as climate change, water

use, land use, but also topics related to human health, such as toxicity and cancer, and the

future availability of resources. About 30% of the SMEs publish information on environmental

issues targeted at clients.

An interesting finding is that when communicating in a B2B setting, SMEs see labels as the most

effective CV, followed by PR campaigns, environmental reports, product passports and

Environmental Product Declarations. As opposed to that, for B2C participants use websites,

leaflets and labels to communicate environmental information. They see websites and POS

product advertisement as the most effective CVs, followed by PR campaigns.

As main drivers for LCA’s, SMEs surveyed indicate that the most important ones cover

organizational awareness, customer satisfaction and improvements of environmental practices.

Conversely, data collection difficulties, and the costs of personnel, such as involvement of

internal human resources or experts constitute main barriers. A common method and the

simplification potential of the EF methods will help to overcome these barriers but taking into

account the cost of access to both the methods and/or the experts to conduct the assessment.

Relevance to decision-making. When communicating in-house or to external partners, clear

conclusions and action points are needed.

Clarity and simplicity is important. Business partners expect more detailed information and are

more likely to have the expertise to understand it. However, often non-experts (e.g. purchasers)

are involved, therefore complex technical messages need to be clearly explained or simplified.

Graphical information is appreciated.

Customers often expect to compare the product with its competitors or to a benchmark.

Verification as a guarantee of fair competition. A credible verification scheme and audit regime

is needed to guarantee the trustworthiness of information and fair competition.

Implications for EU policy development

Overall, the study has provided extensive insights into the issue of different communication

vehicles for environmental footprint information, providing an evaluation, stakeholders

perception and highlighting different design aspects of communication vehicles to increase their

effectiveness, while indicating areas for improvement to raise consumer awareness.

The exploratory nature of this study does not allow for comprehensive, externally valid

conclusions. In an ideal world citizens and business would be presented with reliable and

harmonised product environmental performance labels from trusted sources; have the

competence to understand the communication vehicles and have the incentives and available

alternatives to convert good intentions to changes in behaviour. However, the world is far from

ideal, there is a plethora of logos, label designs and information content.


60

Against this background, the development of an information system for products and

organisations through the implementation of the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and

Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) methods is undeniable as it could provide a common

knowledge to be used by existing policy tools to substantially increase consistency of approaches

and coherence of objectives. This may enable innovative companies to design more sustainable

products, reduce costs and improve their environmental performance in those areas where it

delivers the largest environmental advantages. Furthermore, based on this information, citizens

could make more informed choices without flooding them with excessive and non-

comprehensible information and Member States could introduce incentives/disincentives linked

to the environmental performance of a product along its supply chain.

PEF/OEF concept is a scientific approach to LCA characterised by specific terminology,

abstraction, quantification and complexity. This is necessarily so, as the environmental impacts

of a product over the life cycle are complex. However, the public (and many in businesses) do

not think in systemic terms. They are ‘narrative thinkers’ who are more persuaded by stories,

pictures and graphics than by quantified facts. Most likely, they will switch off from complex

information and from information removed from everyday experience. Therefore, the dilemma

for the roll out of PEF/OEF is how can validity of information be achieved at the same time as

simplicity? Without validity consumers who seek to purchase environmentally sustainable

products may be misled; but if the PEF/OEF information is valid but too complex individuals will

ignore it.

Solving such a dilemma should be seen as a process over time and not the result of a one off

campaign or policy intervention (c.f. two decades for climate change). To achieve an impact on

companies, consumers and Member States there is a need:

To raise awareness about the PEF/OEF method among all the stakeholders emphasising

the impact of the methods in their daily live/business.

To achieve consensus about the communication vehicle, guided by clarity, readability and



To integrate and test the selected communication vehicle with other product/business


References

Atkinson, L. (2013), Smart shoppers? Using QR codes and ‘green’ smartphone apps to mobilize

sustainable consumption in the retail environment, International Journal of Consumer Studies,

Volume 37, Issue 4, Pages 387–393

Bamba, F. & Barnes, S.J. (2007) SMS advertising, permission and the consumer: a study.

Business Process Management Journal, 13, 815–829.


61

Barnes, S.J. (2002) Wireless digital advertising: nature and implications. International Journal

of Advertising, 21, 399–420.

Chandran, A.(2014), Review on Color QR Codes: Decoding Challenges and Security Issues,

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), Vol. 3, Issue 4

D'souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P. & Peretiatko, R. (2007) Green decisions: demographics and

consumer understanding of environmental labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies,

31, 371–376.

Darby, M.R. & Karni, E. (1973) Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of

Law and Economics, 16, 67–88.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of

information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success. Information Systems

Research, 3(1), 60–95.

EMA (2017), Quick Response (QR) codes in the labelling and package leaflet of centrally

authorised medicinal products, available at:

http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideli

ne/2015/07/WC500190405.pdf

Eurostat (2017), Internet access and use statistics - households and individuals, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/digital-economy-and-society/overview

Gao, T., Rohm, A., Sultan, F. & Pagani, M. (2013). Consumers un-tethered: A three-market

empirical study of consumers' mobile marketing acceptance. Journal of Business Research,

66(12), pp.2536-pp.2544.

Grillo, A., Lentini, A., Querini, M. and Italiano, G. (2008), High Capacity Colored Two Dimensional

Codes, Proceedings of the International Multiconference on Computer Science and Information

Technology pp. 709–716

GSMA (2017), The Mobile Economy, Europe 2017, available at:

https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/research/?file=89a59299ac2f37508b252124726a1139&do

wnload

Kalafatis, S.P. & Pollard, M. (1999) Green marketing and Ajzen's theory of planned behaviour:

a cross-market examination. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, 441–460.

Klintman, M. (2006) Ambiguous framings of political consumerism: means or end, product or

process orientation? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 427–438.

Kolandai-Matchett, K. (2009) Mediated communication of ‘sustainable consumption’ in the

alternative media: a case study exploring a message framing strategy. International Journal of

Consumer Studies, 33, 113–125.

Lee, Y., Strong, D. M., Khan, B. K., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). AIMQ: A methodology for Information

quality assessment. Information & Management, 40(2), 33–146.

Mallat, N., Rossi, M., Tuunainen, V.K. & Öörni, A. (2008). An empirical investigation of mobile

ticketing service adoption in public transportation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 12(1),

57-65

Mostafa, M.M. (2007) A hierarchical analysis of the green consciousness of the Egyptian

consumer. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 445–473.

Nelson, P. (1974) Advertising as information. Journal of Political Economy, 82, 729–754.

Ozkaya et al. (2015), Factors affecting consumer usage of QR codes, Journal of Direct, Data and

Digital Marketing Practice, 16-03, 209-224.


62

The Wiki space was accessible to all members of the Technical Secretariat, including external

companies involved in the CV testing. This approach enabled a swifter flow of information

between the pilots and the testing organisations, as well as the Consortium. The permissions to

access a space could be modified at any time. For ease of access to uploaded documents, the

Consortium developed an index based on labels (the so-called key words) assigned to the

available documents. Each document contained a different number of tags, depending on the

needs. The practice of labelling the documents has been used in the Wiki space: EU

Environmental Footprint Pilot Phase and its child pages. It was therefore expected that users

would be familiar with the approach and would be able to understand and follow the labelling

practice.

2.2.2 Conference calls

From the beginning of the study the Consortium was informed by the European Commission that

the Pilots had posed a number of questions on experimental design and on criteria for selecting

a communication vehicle to test. To facilitate communication between the Pilots and the

Consortium, a generic e-mail address was established ([email protected]). The

Consortium received a number of questions via this e-mail address, notably from the following

pilots: footwear, t-shirt, dairy products. In response a teleconferences were organised to be able

to better understand the current status of the CV design and testing phase, pose additional

questions, and to provide a meaningful advice.

2.2.3 Webinars

Furthermore, the Consortium organised webinars to reach a broader audience.

The first webinar was held on 25 September 2015. The focus was on CV testing and was aimed

at describing the most common methods, along with their advantages and disadvantages. 91

users registered for the webinar and 71 participated. The second webinar took place on 9

December 2015. Here the goal was to explain the steps needed to design a communication

vehicle. 94 users registered to this webinar and 66 participated. The dropout rate during the

webinars was very low. The Consortium distributed presentations and any related materials in

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for

measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.

Seema Ahlawat, Dr. Chhavi Rana, Rashmi Sindhu (2017), A Review on QR Codes: Colored and

Image Embedded, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science

Shin, D., Jung, J. & Chang, B. (2012). The psychology behind QR codes: User experience

perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1417-1426

Shin, D.H., Jung, J. and Chang, B. H. (2012), The psychology behind QR codes: User experience

perspective, Computers in Human Behaviour 28, 1417–1426

Shrum, L. J., McCarty, J.A. & Lowrey, T.M. (1995) Buyer Characteristics of the Green Consumer

and Their Implications for Advertising Strategy. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 71-82

Singh, A. and Singh, P. (2016), A REVIEW: QRCODES AND ITS IMAGE PRE-PROCESSING

METHOD, International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research (IJSETR),

Volume 5, Issue 6

Unni, R. & Harmon, R. (2007) Perceived effectiveness of push vs. pull mobile location-based

advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7, 48–71.

USDA (2017), Study of Electronic or Digital Link Disclosure A Third-Party Evaluation of

Challenges Impacting Access to Bioengineered Food Disclosure.

Annex I. The final version of Logbook



63

advance of the webinars which were recorded and subsequently made available on the wiki

space.


64

2.3 Pilots activities

In early 2016, the Consortium contacted the Pilots to offer support and to better understand the

status of the communication phase. The following figure summarises the information gathered

from the pilots through conference calls and emails in 2016. We received feedback from 23 out

of 25 pilots through the logbook (11), phone calls (10) and email (2) and were able to give

advice and support. In addition, the Consortium supported the Nordic Environmental Footprint,

attending two workshops and presenting the approach to PEFs and benchmarking.

Figure 4 Overview of pilot feedback by method

Source: 25 pilots

In March 2017, 19 pilots provided the consortium with final reports of their CV testing phase.

Based on this information, we counted 51 initiatives in which several CVs were tested. The

number of business-to-business (B2B) initiatives was 27, including initiatives aimed at

employees, suppliers, and retailers, while 24 initiatives were business-to-consumer (B2C).

Figure 5 Overview of pilot tests by target group

Source: pilots

The most common method of testing was surveys (21), either online or in person, as the figure

below shows. In addition, interviews were performed in 13 Pilots, with focus groups in 8 cases.

Other methods include workshops with stakeholders (5 initiatives), sales information and general

presentations. The sample size, and the statistical power in performed surveys ranges from

fewer than 20 respondents (Pasta pilot) to over 1,000 respondents (Detergents, Red Meat, Dairy

Products, Paints pilots). Many surveys involved multiple countries that variously included Italy,

Germany, Poland, Sweden, France, the UK, Belgium, Ireland, Denmark, Spain, Croatia, Latvia

and the Netherlands.

Figure 6 Overview of pilot tests by method

Logbooks11

Phone 10

Email 2

No reply 2

B2B27

B2C24 51

initiatives


65

Source: pilots

According to the information collected via pilots, and shown in the figure below, performance

labels were tested in 20 initiatives. Other commonly tested CVs included declarations and

product passports, which were the subject of 10 initiatives. Reports, such as external

communication reports or performance tracking reports, Other CVs that were tested by pilots

include webpages as well as PR campaigns, which include videos, banners, infographics,

newsletter and ads.

Figure 7 Overview of pilot tests by CV

Source: pilots

2.4 Pilots communication vehicles

A total of 47 labels were assessed in the Pilots. Of these, 15 labels included a single performance

score, 10 labels included distinct performance scores (“midpoints”), 16 labels included both a

single performance score and midpoints, while 6 labels had neither of the two. In the latter

category, labels with no score served as controls and contained messages on, among others

issues; animal welfare; recycling information and tips on how to use the product. Their design

was developed starting from the EC mock-up label in 11 cases. In 36 cases, labels were designed

on purpose (or adapted from pre-existing initiatives) by pilots, with varying results in terms of

information displayed, features, and visual impact. The most popular headline was

“Environmental impact” (12 labels), followed by “Environmental footprint” (8 labels),

“Environmental score” (7 labels), “Product Environmental Footprint” (6 labels), “Environmental

Info/Information” (4 labels). Half of the labels (23 labels) had a white background; other

common background colours were blue (8 labels), grey (5 labels), and green (4 labels).

Of the 31 labels that included at least a single performance score (“endpoints”), 18 labels used

letters and colours to indicate the scale, while 2 labels had numbers and colours, and the

remaining 11 using only colours (in 10 cases) or stars (in 1 pilot). In 1 pilot, each of the 5

numbers in the scale was preceded by an “eco” tag. Among the 18 labels using letters, 15 labels

4

5

8

13

21

Other

Workshops

Focusgroups

Interviews

Surveys

1

6

7

7

10

20

Newsletter

Webpage

Report

PRcampaign

Declaration

Label


66

used the A-E scale while 3 labels used the A-G scale. With respect to colours, a total of 22 labels

used a green-to-red (traffic light) performance scale, while 9 labels used other colour

combinations. In all cases, colours correspond to “steps” or letters on the performance scale.

Among those displaying the traffic light performance scale: 3 labels had 2 colours; 5 labels had

3 colours; 11 labels had 5 colours; and 3 labels had 7 colours. Among those not displaying the

traffic light scale, other combinations included black-white or shades of grey (4 labels), shades

of green (2 labels), shades of blue (1 label), a yellow-to-green scale (1 label), as well as a gold-

silver-bronze scale (1 label). A total of 11 labels used a relative comparison score, which was

“Better-Average-Worse” (4 labels), “Better-Medium-Worse” (4 labels), or “Better-Worse” (3

labels). A total of 6 labels used an absolute score, either “Low-Medium-High” (2 labels) or “Low-

High” (4 labels).

Of the 26 labels that included distinct performance scores (“midpoints”), 19 labels used 3

midpoints, while 7 labels used 4 midpoints. In most cases (22 labels), categories were selected

from the agreed Impact Categories (ICs), while 4 labels used ad-hoc categories. In some cases,

ad-hoc categories were simplified ICs (“CO2”, “Water”, “Land”); in others, they measured

different aspects (such as “additional aquatic check”). Midpoints indicated at least absolute

values in 12 labels, and indicated at least relative values in 22 labels. A total of 10 labels used

icons to indicate midpoints.

A QR code was used in 10 labels, while a barcode was used in 5 labels and a link to an external

URL was featured in 13 labels. Around half of the labels (22) indicated that they were certified,

some specified independent experts/third parties (9 labels) while 6 labels indicated “partnership

with the EC”. The EU icon was featured in 12 labels. Other messages included a footprint icon

(3 labels), a planet icon (3 labels), a leaf icon (1 label), an animal icon (1 label), a T-shirt icon

(1 label), an ad-hoc icon (2 labels), recycling information (3 labels), impact on life cycle stages

(5 labels), the picture of a beer glass (9 labels), and the message “What you can do” (3 labels).

Declarations were tested in 8 pilots. Reports were tested in 3 pilots. They differ in nature, target

groups, and impact: some pilots have opted for solutions of high visual impacts, while other

pilots, mainly targeting B2B, have preferred more simple layouts. Other CVs include websites,

PR campaigns, newsletters, videos and banners, and were tested in 6 pilots.

2.5 Analysis of the pilot tests

Any comparative, universal take-home lesson from the cross-CV analysis of PEF/OEF Pilot

initiatives would be hard to draw. A number of factors, including differences within and across

Pilots, the high variability of test methods, and the variability of the sample sizes of the different

target groups militate against comprehensive, externally valid conclusions. Nevertheless, a

number of common insights can be drawn on the basis of the information gathered.

Citizens tend to be interested in PEF and environmental information about products. This is

especially true for B2C customers, but less so for B2B tests. Professional customers are

sceptical, though the idea of having all manufacturers and industries adhering to one common

set of rules is appreciated. It reportedly increased the perceived transparency of the product.

Interest in PEF has found to be higher among older people. However, as findings were self-

reported an intention-behaviour gap cannot be excluded.

Compared with other factors, PEF is an important purchase driver in both B2B and B2C settings.

However, it still lags behind price, brand trust, quality and performance. The particular drivers

of purchases are product-dependent. In one pilot, no interviewed company said they would buy

a product classified in the worst category on an environmental scale. In another pilot, the

majority of respondents claimed that PEF had a direct impact on their purchase decisions. PEF

information could also generate a “halo effect” and influence indirectly the purchasing decision,

through the positive influence it has on brand trust. Respondents seemed to be influenced by

environmental considerations during their purchasing process, especially in household

appliances and cars, followed by food, furniture, and sporting products.

However, when it comes to detail, the impact categories are hard to understand, even by B2B

customers. While respondents are familiar with climate change, CO2 emissions or water use,


67

few understand categories such as acidification, terrestrial euthropication or ecotoxicity. While

an explanation of the impact categories improved understanding considerably, for some products

the relevance of some of the impact categories was unclear to respondents. They appear to have

pre-conceived ideas about which categories are important for the product, which did not

necessarily correspond to reality. Where used, the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) concept was found

difficult to explain in simple terms and to distil into a label at stock-keeping unit level. Some

participants suggested the use of more generic names such as “air” or “water”. On the other

hand other customers, at a B2B level believe that CVs should break down performance score in

yet more dimensions - upstream and core processes.

With regards to specific CVs, there is no unambiguous trend on what labels should be used. The

traffic light and energy label-type formats were positively received in some pilots, whereas

respondents from B2B pilots found them too simplistic. In one test, B2C participants found the

similarity to the Energy Label disturbing - they felt it was confusing to see this format on a

product that is not energy-related. Those who praised labels similar to the Energy Label argued

that since public awareness of the Energy Label is very high, and its visual design is very clear

and easy to understand, it should be the model for PEFs. Particularly in B2C, information

conveyed through bars and colour scales tend to be preferred and deemed easier to understand

as compared to numerical values. Clarity, readability and transparency seem the key factor for

performance scores.

The certification of PEF information is more appreciated among B2B than B2C. A generic

statement on verification by independent experts was judged as insufficient, and not

transparent, as no information on the experts and their affiliation was provided. Participants

would not trust the government or sector associations, but consumer or environmental

associations were preferred.

The representation of the environmental performance in absolute terms (e.g. kg CO2-eq / kg)

was difficult to understand. In B2B, respondents believe that CVs should include a comparison

with a sector benchmark. Furthermore, respondents tend to prefer having a single performance

score (endpoint). Among B2C, CVs that include midpoints are seen as carrying too much

information.

The use of QR codes (in 10 labels), barcodes (5 labels), and links (13 labels) were positively

received by respondents. QR codes in particular were praised in two pilots. However, only a few

respondents admitted that they would go further and obtain additional information. Lastly, it is

worth mentioning that participants in several pilots tended to be more interested in factors that

go beyond the Environmental Footprint, such as the geographical origin of ingredients, animal

welfare, and information on how to optimize the use of the product in an environmentally

respectful way.

Among other types of CVs, the public response to the content of reports, declarations and

passports varied. B2B stakeholders preferred maximum information and many impact

categories. They reported interest in the distribution of impacts along life cycle stages, as well

as technical information. Respondents reported that the best approach to responsible sourcing

is to build long-term relationships with suppliers and to establish and facilitate dialogue forums.

Pilots testing websites had been commended for the quality of the design. The information

displayed was considered "relevant, clear and very credible”. However, overall and like the

findings of other CVs, interest was not great as PEFs are largely unknown. Respondents

appreciated reading tips and suggestions on daily actions, and expressed a desire for more

examples of concrete actions and tangible comparisons with across products. Other PR

campaigns included high visual impact infographics explaining PEFs/OEFs. However,

stakeholders considered that the content focussed too much on methodological and not practical

issues. Videos, banners and advertisement gained positive feedback in terms of delivering the

PEF/OEF message, but they still struggled to explain fully the different impact categories.


68

2.6 Lessons learned from the pilot phase

Any comparisons and general conclusions from PEF/OEF Pilot test initiatives must be made with

caution. A number of factors, including differences within and between the Pilots, the variability

of test methods, and the limited availability of CVs tested militates against comprehensive,

externally valid conclusions. Nevertheless, a number of common insights can still be drawn on

the basis of the information provided.

The greater majority of European citizens who participated in the Pilot tests expressed

concern about environmental sustainability and are interested in PEFs and information

about the environmental impact of products.

The majority of commercial/business sectors recognise the inevitability of PEFs and see

benefits both for B2B and B2C activities. The benefits include brand valuation; the

opportunity of buyers to compare products’ environmental impacts; driving up quality,

and common rules for manufacturers and industries.

Environmental performance is not amongst the main criteria driving purchase decisions.

For different products price, quality, brand and availability are more important. However,

all things being equal many respondents in the Pilot test said that environmental

performance would be taken into account.

In particular sectors, environmental performance appears to be a more important product

attribute. These include household appliances and cars, followed by food, furniture, and

sporting products.

The impact categories are hard to understand, even for B2B customers. People are

familiar with impacts such as climate change, CO2 emissions, energy and water

consumption. But technical/scientific terms such as acidification, terrestrial

eutrophication and eco-toxicity are simply not understood. Linking impact categories to

the specific product creates difficulties and the idea of Life Cycle Analysis is not readily

accessible.

It is apparent that citizens have preconceived ideas about the environmental impact of

certain products that are at variance with reality.

On communication vehicles it is clear that for B2C products the use of graphics, bars and colour

scales is greatly preferred to numbers, scientific terms and other forms of data. Clarity,

readability and transparency should be the key to designing CVs. If the CV is complex people

will ignore it. Of the variety of CVs tested, the traffic light and energy label type formats receive

majority support.

The certification of PEF information is a welcome feature for B2B products. For B2C

products who gives the certification is vital. People have a preference for named and

independent experts.

The description of a product’s environmental performance in absolute terms (e.g. kg CO2-

eq / kg) is too challenging seemed and a single performance score (endpoint) was

preferred to CVs including midpoint information.

QR codes, bar codes, links, websites, banners and other forms of PR are all seen as

convenient by the, albeit few, people seeking further information.


69

3 Stakeholders’ perspectives

3.1 Retailers: workshop

3.1.1 Background and objectives

A workshop with retailers was conducted on Monday 4 July 2016 at DG ENV. The objective of

this workshop was to gather insights from retailers on the following questions:

What do customers think about environmental footprint? What does it mean to them?

How might PEF/OEF affect their decision taking?

How important is PEF/OEF information in comparison to other information on a product

label?

What could be the role of retailers in communicating horizontally on environmental

performance/ PEF towards consumers?

What would change if PEF information became widely available?

What partnership could there be between suppliers and retailers in trying to influence

consumers’ behaviour?

3.1.2 Complementary tests

Mr. LUPIAÑEZ of the Consortium introduced the “stop-and-go” approach used in this phase of

the project. It includes four steps. First, exploratory qualitative studies to be conducted to map

and highlight trends that otherwise would be unnoticed. In the second step, preliminary

experiments will be carried out, either brick-and-mortar (on-site, in a shop) or in a laboratory.

In the third step, online discrete-choice experiments will be conducted. In the final step, the

Consortium will run a validation of CVs in a realistic setting (again, brick-and-mortar or in a

laboratory) to assess performance. Stop-and-go approaches in studies facilitate a progressive

learning from step to step.

The design of test will be informed by a number of issues. : the information collected from the

pilot tests conducted in the first stage of the project; the nature of the information to be included

in the communication vehicles; and the range of products to be considered in the testing,

including the following dimensions: B2B – B2C; PEF – OER; Point of sale – Close to point of sale

- Beyond the point of sale and On spot - Deferred purchase. Customers and PEF/OEF information

Mr. LUPIAÑEZ asked participants for their opinions on the consumers’ perspective of PEF/OEF,

in terms of awareness and understanding, and attitude and behavioural change.

Awareness and understanding

Most of the retailer participants held the view that consumers are not aware of the concept of

“environmental footprint”, regardless of the frequency with which they buy environmentally

friendly products. With very many environmental labels currently in use11, there seems to be a

degree confusion. Labels regarding health issues could easily be misinterpreted as relating to

the environment, and vice versa. Furthermore, comparing dimensions of environmental impacts

that are very different could lead consumers making sub-optimal decisions. A major challenge

emerged from the discussion: “how to convey complex messages in a simple way”. Whereas the

existing energy labels comprise a single dimension, the environmental footprint label would

feature more than one dimension.

However, simplification necessarily excludes some information which might lead to a sub-optimal

decision. Moreover, while PEF/OEF strictly relates to the environment, other dimensions may

be overlooked, including (as mentioned by participants): risk assessment for toxicity; safety

impacts; or societal benefit via assessment tools. One participant worried what will be

communicated and the measurement units used will be negative (e.g. quantification of

emissions) leading to unfounded negative reactions. What about positive message content such

11 Ecolabel Index: http://www.ecolabelindex.com/

http://www.ecolabelindex.com/


70

as biodiversity? Another participant argued that the EU logo on a product would be more effective

than any environmental footprint label.

Attitudes and behaviour

With regards to consumer attitudes, one participant thought that consumers might agree that

buying environmentally friendly products is the right thing to do, and that it can make a

difference to the real environment. However, s/he warned that there are ambiguities in defining

environmental footprint: as an anecdote, a detergent with a lot of water is good for the

environment, but doesn’t do its job right, and worse - one needs to use higher temperature,

which is bad for the environment and cancels out the intended benefits.

Just as attitudes do not necessarily lead to positive environmental impacts, they do not

necessarily translate into behavioural change. More than 80% of European citizens sometimes

buy environmentally friendly products12, yet consumers may find it difficult to change, even if

they would like to do so. Price seems to be one of the key reasons for those who don’t buy

environmentally friendly products. As pointed out by one representative, the environmental

footprint of a product may fall behind other factors in the choice, such as price or quality.

Furthermore, as pointed out by another representative, in certain commodity industries

consumers are brand loyal and would be unlikely to be persuaded by new labels from

competitors.

There was no consensus among the retail representatives on which functional (measurement)

unit to feature on a potential label, e.g. value vs. weight. Participants argued that is not always

clear which dimension does the European Commission perceive as beneficial, and how to simplify

it.

3.1.3 The role of retailers and the environmental footprint

Mr. LUPIAÑEZ went on to ask the industry representatives and retailers about the role and the

impact of the retail sector in communicating environmental performance/PEF to consumers,

what changes might occur if PEF information became widely available, and what new

partnerships could emerge in the supply chain.

Here, the discussion revolved around one main point, the retailers as gatekeepers. Would it

make more sense to let B2B players take over activities of communication for environmental

footprint, do much of the work, and translate it to the consumer level? An argument in favor

was that retailers know their end-users well. Some will focus on water consumption, others on

biodiversity. Single brands could become gatekeepers, as they can more easily speak with

suppliers and consumers. Retailers are in the best position to communicate environmental

information to consumers, with the exception perhaps of the post-use phase. There is a small

minority of consumers who are consistently environmentally friendly on every item they buy,

whereas others are more concerned about environmental footprint in, say, food, and less in

furniture. Retailers can pick out what they think consumers are most interested in. For example,

they could choose to have separate shop corners for green products.

One representative argued for not cherry-picking products to put in separate shop corners, but

instead to use a rigorous methodology and possibly collect primary data to do so. One retailer

argued that they would not sort “green” products in a separate corner, and that it would be a

way of turning customers into a false dichotomy: “these products are good therefore the others

are bad”; a view that was supported by others.

With regards to the possible communication vehicles, many retailers stated that on-shelf

information would be difficult to implement, as it would have to be constantly updated. In

addition, electronic on-shelf labels are not large enough to host more information other than

price. Instead, a single website would be desirable to which all users would be directed. With

regards to the message, it was agreed that the main environmental footprint message must be

understandable for consumers as only then would we see action and behavioural change.

12 European Commission (2013), Flash Eurobarometer 367. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_367_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_367_en.pdf


71

Another issue is comparability. One representative suggested that if life cycle thinking is

embedded across sectors, then products will be compared more by consumers who would be in

a position to make better choices. Others argued that LCA should not be used for comparisons

between products but rather for looking at the environmental performance of a product over

time. One representative pointed out that while the environmental footprint of two milk bottles

can be compared, the same is not possible for the footprints of two smartphones because the

latter are formed of countless pieces, materials, and different metals.

3.1.4 Remarks

There are multiple, conflicting dimensions behind the concept of environmental footprint;

There is a consensus for not simplifying the message, and instead for respecting the

complexity of the subject matter.

There is a consensus for more focus on B2B and retailers for the communication phase.

Comparability: there is a consensus over comparing the same product over 2 periods of

time, rather than 2+ products.

3.2 Consumers: focus groups

3.2.1 Background and objectives

The aim of the complementary study was to explore consumers' views about environmental

information related to products and organisations. On the one hand, the environmental footprint

concepts are not widely known across Europe. On the other hand, environmental awareness and

policy making has a longer history in some countries than in others, as in countries such as

Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Germany compared to countries like Greece, Hungary, Poland

or Spain. We may assume that environmental sustainability and environmentally informed

consumer choices will increase over time across both groups of countries. As such, there is a

case for designing qualitative research that captures both, the present state of modal public

opinion and at the same time anticipates what public opinion might be in the coming decade.

To have a broader and deeper understanding of consumers’ views on environmental footprint,

and the different communication vehicles for providing information about them, focus groups

have aimed to understand consumers’ concerns and habits regarding environmental

sustainability in general.

3.2.2 Methodology

A total of two focus groups were conducted, each lasting 2 hours. Each focus group was

conducted in a different European country. Both focus groups comprised 8-10 participants with

a balanced gender and age representation (50% aged 25-40 y.o. and 50% aged 41-55 y.o.),

and reflecting modal and high levels of environmental concern in each group (50% for each

level). The countries selected were Germany, a country with a history of environmentalism, and

Spain, a country without such a history.

Both groups followed the same discussion guide, but there was a greater focus on understanding

the perception of the different communication vehicles for providing environmental footprint

information in Germany – at the cost of exploring participants’ habits regarding environmental

sustainability in general. This because German consumers are more exposed to this kind of

information than are Spanish consumers.

Different communication vehicles for providing environmental footprint information were shown

as stimuli to explore participants’ reactions. Participants were also shown a set of 32 coded

images, as projective input, to facilitate the discussion on environmental footprints. A selection

of verbatims to support and illustrate the content of this report can be found in Annex II. This

Annex also includes the discussion guide and the materials used.


72

3.2.3 Environmental Footprint: perceptions, experiences and knowledge

3.2.3.1 Meaning

“Environmental footprint” is generally understood as the negative impact the manufacturing of

products and the actions of companies and people have in the environment. Nonetheless, one

Spanish participant admitted not to know what this concept meant. The concept of

environmental footprint essentially evokes a sense of “future inheritance”, referring to the

worse conditions in which we are leaving the planet to future generations. Evocations are based

upon three basic dimensions:

Time dimension: What we are doing in the present is having consequences for the future.

As long as we have been and we are still damaging the environment, future generations

will have to face a spoiled planet that will lead to the extinction of species and eventually

even to the extinction of the human race. Participants think it is urgent to react

immediately in order to hold back the progressive destruction of Nature and, ultimately,

of any kind of life on Earth. This degradation of Nature is also expected to worsen the

living conditions of the poorer, who will not have means to deal with it. Participants feel

responsible and worried for their descendants, so that this dimension seems to be

particularly relevant among participants who have children –or the intention to have

them, or participants who have nephews or nieces.

Responsibility dimension: This dimension has two poles, the social one, which is mainly

associated with the responsibility of governments and companies, and the individual

one, which is related with what each individual can do in order to control her/his impact

on the environment. This dimension evokes the need for raising awareness and working

at both. At an individual and at a collective level to develop more environmentally

sustainable behaviours and reach the aim of holding back the destruction of Nature. This

dimension is linked to some sense of guilt, but also empowerment at the same

time; each individual and community is damaging Nature, but can also do something to

counteract the progressive deterioration of Nature. Participants feel the need to do

something to counterbalance their negative impact on the environment and feel

disappointed as they think most of people do not have this need. In this sense, they think

there is not enough awareness and willingness to change behaviours among

most people; they consider themselves as belonging to a group of environmentally

sensitive people that is still a minority.

Economic dimension: Firstly, environmental footprints are related to the overproduction

and overconsumption of goods and services. Participants think we are consuming

much more than we need. This overconsumption is related to the “throwaway society”

and it is considered the ultimate cause of environmental damage because it is directly

linked to the overexploitation of resources and the contamination of the planet.

Participants are aware that the production process of goods, their usage and after-usage

leave a great environmental footprint. Secondly, money can act as an incentive for

generating environmental footprints as long as having an impact in the environment

often turns out to be cheaper than developing environmentally-friendly

behaviours, for both, companies and consumers. Finally, dealing with environmental

issues is expected to involve some economic cost (e.g. cleaning the dirt, health

problems costs), which is expected to be mainly funded by taxpayers and particular

investments, such as buying a hybrid or electric car.

3.2.3.2 Concerns

The main concerns about environmental sustainability in general are related with air pollution,

soil and water contamination, deforestation, ozone depletion, overexploitation of natural

resources (e.g. intensive agriculture and farming) and the loss of biodiversity -animals in

particular, because they lead to food toxicity and climate change (global warming). Air

pollution, which is especially associated with vehicle and gas emissions, and food toxicity are

considered particularly threatening due to their direct effect on health –mainly respiratory

diseases, cancers and allergies. Participants are particularly concerned about mass produced


73

food because it involves making the final products more toxic due to, for example, pesticides,

GMOs or hormone-treated animals. The food industry is also considered particularly worrying

as long as it involves destroying the ecosystem (e.g. destruction of forests to grow corn).

Climate change is considered particularly worrying, not only for the dramatic transformations

it is associated with, such as the melting of the poles, droughts, desertification and shortage of

water, but also for the negative effects on the body, agriculture and animals, as long as the

temperature is becoming warmer and altering the season cycles. In relation to this, Spanish

participants are particularly worried about an eventual shortage of water.

The over-production of packaging is a great concern because it is producing an overload of

garbage that contaminates soil and water, especially the plastic packaging as it is not

biodegradable and can contaminate the sea.

Participants also show special concern towards the environmental impact generated by vehicle

emissions in general and particularly the transportations of goods due to being highly

polluting. Other activities that are also expected to generate a greater impact and environmental

footprint are the consumption of non-renewable energies, nuclear power, thermal energy, coal

industry, oil industry, construction industry, cosmetics industry and the generation of waste -

especially the ones made by chemical and the textile industries (e.g. dyes).

The perceived short-term consequences of these impacts in the environment are polluting the

air, contaminating soils, rivers and seas, which are increasing the greenhouse effect and thus

the climate change (i.e. the weather becoming extremely warm) leading to desertification, the

melting of the poles, plagues, such as jellyfish, the loss of species and the disappearance of

beaches in the long-term.

Beyond these concerns, there is a background concern that seems to have become particularly

relevant due to the recent victory of Donald Trump as US President-Elect, which is “climate

change denial”. Participants show their worry about the consequences of his election on the

future environmental politics of the world’s leading power. In this sense, participants think it is

important that main world powers, and governments in general, are aware of environmental

issues and are strict in implementing environmental protection measures. It is urgent to react

immediately; otherwise participants are afraid that it is going to be too late and the destruction

of the planet will be inevitable. The expected consequences, in case of not reacting in time, are

rather dramatic: the extinction of animals and plants, hunger and wars provoked by conflicts

related to people’s survival. Participants foresee the human extinction as the ultimate

consequence if environmental-friendly politics and behaviours are not urgently implemented and

we keep damaging the environment as we are doing now.

3.2.3.3 Habits

Participants think there is not enough awareness and sensitivity with respect to environmental

sustainability in general, so that only a minority of people are developing environmentally

sustainable habits. This belief is stronger among Spanish participants as they frequently see

other people around not recycling (e.g. when throwing away their garbage in the street rubbish

containers) and also because they consider that the current Spanish government has no

environmental policy at all, and it is even ruining the environmental policy that was being

implemented before (e.g. has put taxes on solar energy instead of supporting its development).

In this sense, Spanish participants think all the ministries should have an environmentally

sustainable perspective and there should be a ministry for environmental policy that should

coordinate the rest of ministries in relation to this issue.

Educating children on environmental sustainability is considered fundamental, but

environmental education at school is rather recent in Spain -only participants under 30 y.o.

received education on this issue at school. More public investment on environmental education

and research is suggested by Spanish participants –environmental education should be a specific

subject matter at school and innovation within the environmental context should be promoted

as a priority.


74

Local and seasonal food should be promoted by governments to avoid long- distance

transportation. Companies should be penalized for using certain types of packaging –mainly

those derived from oil, and for over-package (e.g. individual packaging of each product within

the packaging), and they should use only recyclable packaging. Spanish participants also urge

to be encouraged to return the bottles to the supermarket as it used to be done before the 80’s.

Participants are suspicious about the agreements governments reach to take care of the

environment as they think governments “just sign”, but do not fully implement and follow up

these agreements. The TTIP treaty between the US and Europe arises special concerns, as it is

expected to legalize products that are banned in Europe. Trading agreements are also considered

worrying because they favour the commercialization of foreign products to the detriment of local

ones (e.g. fruits, milk). Participants think there is not enough control on companies regarding

environmental issues or that these controls are not effective enough. Monitoring of compliance

should not be pre-notified to ensure that bad practices are uncovered. Spanish participants are

also suspicious about the value of controlling the environmental footprints as long as companies

can just pay a fine for the illegal waste discharges they might do and continue damaging the

environment anyway. They also think laws are not restrictive enough, so that legal waste

discharges can still be very damaging, or individual environmentally unfriendly behaviours are

not penalized (e.g. using private jet planes).

Investing on renewable energies –mainly solar energy and wind power, and organic

agriculture and farming are considered key to avoid damaging the environment. Public

transportation should all be electric, driving cars with just one person in the city should be

penalized and traffic should be reduced in general. Developing effective environmentally

sustainable habits requires the convergence of the following elements from participants’

experience:

Receiving proper environmental education at school or learning from some relative

Becoming aware of the negative impact of our habits in the environment.

Feeling responsible for this impact.

Willingness to make an effort – giving up convenience and spending more money in

order to reduce this impact.

Being given specific information and facilitating things (e.g. knowing what kind of

rubbish matches with each rubbish container and having rubbish containers close to

home).

Receiving rewards or incentives that promote environmentally-friendly behaviours (e.g.

not paying taxes for the alternative energies) or penalties for inappropriate behaviours

(e.g. paying for plastic bags at shops).

The commitment of the whole society: governments, institutions, companies and

citizens.

However, participants think sustainability is also becoming a sort of “fashion”, so that

companies and brands are using it as a marketing tool to take profit from it (e.g. Krombancher

plants rainforests for each bottle that is sold). Using environmental sustainability for marketing

purposes seems to have an ambivalent effect; on one hand it helps raising the profile of the

issue but on the other hand, it tends to make environmental sustainability more banal and

lose some credibility.

The participants’ main contribution to environmental sustainability is recycling. They recycle by

sorting out their garbage into five categories: bottles, plastic, paper, organic and disposable

(everything else). However, some respondents find difficulties in separating the organic garbage

in Spain as it takes extra room in the kitchen and it quickly becomes very smelly in summertime.

These respondents find it more convenient to put the organic rubbish together with the

disposable one and throw them away together, which also facilitates filling one bag per day or

every two days –before it gets smelly in summer time. Recycling plastic in Spain is also

problematic as long as some participants expect to be able to throw any kind of plastic in the

plastic bin, but only packaging should be placed in it. On the other hand, some Spanish

participants experience recycling as somehow frustrating because of a rumour that says that


75

recycling is just a façade because the content of the different garbage containers is put together

again after being collected. Batteries and used cooking oil are also items that some

participants take to their particular container as they are known to be very contaminating. Other

ways participants recycle is by finding other uses to used items, such as making soap from used

cooking oil.

Participants try to avoid the accumulation of too many plastic bags and packaging by buying

in bulk or loose, buying one family pack instead of several individual packs, and by taking their

own reusable bag or shopping cart when going to the supermarket. Spanish participants admit

that having to pay for the plastic bag at the supermarket has helped them change their habit.

Repairing things instead of buying new items, buying second hand, avoiding the waste of energy

(e.g. controlling the use of heating and air conditioning), reducing the use of paper (e.g. by

using both sides of sheets), using the bike or public transport for urban commuting, consuming

locally produced and season products to avoid long distance transportation –especially when it

comes to food (mainly vegetables, fruits and meat), and buying organic food are other habits

participants have developed in relation to environmental sustainability. However, some

behaviours are more related with looking for benefits on their health than

environmental benefits (e.g. consuming organic food, cycling), or even with convenience and

saving –public transport is considered cheaper and more convenient for urban commuting,

especially due to the lack of available and free park sites. Avoiding the waste of water (e.g.

collecting the extra cold water in a bucket when having a shower to water the plants or other

uses) is particularly relevant among Spanish participants; they claim buildings should have a

system to recycle grey water.

On the other hand, collaborative or shared consumption is considered particularly effective in

Spain to avoid overconsumption and decrease our environmental impact in general. Energy bills

are considered key to encourage energy saving habits; visualizing how much you have saved is

expected to help further saving. The main barriers to develop proper environmentally friendly

behaviours are linked to:

Convenience, comfort or “laziness”.

Economic reasons: electric cars are more expensive, different types of bags have to be

bought for the different types of rubbish, special taxes have to be paid when using solar

energy (Spain), organic food is more expensive, etc.

Lack of information of what kind of rubbish should or should not go into the different

containers (e.g. some organic items do not go into the organic bin, but into the disposable

waste one), as well as where to take some particular items that are known to be very

polluting (e.g. batteries or oil).

Lack of space to have five different rubbish bins.

Lack of credibility regarding the management of garbage (Spain): recycling can be

considered a business for companies rather than a really environmentally-friendly activity

due to different rumours about what is done with the rubbish that is collected from the

different bins.

These barriers tend to be more relevant in Spain than in Germany –as Spain is a

country with no history on environmentalism, probably due to the more spontaneous and

present-oriented character of the Spanish culture that tends not to facilitate controlled

and future-oriented behaviours.

3.2.3.4 Knowledge

Participants are familiar with certifications that they judge to be directly and indirectly related

to the environment provided mainly in five product categories: food, electrical household

appliances (e.g. refrigerators), light bulbs, cars and buildings:

Energy efficiency label on electrical household appliances and light bulbs: the A++, A+,

A, B, C, D, E code

Zero kilometre or local origin


76

Home energy performance certification

CO2 emission stickers on vehicles (the CO2 emission stickers are very new in Spain, not

known by all participants yet)

Fair trade label

ISO or AENOR Certificates

Label to certificate fish has been fished without catching other species (Germany)

EU organic label –which is represented by a leaf (Germany)

In Germany, participants become aware of environmental issues by being able to pay a

supplement to compensate for the emission of CO2 when using some transportation companies,

such as Flixbus or Deutsche Bahn –either to commute or send packages. They can also pay a

supplement on some products to compensate their impact on animals’ welfare (e.g. bee mortality

when buying honey).

Participants do not know the criteria per which environmental footprints are determined and how

to compare different products. No clear or consistent information about environmental

footprint is delivered when purchasing. They claim all products should show the same kind

of label and coding. Moreover, participants think that communicating environmental

footprint should be compulsory for all companies –in a similar way as cigarette companies

are forced to show health warnings on the packaging. They think it is Government’s responsibility

to make policies that force companies to be environmentally-friendly, rather than putting all the

responsibility on consumers.

Soft regulations and marketing strategies related with environmental sustainability have

had a negative effect on participants; they have become suspicious and sceptical, and do not

know whether they can rely on what is being said about PEFs and OEFs. In the context of food,

the “Bio” labelling has been misused raising mistrust towards environmental labelling.

Scepticism is the main barrier to be receptive to environmental footprint information.

Participants show high levels of mistrust towards the credibility of certifications and

labels, and towards the purpose of the supplements they can pay to compensate the

environmental footprint when purchasing specific services and products (Germany). On the other

hand, regulations regarding environmental issues and labelling are considered too soft

or undemanding (e.g. being able to run free 40 days a year is enough for eggs to be labelled

free-range in Germany). However, they think environmental footprint controls should not be so

extremely strict that they would not allow small farmers and family business keep on with their

business. In this sense, they think too much control would favour big companies, which are

expected to be able to cope with and afford it, to the detriment of the small ones –which are

not.

Food, electrical household appliances and light bulbs are the product categories where

labels are more common and seem to influence the purchase the most. Regarding food, the

country of origin may influence purchasing in favour of choosing locally produced products

that are expected not to pollute due to being transported long distances (“Zero kilometre”

agriculture). Organic production (i.e. free-range farming, pesticides and GMO free) is also

considered an influencing factor. However, the information participants look for in food tends to

be more related with the impact on health than on the environment. With regard to

electrical household appliances and light bulbs participants tend to choose the A, A+ or A++

because of the expectation of saving energy and money in the long-term –which compensates

their higher price when being purchased.

However, participants admit they do not always pay attention to this type of information

and that other criteria can be more important than the environmental footprint –mainly

aesthetics and comfort. Besides, they are willing to pay a little more for eco-friendly products,

especially food, but not a big difference. On the other hand, social sensitivity can be more

important that environmental sensitivity; checking that a product has not been made by

exploiting workers –especially children, can be more relevant than checking its environmental

footprint.


77

Participants may pay less attention to the environmental footprint of products that are bought

regularly in a mechanical way (i.e. low involvement) or products that are expected to be used

for a very short period of time (i.e. a couple of days). But they may pay more attention when

introducing new products in their habits, when purchasing products that are going to be used

for a long time, or when purchasing big or expensive items, such as cars or houses. Other

items where participants may pay more attention to their environmental footprint information

are those related with their own or their children’s health (e.g. babies and children products,

food, clothes, hygiene products and cosmetics), with higher energy consumption (e.g.

electrical and electronic devices), with pollution or contamination due to its use (e.g. cars,

cleaning products) or after-use (e.g. packaging).

Companies or brands that show environmental information are considered to be more sensitive,

honest and trustworthy so that they improve their image and reputation and are expected

to be preferred to those not showing this information. However, previous environmental

reputation biases the perception and credibility of environmental certifications, so that

brands or companies that already are known to have a great impact on the environment (e.g.

Monsanto, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Repsol) would need an extra support from some

credible authority, so that participants would believe they are telling the truth with respect to

the information provided.

3.2.4 Influence of the different communication vehicles for providing environmental

footprint information

3.2.4.1 Labels

Environmental footprint information in labelling is expected to have a higher influence on

purchasing when:

It is clearly visible and next to items that do not have any environmental label – so that

they become more differentiated and outstanding.

It is easily understood: using a well-known code, colours or images and little text –text

is not expected to be read as it is more time consuming.

It is certificated by a credible and trustful authority.

However, environmental footprint information in labelling has some important problems:

Labels are not always seen as there are other labels (e.g. price) or information that can

focus attention on other attributes (e.g. product composition)

Participants do not always understand the meaning of the coding for environmental

footprint information.

Environmental labels, and labels in general, are not always supported by a credible

authority. Participants complain that labels and certificates can be false; they are not

considered as guaranteed due to bad practices and corruption, especially when politicians

are working for companies that are not considered environmentally friendly. So they

should be issued by some credible authority that should also sanction companies that

use false labels or certifications. Participants believe there is not enough control and

that this lack of control takes certification and labels’ credibility away. Credible authorities

are associated with governmental or public institutions, although they are not fully

trusted by respondents due to corruption. Independent institutions, such as The

German Environmental Association, Stiftung Warentest, Öko Test, TÜV, WWF (World Wild

Life) or health associations seem to be more trustful in Germany. In Spain, credible

authorities are also related with independent institutions, such as AENOR, and consumer

associations. However, whatever authority issues the certificate, they should be checked

by reputable environmental scientists that are supposed to be honest and neutral.

Considering the European Commission as an authority is polarizing as some participants

are afraid of lobbying in favour of some companies, whereas some other participants still

expect it to be neutral and independent from commercial interests. Moreover, in

Germany, participants think the different countries in the EU have too different policies

regarding environmental issues, so that the EC would apply standards that might be


78

too soft in comparison to those in Germany. However, they would like to have a European

or even worldwide environmental seal in the future, when all countries have homogenized

their environmental policies.

How to label products that are not packed, like meat at the butcher’s, especially because

each consignment is expected to vary regarding its PEF. In these cases, participants think

labels might not be needed when shopping in eco-friendly shops or farms they rely on,

but the problem persists when shopping these items at conventional supermarkets.

The traffic-lights performance rating (see L2 in figure 3) is preferred when shopping in a more

mechanical and less involved way (i.e. food and other perishable items) due to being a

simple and universal coding that anyone, even children, can quickly understand, so that very

little time is spent on this issue. In this case, participants think a differentiation in three

categories is enough. Whereas when shopping in a more conscious way (i.e. more expensive

and durable items), having a 5 levels scale is considered to be more appropriate due to being

more differentiating and precise. This 5 levels scale could be either the traditional A-E coding or

the traffic-lights coding by adding one gradation in the green and another one in the red colour.

However, as consumers progressively become more aware and familiar with the environmental

labelling, the ideal performance rating is considered to be a mixture of the A-E

combined with the traffic-lights coding to provide both, quickly identifiable, but also precise

information –as it is in L1 in figure 3.

Participants claim having more detailed information on the label when buying products that

can be unhealthy due to toxicity, such as clothes, cosmetics or food. In this case, not only the

environmental performance rating code should be displayed, but also any information related

with an eventual impact on their health (e.g. containing GMO, type of dyers used).

Showing numbers to refer to different environmental footprints met with mixed opinions. (see

L2 in figure 3). On one hand, it is preferred because it allows a more precise comparison among

different products and getting familiar with comparing quantities (c.f. participants have got used

to comparing nutritional values in food). But on the other hand, some participants consider that

numbers provide little information, for example, do the numbers mean high or low environmental

impacts? Moreover, these numbers are expected to have a different value depending where they

are originated. For example, it is not thought that water sustainability would be the same in

Africa compared to say Sweden. In the end, participants tend to agree that showing different

numbers for different footprints on the label can be too complicated and that is better to show

this coding in the same way as the rest of the label (letters if it is letters coding, or colours if it

is traffic-light coding). On the other hand, not more than three concrete environmental

information should be displayed on the label – as it is in L1 or L2 in figure 3.

Participants would like to have further information on environmental footprint when buying

groceries that are purchased regularly or when purchasing items that are going to be used over

long periods of time, or are more expensive (e.g. electrical home appliances, electronic

devices, cars, bikes, houses). In relation to this, they appreciate the QR code (see L2 in Figure

8) or having a website where to look up this information (see L1 and L2 in Figure 8).

QR codes are preferred to bar codes in order to have this extra environmental footprint

information (see L2 in figure 3). QR codes are considered more popular and more integrated in

participants’ lives due to being used for other purposes in smartphones. Bar codes are not usually

checked, as most of participants do not know how to interpret them –except some of the

participants who have a higher level of environmental awareness “Learn more about this label”

(se L2 in Figure 8) seems to be a bit disappointing as participants want to know more about the

environmental impact of the product rather than the label itself (so it should say “Read more

about environmental impact of this product” instead). Participants in Spain are afraid to be

exposed to advertising when checking the QR codes –which would discourage them from

checking them. QR codes should display visual information that explains the performance rating

of the product (e.g. what “A” or “Green” exactly means) and all the environmental information

related to that particular product. Providing this information is expected to encourage or

discourage participants from buying the product when the label displayed would not be enough


79

to take the decision. It might also be checked just out of curiosity or to learn more about


The information about Carbon (see L3 in Figure 8) tends to be considered too overloaded with

text and, as such, not inviting to be read. Moreover, it looks too specific and technical, so that

it needs further explanation. This kind of information is preferred to be seen apart, when

checking the QR code or website, not on the label.

Figure 8 Environmental Footprint Labels

Source: Background document for the testing of communication vehicles in the environmental footprint

pilot phase 2013-2016 (pp. 20-22)

Participants do not want to feel overloaded by information; they want labels to be simple and

easy, so that providing too many symbols or too much information is rejected. In this sense,

showing the three most relevant environmental footprint characteristics of a particular product

is considered more than enough; the rest of the environmental footprint information would be

checked through the QR code, website or app if the consumer wished. The environmental

footprint definitions that raise more interest (see Table 1) are those directly related with health

(i.e. human toxicity / cancerous effects, radioactive radiation, particles and photochemical air

pollution), with contamination of water and soil (i.e. water shortage, fresh water eco-toxicity

and acidification) and with global warming (i.e. climate change).


80

Table 1 Environmental Footprint midpoints definitions

Climate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases change temperature and the

climate for the worse, impacting indirectly also your health.

Ozone depletion. Emissions damage the ozone layer leading to increased

ultraviolet radiation resulting to skin cancer and damage to plants.

Human Toxicity (cancer). Emissions of toxic substances leading to an

increased risk of cancer, via the air we breathe and also indirectly via the food

we eat and the water we drink.

Human Toxicity (non-cancer). Emissions of toxic substances damaging your

health, via the air we breathe and also indirectly via the food we eat and the

water we drink.

Particulate matter. Emissions of tiny particles that lead to respiratory

diseases and the so called “winter smog”.

Ionizing radiation. Radiation that increases risk of cancer.

Photochemical ozone formation. Emissions creating so called “summer

smog” and respiratory diseases.

Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changes temperature and the

climate for the worse, impacting indirectly also the ecosystems.

Acidification. Emission of substance that lead to acid rain and poorer quality

of air, water and soil.

Eutrophication terrestrial. Too many nutrients in the environment, e.g. by

over use of fertilisers in farming, upset the balance of nature.

Eutrophication freshwater. Too many nutrients in freshwater, e.g. by the

over use of fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater, upset the balance

of nature, e.g. leading to algal blooms and killing fish.

Eutrophication marine. Too many nutrients in marine water, e.g. by the over

use of fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater, upset the balance of

nature, e.g. leading to algal blooms in sea water.

Land use. Use of land and soil endanger soil fertility as well as the survival of

some species of animals and plants.

Ecotoxicity freshwater. Emission of toxic substances that are a danger to

organisms like fish, algae and other organisms living in fresh water.

Regarding the ‘production’ vs. the ‘use’ phase, participants are concerned about both phases,

but more about the production phase as they cannot have any influence or control of it.

Moreover, there are some product categories, such as food, where the ‘use’ phase seems rather

irrelevant regarding the environment –except for the packaging. Participants are particularly

interested in knowing the environmental footprint of plastic packaging in general, as it is clear

to them that plastic is one of the major causes of environmental contamination and damage.

The information that participants link with the environmental impacts and that would like to

know in order to influence their purchase would cover the following aspects – but varying

according to the different product categories specificities:

Production phase

– Country of origin

– Traceability (i.e. kilometres covered to reach the POS)

– Type of energy consumed to produce it

– Quantity of energy consumed to produce it

– Polluting and contaminating impact

– Impact on the global warming

– Water usage

– Type of feeding of the livestock


81

– Habitat of the livestock (e.g. natural vs. fish farm)

– GMO content

– Level of dioxins

Use phase

– Toxicity on the body or health

– Energy consumption

– How much it pollutes or contaminates

– Biodegradability

– Potential to be recycled or reused

This information should be displayed visually when checking the QR code on the label.

3.2.4.2 Point of sale

Green areas in supermarkets or shops are associated with containing eco-friendly products (see

7.2. in figure 7). However, participants think this colour coding can be misleading as green does

not necessarily mean the product or service is really environmentally friendly. Moreover,

differentiating the eco-friendly products from the conventional products at the point-of-sale

generates mixed opinions. Some participants think it helps them buy in a more environmentally-

friendly way, whereas other participants prefer eco-friendly products to be integrated within the

rest of products of its product category in order not to reject them beforehand due to expecting

them to be more expensive.

Figure 9 Point of Sale example


pilot phase 2013-2016 (page 22)

Leaflets providing environmental footprint information are not considered effective as

participants said that they do not usually read them, but rather throw them away. Participants

prefer being informed by sales staff. The problem is that sales staff do not usually have specific

training on environmental issues. Information provided by sales staff should be more specific

regarding saving in economic, not only in terms of energy consumption, in order to be

more persuasive.

Participants would like to see the A, B, C, D, E coding in large size at the eye level when

purchasing big items, such as electrical home appliances.

Participants in Spain would also like companies to implement a packaging-collection system in

which buyers are given money back when they bring back the bottles or cans to the point of

sale, or they are given a coupon to get those products again.


82

Being compared to environmentally-friendly buyers after a purchase (see figure 5) is not

regarded as a real incentive, but rather as an anecdote or joke, although it might work if greener

purchases were rewarded with some kind of discount. Besides, participants do not understand

what the criterion for comparison would be or think the criterion might be irrelevant (i.e. if most

of consumers buy items with low prices, then a shopper buying something just a bit better would

be considered green). However, it is considered motivating to be compared to one’s earlier

purchases, so that in every purchase buyers can check the level of eco-friendliness of their

purchase in comparison to the last one, which might help them learn to do a more eco-friendly

purchase next time. This kind of information is supposed to get registered through the

customer’s loyalty card and then displayed on her/his purchase ticket.

Figure 10 Receipts example



Participants with higher levels of environmental awareness would download an app containing

environmental footprint information if it was supported by a trusted institution (i.e. those that

are considered competent and credible to certificate this kind of information) and if it was used

by scanning the product –not typing in the name of the product. It should be quick and easy

to use (e.g. recognizes products that interest the shopper, like Amazon does). They would also

like this app to provide practical and applicable information, so that it would help them

develop more environmentally sustainable habits. This kind of practical information might

include:

Tips to generate less waste.

Tips to save energy and water.

Tips to recycle used items.

Precise instructions on quantities to be used for all chemical products, particularly when

being poured into water –including personal hygiene items such as toothpaste.

Where to dispose of different types of rubbish.

A comparison among different products and brands within the same product category

(see C2 in figure 6)

The rating of a particular product in comparison to the rest of products within its product

category (by scanning the label of the product).

Recommendations on eco-friendly products and shops.

A “favourites section” where to register their favourite (eco-friendly) products in order to

be recalled when doing the next purchase.

On the other hand, this app would need a communication campaign to increase its awareness

among the population. Participants expect they would be able to get it through any app store.


83

Figure 11 Mobile app example



Figure 12 Website examples

When buying online, participants do not want to be overloaded with information. They would like

to see the environmental performance rating (e.g. “E” or “red”) when clicking the chosen item,

but further explanations should be optional (see C1 in figure 6), so that the shopper can

click on it if needed. Alternatively, these explanations might be at the very end of the purchasing

process and as it happens with the “Terms and conditions agreements” to which users must

agree in order to use or access a website or mobile app.


84

Figure 13 Website example


pilot phase 2013-2016 (pp. 26-27)

3.2.4.3 Communication

Environmental footprint in communications seems to be more effective when participants can

directly perceive both the problem and the result of changing their habit to solve the problem

(e.g. using the public transport as a way to reduce the emission of pollution).

However, with respect to the content of the communication, participants think that making

visible the negative impact of their daily actions (e.g. seeing the polluted sky, ruined animals’

habitat, deforestation, melting of the poles, huge dumpsters), especially in their closer

environment (i.e. their town) is expected to be more impactful and thus, influencing their habits

and purchasing more than seeing the positive consequences of being eco-friendly. In this sense,

being exposed to (negative) impactful images and data is considered a way to raise

awareness. The screens that are spread all over the public transport network are considered

an effective communication vehicle for this kind of information. However, participants also want

to feel rewarded by checking the positive impact of behaving in an environmentally-

friendly way – not only “persecuted” for behaving “badly”.

Participants think information about environmental sustainability should be shown on TV

regularly, in prime time. Images of the different environmental impacts should be shown

during commercial breaks. Moreover, a flash image showing environmental footprint

information should be displayed at the end of every advertisement. They would like to

know about the environmental footprint of all products and services, but they assume companies

will voluntarily communicate only on the more eco-friendly aspects, not on the ones having a

worse environmental impact. Besides, some powerful companies are expected to have shares in

the mass media and then be able to manipulate the information that is communicated about

them. Revealing the “dark” side of companies is usually done by journalists who use this

information to produce TV programs or write books, such as The black book of corporations (Das

Schwarzbuch der Markenfirmen). However, communicating the environmental footprint is

claimed to be mandatory and controlled for all companies.


85

3.3 SMEs: online survey

3.3.1 Background, objectives and methodology

The majority of the companies included in the pilots are large companies. As a consequence,

there was a need to conduct a quantitative study to better understand current and future use

of Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and environmental information by SMEs.

The study covered six EU Member States, with a sample size of N=100 SMEs in each of the

following countries:

Spain

Germany

France

Portugal

Czech Republic

Romania

The survey was conducted using Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) targeting

those responsible for, or with a good knowledge of, the company’s environmental policy. Among

SMEs, the sample was constructed to offer comparable information for micro (1-9 employees),

small (10-49 employees) and medium-sized (50-249 employees) enterprises, reflecting the

distribution of total employment in these size classes.

As regards the sector, the sample was split into six macro-categories: Agriculture, Industry;

Construction; Trade, and Services. The stratification is based on economic activities at the one-

digit level NACE Rev.2 classification. Firms from mining and quarrying (B), manufacturing (C),

and electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (D), and water supply, sewerage, waste

management and remediation activities (E) were combined under “Industry”. “Construction” is

construction (F). “Trade” includes wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles,

motorcycles and personal and household goods (G). “Services” includes enterprises in transport

and storage (H), financial and insurance activities (K), accommodation and food service activities

(I), information and communication (J), real estate activities (L), professional, scientific and

technical activities (M), administrative and support service activities (N), arts, entertainment

and recreation (R) and other service activities (S), activities of households as employers;

undifferentiated goods- and services-producing activities of households for own use (T),

activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies (U), holding companies (NACE 64.20) and

private non-profit institutions.

Table 2 SMEs fieldwork

Start Ends Invitations Received Incomplete Speeder Average length

(min)

CZ 04/12/2017 08/12/2017 281 115 76 9 13.8

DE 06/12/2017 13/12/2017 670 111 20 9 14.5

FR 05/12/2017 13/12/2017 3,451 118 34 18 20.4

ES 07/12/2017 14/12/2017 6,370 135 80 35 14.9

PT 05/12/2017 13/12/2017 5,351 105 65 5 20.6

RO 12/12/2017 15/12/017 1,230 112 15 9 16.11

Annex III provides the final questionnaire used. The following table summarises the fieldwork

process


86

3.3.2 SMEs characteristics

The SMEs surveyed were operating mainly in the services sector (70%) followed by Industry

(12%), Construction (9%), Trade (6%) and Agriculture, forestry and fishing (3%). In addition,

80% of the SMEs were described as for-profit while 20% as no-for-profit (Q5).

Figure 14 Sectors (Q1)

n=600

Around 51% of the SMEs surveyed can be considered micro-enterprises (between 1 and 9

employees), while around 22% are small enterprises (between 10 and 49 employees) and

around 27% are medium enterprises (between 50 and 249 employees).

Figure 15 Breakdown by class size (Q2)

n=600. Note: “micro” enterprise has 1-9 employees; “small” enterprise has 10-49 employees; a “medium” enterprise has 50-249 employees

The following figure shows the level of resources devoted to improving the environmental

performance of the operations and/or products/services of the company. Almost 70% of the

respondents stated that 20% or less of 2016 turnover was devoted to such an issue.

Figure 16 Level of resources devoted to improving the environmental performance as

% of 2016 turnover (Q4)

n=600

3%

6%

9%

12%

70%

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

Trade

Construction

Industry

Services

27%

22%

51%

Medium

Small

Micro

13%

68%

9%

5%

2%

3%

Nothing

20% or less

21% and 40%

41%-60%

61%-80%

More than 80%


87

The market scope of most of the SMEs (see Figure 17) is local (41%), national (40%) or regional

(37%). Only a small percentage of SMEs operate at European (15%) or worldwide level (13%).

The main commercial activity of the SMEs surveyed is split almost equally among Business to

Business (B2B) (34%); Business to Consumer (B2C) (34%) and both (32%) (see Figure 18).

Figure 17 Market scope (Q6)

n=600

Figure 18 Commercial activity (Q7)

n=600

In the context of B2B activities, SMEs were asked whether they produce intermediate or final

products: 32% of the respondents stated that their activities are related to final

products/services; 15% intermediate products/services and 20% reported both types.

Figure 19 B2B type of products (Q8)

n= 396

13%

15%

37%

40%

41%

Worldwide

European

Regional

National

Local

32%

34%

34%

Both

Business to Consumers (B2C)

Business to Business (B2B)

15%

20%

32%

Intermediate products / services

Both intermediate and final products/servicies

Final products / services


88

3.3.3 Findings

3.3.3.1 Environmental commitment, concern and information

More than half of the SMEs interviewed (55%) employ at least one person with explicit

responsibility for environmental issues (Q9). Approximately the same percentages of SMEs are

committed to environmental sustainability at company level (52% committed or very

committed) and at sector level (48%, see Figure 20). There are small, but statistically significant,

differences between sectors: on average, Agriculture and Industry are more committed than the

other sectors (see Figure 21). In terms of class size, company-level environmental commitment

is higher among medium-size enterprises (65% committed or very committed), and lower

among micro- (44% committed or very committed) and small-size enterprises (54% committed

or very committed).

Figure 20 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q12, Q13)

n= 600

Figure 21 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q12, Q13) by sector

n= 600 (ANOVA, p<0.05)

11%

10%

11%

10%

30%

28%

29%

31%

19%

21%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

To what extent is your sector committed to

environmental sustainability?

To what extent is your company committed to

environmental sustainability?

1 - Not at all 2 3 4 5 - Very committed

3,6 3,66

3,17 3,19 3,31

3,65 3,7

3,1 3,193,4

Agriculture,

forestry and

fishing

Industry Construction Trade Services

Sector commitment Company commitment


89

Figure 22 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q13) by class size (Q2)

n= 592. Note: “Micro” = 1-9 employees; “Small” = 10-49 employees; “Medium” = 50-249 employees.

SMEs were asked how relevant environmental concerns are to the company and to the sector.

More than half of them claimed that they are relevant or very relevant to the company (57%)

and to the sector (58%).

16%

8%

1%

10%

13%

8%

7%

10%

28%

30%

26%

28%

23%

35%

44%

31%

21%

19%

21%

21%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Micro

Small

Medium

All

1 (Not at all) 2 3 4 5 (Yes definitely)


90

Figure 24 shows reveals that Agriculture and Industry are the sectors most concerned. In terms

of class size, company-level environmental concern is higher among medium-size enterprises

(65% relevant or very relevant), and less high among micro- (49% relevant or very relevant)

and small-size enterprises (56% relevant or very relevant).

Figure 23 Environmental concerns (Q16, Q17)

n= 600

8%

7%

11%

12%

24%

24%

33%

32%

25%

25%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

How relevant are environmental concerns to

your sector?

How relevant are environmental concerns to

your company?

1 - Not at all 2 3 4 5- Very


91

Figure 24 Environmental concerns (Q16, Q17) by sector

n= 600 (ANOVA, p<0.005)

Figure 25 Environmental concerns (Q17) by class size (Q2)


Slightly less than half of all the SMEs surveyed declared that there is a demand for more

information about environmental issues in their company (46% “yes” or “yes, definitely”) or

sector (47% “yes” or “yes, definitely”, (see believe that in their company there is a demand for

environmental information. This share lowers with the size (47% among small enterprises, 37%

among micro enterprises).

4,25

3,863,62 3,58 3,44

4,23,88

3,5 3,58 3,49

Agriculture,

forestry and

fishing


Sector Company

11%

5%

1%

7%

15%

13%

5%

12%

25%

26%

22%

24%

25%

36%

42%

32%

24%

20%

30%

35%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Micro

Small

Medium

All

1 (Not at all) 2 3 4 5 (Very)


92

Figure 26). This demand is higher in Agriculture and Industry, and lower in the service sector

(see Figure 27). In terms of class size, 65% of medium enterprises believe that in their company

there is a demand for environmental information. This share lowers with the size (47% among

small enterprises, 37% among micro enterprises).


93

Figure 26 Environmental information demand (Q14, Q15)

n= 600

Figure 27 Environmental information demand (Q14, Q15) by sector

n= 600 (ANOVA, p<0.001)

Figure 28 Environmental information demand (Q15) by class size (Q2)


15%

15%

12%

15%

26%

24%

25%

27%

22%

19%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

In your sector, is there a demand for more

information about environmental issues?

In your company, is there a demand for moreinformation about environmental issues?

1 - No, not at all 2 3 4 5- Yes definitely

4,15

3,65

3,043,31 3,21

4

3,59

33,28 3,13

Agriculture,

forestry and

fishing


Sector demand Company demand

20%

15%

3%

15%

18%

14%

10%

15%

25%

24%

21%

24%

18%

29%

44%

27%

19%

18%

21%

19%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Micro

Small

Medium

All

1 (Not at all) 2 3 4 5 (Yes, definitely)


94

3.3.3.2 SME policies on the environment

Half of the respondents use an environmental policy. Participants were asked whether

their company used an internal environmental policy in the company: 55% of the SMEs declared

that they have such a policy (n=330). Environmental policies cover the products/services sold

by the companies in 84% of the cases, and cover organisation-related aspects in 54% of the

cases. Furthermore, 64% of the SMEs who declared that they use an environmental policy also

declared that their policy is based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) indicators.

Corporate policies mainly cover environment, health topics. In order to identify which are

the topics covered by the environmental policy, participants were asked to select among the

following:

Human Health. The negative effects on people’s health, for instance, as a consequence

of chemicals or radiation emitted during the life cycle of a product or indirectly as

consequence of climate change

Natural Environment. The negative effects on the function and structure of natural

ecosystems, for instance, as a consequence of the emission of chemicals or physical

interventions that take place during the lifecycle of a product

Natural Resources. The negative effects, for instance, to the use of physical resources

such as energy, metals and minerals and water, which results in a decrease in the

availability of the total resource stock, as physical resources can be finite and non-

renewable.

Figure 29 shows that in 73% of the cases, SME policy covered Natural environment, in 72%

covered Human health and in 64% it covered Natural resources.

Figure 29 Environmental policy topics (Q20)

n= 330

Climate change is the main environmental aspect covered by SME policies. Those who

selected Natural environment were invited to select among the following subtopics or midpoints:

Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changing temperature and the climate for

the worse, impacting indirectly on the ecosystems.

Acidification. Emission of substance leading, for instance, to acid rain and poorer quality

of air, water and soil.

Eutrophication - terrestrial. Too many nutrients in the environment, for instance by

overuse of fertilisers in farming, upsetting the balance of nature.

Eutrophication - freshwater. Too many nutrients in freshwater, for instance by the

overuse of fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater, upsetting the balance of

nature, e.g. leading to algal blooms and killing fish.

Eutrophication - marine. Too many nutrients in marine water, for instance due to overuse

of fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater, upsetting the balance of nature and

leading to algal blooms in seawater.

Ecotoxicity - freshwater. Emission of toxic substances that are a danger to organisms like

fish, algae and other organisms living in fresh water.

64%

72%

73%

36%

28%

27%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Natural resources

Human Health

Natural environment

Yes No


95

Land use. Use of land and soil endanger, such as soil fertility as well as the wellbeing and

survival of some animals and plant species.

Resource use - water. Use of freshwater reducing its availability for needs of the

ecosystem.

Climate change (66%), Water use (56%) and Land use (46%) were the most frequent items

selected.

Figure 30 Environmental topics: Natural resources (Q22)

n=240

Human toxicity (cancer) and climate change are the main health aspects covered by

SME policies. Those who selected Human Health were asked to select among the following

subtopics or midpoints:

Climate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases changing temperature and the climate

for the worse, impacting indirectly on your health.

Ozone depletion. Emissions damaging the ozone layer leading to increased ultraviolet

radiation resulting in skin cancer.

Human Toxicity - cancer. Emissions of toxic substances leading to an increased risk of

cancer, for instance, through the air we breathe and indirectly through the food we eat

and the water we drink.

Human Toxicity - non-cancer. Emissions of toxic substances damaging your health, for

instance, through the air we breathe and also indirectly through the food we eat and

the water we drink.

Particulate matter. Emissions of tiny particle, for instance, leading to respiratory

diseases and the so-called “winter smog”.

Ionizing radiation. Radiation increasing the risk of cancer.

Photochemical ozone formation. Emissions creating, for instance, the so called “summer

smog” and respiratory diseases.

Human toxicity cancer (65%), Climate change (62%) and Human toxicity non-cancer (61%)

were selected as the main topics covered. Ionizing radiation and photochemical ozone formation

were covered by 32% and 22% respectively.

76%

63%

61%

61%

58%

54%

44%

34%

24%

37%

39%

39%

42%

46%

56%

66%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Eutrophication - marine

Eutrophication - freshwater

Eutrophication - terrestrial

Acidification

Ecotoxicity - freshwater

Land use

Resource use - water

Climate change

No Yes


96

Figure 31 Environmental topics: Human health (Q21)

n=238

Water use is the main resource aspects covered by SME policies. Those who selected

Natural resources were invited to select among the following subtopics or midpoints:

Resource use: metals and minerals. Use of minerals, metals and other resources in

products reducing their availability for future uses.

Resource use: fossil fuels. Use of fossil fuels, reducing their availability for future uses.

Resource use: water. Use of freshwater reducing its availability for future uses.

Land use. Use of land and soil endanger e.g. soil fertility as well as the survival of some

animals and plant species.

Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changing temperature and the climate

for the worse, impacting directly and indirectly on natural resources.

Water use (77%), Fossil fuels use (60%) and metals and minerals use (56%) were identified as

the main topics covered in this area.

Figure 32 Environmental topics: Natural resources (Q23)

n=211

78%

68%

55%

52%

39%

38%

35%

22%

32%

45%

48%

61%

62%

65%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Photochemical ozone formation

Ionizing radiation

Ozone depletion

Particulate matter

Human Toxicity - non-cancer air

Climate change

Human Toxicity - cancer

No Yes

55%

47%

44%

40%

23%

45%

53%

56%

60%

77%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Land use: Use of land and soil endanger

Climate change

Resource use: metals and minerals

Resource use: fossil fuels

Resource use: water

No Yes


97

Lastly, participants were asked about the role of environmental performance while purchasing

and/or marketing their products. Almost half of the respondents say they are fairly or very

important.

Figure 33 Environmental performance (Q25)

n=600

3.3.3.3 Environmental information

Only 30% of the SMEs surveyed publish environmental information, clients are main

target. SMEs surveyed who publish information (see Figure 34) are targeting clients (77%),

suppliers (53%), public administrators (35%), investors (33%) and NGOs (15%). The

information published (see Figure 35) is internally audit (39%); 3rd party certified (34%); 3rd

party verified (14%) or provided to a public register (8%).

Figure 34 Environmental information target (Q27)

n=182

23%

19%

17%

12%

12%

15%

24%

25%

22%

25%

27%

27%

16%

18%

20%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Requiring suppliers to undertake environmental

measures

Informing clients of your product/organization's

environmental performance

Assessing the environmental performance of

suppliers

1 - Not at all 2 3 4 5- Very

85%

67%

65%

47%

23%

15%

33%

35%

53%

77%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

NGOs

Investors

Public administrations

Suppliers

Clients

No Yes


98

Figure 35 Environmental information assessment (Q28)

n=182

Product declaration, label and report are the preferred CVs among B2B. B2B participants

who publish environmental information (n=118) were asked which type of CV does the company

use (see Figure 36): around 49% use Environmental Product Declaration; 38% Environmental

report; 38% Environmental label on products and 36% Environmental information on invoices.

A minority of SMEs are using ranking/indexes (16%) or other types of reports (4%). The same

CVs were indicated by those who do not use any, as potentially useful in the future:

Environmental Product Declaration (50%); Environmental label on products (49%),

Environmental report (40%) and Environmental information on invoices (39%) as possible

communication vehicles to convey environmental information.

Figure 36 B2B Communication vehicles use (Q29)

n=118

Other 5%Provided to a

public register8%

3rd party

verified 14%

3rd party

certified 34%

Internally

audited 39%

97%

96%

84%

78%

76%

72%

69%

64%

62%

62%

51%

3%

4%

16%

22%

24%

28%

31%

36%

38%

38%

49%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Other

Other report

Environmental/sustainability ranking or index

Public relation effort related to the environment

Environmental campaign

Environmental performance tracking report

Product passport

Environmental information on invoices

Environmental label on product

Environmental report

Environmental Product Declaration

No Yes


99

Figure 37 B2B potential Communication vehicles (Q30)

n=118

B2B see labels as the most effective CV, followed by PR campaigns. Figure 38 shows the

judged effectiveness of the different B2B communication vehicles. An Environmental label on

product (74% effective – very effective) and Public relations effort related to the environment

(70% effective – very effective) are considered the most effective communication vehicles

followed by an Environmental report, Environmental performance tracking report, Product

passport and Environmental Product Declaration (67% effective – very effective).

Figure 38 B2B communication vehicles effectiveness (Q31)

n=118

93%

81%

77%

73%

73%

70%

61%

60%

51%

50%

7%

19%

23%

27%

27%

30%

39%

40%

49%

50%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Other report





Product passport





No Yes

7%

6%

9%

7%

8%

9%

5%

5%

4%

29%

27%

28%

24%

22%

17%

25%

27%

19%

41%

39%

33%

42%

41%

44%

40%

38%

37%

20%

25%

25%

25%

26%

26%

27%

29%

36%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%







Product passport



1- Not at all 2 3 4 5- Very effective


100

B2C SMEs use websites, leaflets and labels to communicate environmental

information. SMEs were asked which communication vehicles they are using (see Figure 39):

websites (53%), leaflets (49%) and labels (44%) are the most common vehicles reported.

Around one third of the SMEs are also using barcodes (36%); POS product advertisement (33%)

and QR codes (33%). It is worth mentioning that Apps (20%) and marketing campaigns /

advertisement (21%) are at the bottom of the list. The same CVs were indicated by those who

do not use any: Figure 40 shows the possible communication vehicles envisaged by B2C SMEs.

Leaflets, labels and websites are the most common vehicles. Again, marketing

campaigns/advertising are less preferred.

Figure 39 B2C communication vehicles used (Q32)

n=133

Figure 40 B2C possible communication vehicles (Q33)

n=133

80%

79%

77%

73%

67%

67%

64%

56%

51%

47%

20%

21%

23%

27%

33%

33%

36%

44%

49%

53%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Apps

Marketing campaigns/ advertising

Loyalty schemes

Instruction manuals

QR code

POS product advertisement

Barcode

Label

Leaflets, catalogues, etc.

Websites

No Yes

72%

71%

68%

65%

65%

65%

63%

55%

54%

47%

28%

29%

32%

35%

35%

35%

37%

45%

46%

53%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Apps


Loyalty schemes


QR code

Instruction manuals

Barcode

Websites

Label


No Yes


101

B2C see websites and POS product advertisement as the most effective CVs, followed

by PR campaigns. Website (75% “effective” or “very effective”) and POS product

advertisement (73% “effective” or “very effective”) were selected as the most effective B2C

communication vehicles, followed by leaflets (72% “effective” or “very effective”) and labels

(70% “effective” or “very effective”).

Figure 41 B2C communication vehicles effectiveness (Q34)

n=133

7%

11%

8%

8%

5%

3%

5%

2%

5%

2%

39%

27%

28%

28%

20%

31%

23%

24%

24%

22%

30%

35%

35%

36%

47%

36%

43%

41%

35%

37%

23%

23%

23%

24%

26%

26%

28%

31%

35%

38%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Loyalty schemes

QR code

Barcode

App


Instruction manuals



Label

Websites

1- Not at all 2 3 4 5- Very effective


102

3.3.3.4 LCA and PEF: drivers and inhibitors

Organizational awareness, customer satisfaction are LCA’s main drivers. Participants in

these companies were asked about the drivers (see Figure 42) and inhibitors (see Figure 43) of

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). More than two thirds of the SMEs consider that LCA could improve

the reputation of the organization; increase awareness of employees in environmental issues;

improve customer satisfaction and improve environmental management practices.

Figure 42 LCA drivers (Q36)

n=411

10%

10%

9%

9%

9%

7%

6%

8%

7%

6%

9%

8%

6%

6%

7%

6%

4%

3%

6%

5%

33%

31%

31%

31%

29%

31%

31%

30%

29%

31%

27%

28%

28%

28%

27%

27%

26%

27%

23%

23%

32%

32%

34%

36%

35%

34%

36%

39%

37%

38%

40%

37%

38%

40%

36%

40%

37%

36%

36%

41%

22%

24%

23%

22%

24%

25%

24%

22%

24%

23%

22%

26%

25%

25%

28%

26%

31%

32%

33%

29%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

… improve financing opportunities

… be useful for product design

… support the implementation of monitoring

systems

… improve the relations with the owner or the

group

… improve the relations with public institutions

… improve the relations with suppliers

… be a tool to identify environmental hotspots

… increase the level of cooperation within the

company

… involve top managers in environmental issues

… improve the competitive advantage of

organisations

… create new marketing opportunities

… increase sales of the products

… be a tool to define environmental strategies

and actions

… drive environmental improvement in

products/organisations

… improvement legal compliance

… Increase the differentiation of products/

services

… improve the reputation of the organization

… increase awareness of employees in

environmental issues

… improve customer satisfaction

… improve environmental management

practices

1- Totally disagree 2 3 4 5- Totally agree


103

Data collection, HR costs are the main barriers to implement LCA. On the other hand,

collection of data from the supply chain, significant involvement of internal human resources,

difficulty collecting data from suppliers and the high costs for expert involvement have been

selected as the main inhibitors of LCA. It is worth mentioning that almost half of the participants

selected ‘Totally agree’ or ‘Agree’ for most of the statements.

Figure 43 LCA inhibitors (Q37)

n=411

13%

11%

10%

10%

9%

8%

12%

7%

8%

9%

11%

10%

9%

9%

8%

8%

6%

41%

38%

36%

37%

38%

38%

33%

39%

36%

34%

32%

32%

32%

33%

34%

31%

31%

27%

32%

33%

34%

34%

34%

39%

34%

36%

32%

37%

38%

40%

36%

36%

36%

41%

15%

16%

17%

17%

17%

18%

12%

19%

17%

22%

18%

17%

16%

19%

20%

23%

19%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Difficulty to communicate the results

Difficulty coordinating internal and external

resources

Software is too expensive

Definition of the functional unit

With the analysis and interpretation of the

results

Evaluation of data quality

Difficulty collecting data inside the organization

Certification/review of the study

Definition of scope and object of the study

Too time consuming

Difficult to find good quality data

Definition of system boundaries

Difficult to assess the quality of data

Collection of data from supply chain

Significant involvement of internal human

resources

Difficulty collecting data from suppliers

High costs for expert involvement

1- Totally disagree 2 3 4 5- Totally agree


104

Most SMEs find PEF features as useful, particularly on performance and impacts.

Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) has been discussed in 68% of the SMEs surveyed. SMEs

having an environmental policy based on LCA were asked about the usefulness of the new

features brought by PEF in comparison to LCA. The following figure shows that almost two thirds

of the participants consider these new features as useful or very useful.

Figure 44 Product Environmental Footprint (Q35)

n=212

5%

5%

5%

4%

5%

3%

3%

32%

30%

28%

26%

25%

26%

26%

35%

37%

33%

38%

36%

40%

42%

25%

27%

32%

29%

31%

29%

28%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Primary data gathering is focussed on a limited

number of specific processes

Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules

list secondary data to be used

Data quality requirements vary based on

environmental relevance and access to data

It is possible to compare the Environmental

Footprint profile of the product with the

benchmark

Secondary data are available for free to users

of Product Environmental Footprint Category

Rules

Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules

pre-identify most relevant environmentalimpacts, processes and life cycle stages for the

product group

The environmental performance of the average

product on the market (representative product/

benchmark) is stated in the Product

Environmental Footprint Category Rules

1- Not useful at all 2 3 4 5- Very useful


105

3.4 Lessons learned from the stakeholder testing

Consumers on perceptions, experience and knowledge

“Environmental footprint” is understood as the negative impact the actions of companies

and people have in the environment. It evokes a sense of “future inheritance”, or how

we leave the planet to future generation. It is associated with the responsibility of

individuals, companies, and the government; as well as with the consequence of

overproduction and overconsumption of goods and services.

The main concerns are related with air pollution, soil and water contamination,

deforestation, ozone depletion, use of natural resources and the loss of biodiversity.

Climate change is considered particularly worrying. The over-production of packaging is

also a great concern.

Educating children on environmental sustainability is considered fundamental.

Consumers are suspicious about the agreements governments reach to take care of the

environment, and believe that public transportation should all be electric.

Consumers think sustainability is also becoming a sort of “fashion”, so that companies

and brands are using it as a marketing tool to take profit from it.

The participants’ main contribution to environmental sustainability is recycling.

Participants try to avoid the accumulation of too many plastic bags and packaging.

Repairing things, buying second hand, avoiding energy waste, reducing paper use, using

bike or public transport, consuming locally produced and season products and buying

organic food are other habits participants have developed in relation to environmental

sustainability.

Skepticism is the main barrier to be receptive to environmental footprint information.

Participants show high levels of mistrust towards the credibility of certifications and

labels.

Consumers are willing to pay a little more for eco-friendly products, especially food,

but not a big difference. They may pay less attention to the environmental footprint of

products that are bought regularly or products that are expected to be used for a very

short period of time. But they may pay more attention when introducing new products in

their habits, when purchasing products that are going to be used for a long time, or when

purchasing big or expensive items, such as cars or houses. Other items where participants

may pay more attention are those related with their own or their children’s health, with

higher energy consumption.

Consumers on the effects of CVs

Environmental footprint information in labelling is expected to have a higher influence

when visible, easily understood, and certified by a credible and trustful authority.

Consumers are concerned more about the production phase as they cannot have any

influence or control on it.

The traffic-lights performance rating is preferred when shopping in a more mechanical

and less involved way. When shopping in a more conscious way, 5 levels scale is more

appropriate due to being more differentiating and precise. The ideal performance rating

is considered to be a mixture of the A-E combined with the traffic-lights coding.

Participants have more detailed information on the label when buying products that can

be unhealthy due to toxicity, such as clothes, cosmetics or food.

Consumers do not want to feel overloaded by information. Showing 3 midpoints is more

than enough. The rest would be checked through the QR code, website or app if the

consumer wished. QR codes are preferred to barcodes. Extra information is especially

appreciated when buying groceries that are purchased regularly or for items that are

going to be used over long periods of time, or that are more expensive.


106

Green areas at points of sale such as supermarkets or shops are associated with

containing eco-friendly products. Color coding can be misleading as green does not

necessarily mean the product or service is really environmentally friendly. Separating

eco-friendly products from others at the point-of-sale generates mixed opinions.

Consumers with higher levels of environmental awareness would download an app

containing environmental footprint information if it was supported by a trusted institution

and if it was used by scanning the product. The app should also provide practical tips on

green habits.

Retailers on awareness and understanding

Retailers believe the concept of “environmental footprint” is not well known among

consumers. With many labels currently in use, there is confusion. Comparing dimensions

of environmental impacts that are very different could lead consumers making

unfavorable decisions.

Aspects that are communicated and the measurement units used are often “negative”

(e.g. quantification of emissions) leading to unfounded negative reactions. A “positive”

message – such as a measure for biodiversity – could be interesting.

Retailers agree that consumers would be led to buy environmentally friendly products as

the right thing to do, and that it can make a difference to the real environment. There

are ambiguities in defining environmental footprint: as an anecdote, a detergent with a

lot of water is good for the environment, but doesn’t do its job right, and worse - one

needs to use higher temperature, which is bad for the environment and cancels out the

intended benefits.

Attitudes do not necessarily lead to positive environmental impacts, and do not

necessarily translate into behavioural change. In some sectors consumers are already

loyal to brands, and would be unlikely react to potentially new labels from competitors.

There was no unambiguous consensus on which functional (measurement) unit to feature

on a potential label, e.g. value vs. weight.

Retailers on their role

Retailers might be gatekeepers, and take over activities of communication for

environmental footprint, as they know their end-users well. Some will focus on water

consumption, others on biodiversity. Single brands can more easily speak with suppliers

and consumers. Retailers are in the best position to communicate environmental footprint

to consumers, except perhaps for products where the “use” phase is longer. Retailers can

pick out what they think consumers are most interested in. For example, they could

choose to have separate shop corners for green products.

Retailers agree that they would not sort “green” products in a separate corner,

and that it would be a way of turning customers into a false dichotomy: “these products

are good therefore the others are bad”. On-shelf information would be difficult to

implement, as it would have to be constantly updated. In addition, electronic on-shelf

labels are not large enough to host more information other than price. Instead, a single

website would be desirable to which all users would be redirected.

Life cycle methodology should not be used to compare two products. Instead, it is the

same product that should be compared over two or more time periods.

SMEs on environmental concerns, environmental policy, LCA and PEF

Most SME surveyed have staff with explicit responsibility for the environment. Many,

especially mid-sized and operating in agriculture and industry, are committed to

environmental issues. Environmental concern is likewise higher among medium-sized

enterprises and in the primary and secondary sectors. Similarly, the demand for

environmental information is lower in the service sector and among micro-sized

enterprises.


107

Half of the SMEs have an internal environmental policy in place. These policies cover

mainly products/services sold. Two-thirds are based on LCA indicators. Topics

covered include the environment (climate change, water use, land use), human health

(including human toxicity and cancer, as well as climate change), and the future

availability of resources (water use, fossil fuels use, and metals and mineral use).

Environmental information is published by 30% of the participants. Clients are the main

target. More often than not, information is externally audited, such as by a third party

certification body.

Product declaration, label and report are the preferred CVs among B2B

participants. B2B see labels as the most effective CV, followed by PR campaigns,

environmental reports, product passports and Environmental Product Declarations.

Conversely, B2C participants use websites, leaflets and labels to communicate

environmental information. They see websites and POS product advertisement as the

most effective CVs, followed by PR campaigns.

Organizational awareness, customer satisfaction and improvements of

environmental practices are LCA’s main drivers. Conversely, data collection difficulties,

and the costs of personnel (involvement of internal human resources, expert

involvement) have been selected as the main inhibitors of LCA. Most SMEs find PEF

features as useful, particularly on performance and impacts.


108

4 Weighting exercise: expert and lay knowledge

4.1 Background

In the context of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), weighting is a process of attributing different

levels of importance to different environmental impacts based upon a set of criteria13. As a

support to public policy, weighting can help decision makers address environmental policies and

strategies, for example by identifying the most relevant impacts and by presenting results as a

single score.

Currently, the recommendations14 (EC-JRC 2011) as used in the environmental footprint (EF)

entail 15 impact categories (ICs) in the form of midpoints, nested in three broader categories

in the form of endpoints15. The method selected by JRC for weighting LCA impact categories

consists of a hierarchical weighting at the midpoints and at the endpoints. It entails two steps,

establishing one set of weighting factors on the midpoint ICs clustered per endpoint and one set

of weighting factors on the 3 endpoints. The two sets of weighting factors are combined in an

overall scheme.

Table 3 Hierarchical structure of impact categories

Endpoint Midpoint

Human health Climate change

Ozone depletion

Human toxicity, cancer effects

Human toxicity, non-cancer effects

Ionizing radiation, human health

Particulate matter/Respiratory inorganics

Photochemical ozone formation, human health

Natural environment Acidification

Climate change

Ecotoxicity freshwater

Eutrophication terrestrial

Eutrophication freshwater

Eutrophication marine

Land use

Resource use: water

Natural resources Climate change

Land use

Resource use: water

Resource use: metals and minerals

Resource use: fossil fuels

13 Finnveden. G.. M. Z. Hauschild. T. Ekvall. J. Guinée. R. Heijungs. S. Hellweg. A. Koehler. D. Pennington. and S. Suh. 2009. Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 91:1-21. 14 EC-JRC. 2011. Recommendations based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors for life cycle assessment in European context. Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg. 15 EC. 2016. Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental Footprint (EF) pilot phase. Version 5.2. European Commission.


109

4.2 Methodology

4.2.1 Design

The method of hierarchical weighting at midpoints and endpoints aims at developing indicators

applicable to the EU context based on respondents’ assessment of the 15 impact categories

(midpoints) within the 3 super-ordinate main areas (endpoints). Two different target groups

were envisaged: the general population (lay respondents) and experts in the environmental

field.

Two questionnaires were designed, one for the experts and one for lay respondents. The

questionnaires cover similar issues but differ in wording (less technical for lay respondents).

Demographic characteristics were elicited for both the public and experts.

The general public was accessed using an online panel to recruit a representative sample of

400 Internet users in each country (Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Poland and the UK). The

respondents were invited to complete an online survey of circa 15-20 minutes. After answering

questions on socio-demographic characteristics, in Step 1 respondents assess the weightings of

the three end points, using the ‘swing’ methodology. In this the most important end-point gets

100 points (we will call this number 1) and then participants have to rate the other 2 relative to

number 1.

Step 2 entails the ranking of the mid points. Participants are asked to rank the mid-points of the

number 1 endpoint they selected in step 1. Following the same logic applied in Step 1, the first

mid-point in importance gets 100 points and the others are rated relative to number 1. After

this exercise is performed, participants were randomly allocated using quotas to perform the

same exercise with one of the two other endpoints. Lastly, respondents were asked a battery of

questions related to their environmental attitude. The figure below sketches the overall

procedure.

Figure 45 General public survey procedure


110

The questionnaire included the following sentences to describe the end-points:

Human Health. The aim is to quantify the negative effects capturing death and illnesses

as consequence of e.g. emitted chemicals or radiation that take place during the life cycle

of a product;

Natural Environment. The aim is to quantify the negative effects on the function and

structure of natural ecosystems as a consequence of e.g. emitted chemicals or physical

interventions that take place during the life cycle of a product;

Natural Resources. The aim is to quantify the negative effects due to the use of abiotic

resources which results in a decrease in the availability of the total resource stock. as

abiotic resources are usually finite and non-renewable.

To perform this task, respondents saw the following screens (the impact categories were

randomized to avoid order effects):

Figure 46 Screen 1

Figure 47 Screen 2


111

To address the midpoints the following explanations were provided.

Human Health

Climate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases change temperature and the climate

for the worse, impacting indirectly also your health.

Ozone depletion. Emissions damage the ozone layer leading to increased ultraviolet

radiation resulting to skin cancer and damage to plants.

Human Toxicity (cancer). Emissions of toxic substances leading to an increased risk of

cancer via the air we breathe and also indirectly via the food we eat and the water we

drink.

Human Toxicity (non-cancer). Emissions of toxic substances damaging your health

via the air we breathe and also indirectly via the food we eat and the water we drink.

Particulate matter. Emissions of tiny particles that lead to respiratory diseases and the

so called “winter smog”.

Ionizing radiation. Radiation that increases risk of cancer.

Photochemical ozone formation. Emissions creating so called “summer smog” and

respiratory diseases.

Natural Environment

Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changes temperature and the climate

for the worse impacting indirectly also the ecosystems.

Acidification. Emission of substance that lead to acid rain and poorer quality of air,

water and soil.

Eutrophication terrestrial. Too many nutrients in the environment e.g. by over use of

fertilisers in farming upsetting the balance of nature.

Eutrophication freshwater. Too many nutrients in freshwater e.g. by the over use of

fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater upsetting the balance of nature e.g.

leading to algal blooms and killing fish.

Eutrophication marine. Too many nutrients in marine water e.g. by the over use of

fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater upsetting the balance of nature e.g.

leading to algal blooms in sea water.

Land use. Use of land and soil endanger soil fertility as well as the survival of some

species of animals and plants.

Ecotoxicity freshwater. Emission of toxic substances that are a danger to organisms

like fish, algae and other organisms living in fresh water.

Natural Resources

Land use. Use of land creates pressures on the availability of soil as resource.

Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changes temperature and the climate

for the worse impacting indirectly also the natural resource provision.

Resource use: metals and minerals. The use of minerals, metals and other resources

in a product affects their availability for future uses.

Resource use: fossil fuels. The use fossil fuels affect their availability for future uses.

Water use. The use of freshwater affects its availability for future uses.

The same logic was used with the experts, the second target group. After replying to the

questions about socio-demographic characteristics, experts ‘swing’ the weightings of the three

end points (Step 1). End-point number 1 is awarded 100 points and then participants have to

rate the other 2 relatives to number 1. Step 2 comprises the ranking of the mid points.

Participants were randomly allocated to rank the mid-points of either Human Health or

Ecosystem Quality. Following the same logic applied in Step 1, the first mid-point is awarded

100 points and the others are rated relative to number 1. After this exercise was performed the

experts were asked to weight the resource mid-points and to rate their level of expertise in the

domain of each mid-point.

Finally, the experts were asked a battery of questions related to their environmental attitudes.

The following figure sketches the overall process.


112

Figure 48 Experts survey procedure


113

The experts’ questionnaire included the definition of the 15 impact categories as provided by

JRC:

Climate change. Refers to the changes induced to the World’s climate as a consequence

of the emissions to the atmosphere of the so-called greenhouse gases, such as CO2, N2O,

CH4. The Earth’s atmosphere absorbs part of the energy emitted as infrared radiation

from Earth towards space, and is thereby heated. This natural greenhouse effect leading

to a warming of the atmosphere has been increased over the past few centuries by human

activity leading to accumulation of such compounds as CO2, N2O, CH4 and halocarbons to

the atmosphere. The most important human contribution to the emissions of greenhouse

gases is attributed to the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. The

consequences include increased global average temperatures and sudden regional

climatic changes.

Ozone depletion. The stratospheric Ozone (O3) layer (that can stretch from ~8km to

~50 km height) protects us from hazardous ultraviolet radiation (UV-B). Its depletion can

have dangerous consequences in the form of increased frequency of skin cancer in

humans and damage to plants. Stratospheric O3 is broken down as a consequence of

man-made emissions of halocarbons (as CFCs and HCFCs), halons and other long-lived

gases containing chloride and bromine. The ozone content of the stratosphere was

therefore decreasing, and since 1985 a dramatic temporary thinning of the ozone layer,

often referred to as “ozone hole”, has been observed each year, over the South Pole. In

recent years the problem has been reduced due to international ban of substances

contributing to ozone depletion.

Human toxicity – cancer effects. Chemicals emitted as a consequence of human

activities can contribute to cancer in humans via exposure to the environment. For a

substance to be regarded as contributing to human toxicity, it must of course cause

cancer. In addition, also the substance’s behavior has to be considered in that there can

be several routes of exposure to humans. The most important routes of exposure are via

the air breathed in or via other materials ingested orally, e.g. food or water.

Human toxicity – non-cancer effects. Chemicals emitted as a consequence of human

activities can contribute to human toxicity via exposure to the environment. For a

substance to be regarded as contributing to human toxicity, it must of course be

poisonous to humans. In addition, also the substance’s behavior has to be considered in

that there can be several routes of exposure to humans. The most important routes of

exposure looked at in those categories are via the air breathed in or via other materials

ingested orally, e.g. food or water.

Particulate matter/respiratory inorganics. Ambient concentrations of “dust” or

particulate matter (PM) are elevated by emissions of primary and secondary particulates.

The mechanism for the creation of secondary emissions involves emissions of SO2 and

NOx that create sulphate and nitrate aerosols. Particulate matter is measured in a variety

of ways: total suspended particulates (TSP), particulate matter less than 10 microns in

diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) or

particulate matter less than 0.1 microns in diameter (PM0.1). Usually, the smaller the

particles are the more dangerous they are as they can get deeper into the lungs.

Ionising radiation, human health. The exposure to ionising radiation (“radioactivity”)

can have impacts on human health. The modelling starts with releases at the point of

emission, expressed as Becquerel (Bq). The exposure analysis calculates the dose that a

human actually absorbs, given the radiation levels that are calculated in the fate analysis.

The measure for the effective dose is the Sievert (Sv), based on human body equivalence

factors for the different ionising radiation types. It is to be noted, that in Life Cycle

Assessment and in the Environmental Footprint only emissions are taken into account

that occur under normal operating conditions. The risks due to nuclear accidents are not

covered by the EF.

Photochemical ozone formation, human health. While a sufficiently high

concentration of ozone up in the stratosphere (8-50 km) is vital to protect the earth from

hazardous ultraviolet radiation (UV-B), ozone on the ground (in the troposphere) attacks

organic compounds and especially the respiratory tract in humans. This leads to an


114

increased frequency of problems of the respiratory tract in humans during periods of

photochemical smog in cities (“summer smog”). When solvents and other volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) are released to the atmosphere (e.g. by emissions from combustion

processes), they can be degraded within a few days. The reaction involved is an oxidation,

which occurs under the influence of light from the sun. In the presence of oxides of

nitrogen (NOx) ozone can be formed. NOx are not consumed during ozone formation, but

have a catalyst-like function. This process is termed photochemical ozone formation.

Acidification. Acidification has contributed to a decline of coniferous forests and

increased fish mortality. Acidification can be caused by emissions to air, water and soil.

For instance when gaseous SO2 is released and reaches a water body, it reacts with H2O

to form the acid H2SO4. When acids (and compounds that can be converted to acids) are

emitted to the atmosphere and deposited in water and soil, the addition of hydrogen ions

(H+) may result in a decrease in the pH of the water body. The most significant man-

made sources of acidification are combustion processes in electricity, heating production

and transport. The contribution to acidification is greatest when the fuels used contain a

high content of sulphure.

Eutrophication – terrestrial. Eutrophication is an impact on the ecosystems from

substances containing nitrogen (N) or phosphorus (P). As a rule, the availability of one

of these nutrients will be a limiting factor for growth in the ecosystem, and if this nutrient

is added, the growth of algae or specific plants will be increased. On land, ecosystems

which need an environment with only little nutrients are gradually disappearing mainly

as a result of the addition of nitrogen (N). Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from combustion

processes are of significance for both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

Eutrophication –freshwater. Eutrophication is an impact on the ecosystems from



is added, the growth of algae or specific plants will be increased. In lakes and rivers this

will be mainly due to the increase of phosphorus (P). Too rapid growth of algae can lead

to situations without enough oxygen in the water for fish to survive once the algae die

and are degraded (which consumes oxygen). Emissions of nitrogen to the aquatic

environment are caused largely by the agricultural use of fertilizers, but oxides of nitrogen

from combustion processes are also of significance for both aquatic and terrestrial

ecosystems. The most significant sources of emissions of phosphorus are sewage

treatment plants for urban and industrial effluents and leaching from agricultural land.

Eutrophication – marine. Eutrophication is an impact on the ecosystems from



is added, the growth of algae or specific plants will be increased. For the marine

environment this will be mainly due to the increase of nitrogen (N). Emissions of nitrogen

are caused largely by the agricultural use of fertilizers, but oxides of nitrogen from

combustion processes are also of significance for both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

Ecotoxicity – freshwater. A substance contributing to ecotoxicity, affects the function

and structure of the ecosystem by exerting toxic effects on the organisms which live in

it. Toxic effects can occur as soon as the substances are released (acute ecotoxicity), or

may appear after repeated or long-term exposure to the substances (chronic ecotoxicity).

Chronic ecotoxicity is often caused by substances which have a low degradability in the

environment and which can therefore remain for a long time after their emission

(persistent substances). Some substances also have the tendency of accumulating in

living organisms, so that tissues and organs can be exposed to concentrations of the

substance which are far higher than the concentration in the surrounding environment.

The chronic ecotoxicity of a compound is thus determined by its toxic effects, its

biodegradability, and its ability of accumulating in living organisms.

Land use. The impact category Land Use tries to estimate the damage to ecosystems

due to the effects of occupation and transformation of land. Examples of land use are

agricultural production, mineral extraction and human settlement. Transformation is the

conversion of land from one use to another use. The impacts can be various such as loss


115

of species, soil organic matter content or reduced primary production or loss of the soil

itself (“erosion”).

Resource use – water. The withdrawal of water from lakes, rivers or groundwater can

contribute to the “depletion” of the available water, while water itself is seen as a

renewable resource. The impact category considers the availability or scarcity of water in

the regions where the activity takes place, if this information is known.

Resource use –metals and minerals. The earth contains a finite amount of non-

renewable resources, such as metals, minerals. The use of resources may lead to a

decrease of availability of potential functions of resources.

Resource use –fossil fuels. The earth contains a finite amount of non-renewable

resources, such as fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. The use of resources may lead to a

decrease of availability of potential functions of resources.

4.2.2 Sample

For the general public, a random sample of 2.400 individuals was drawn from 6 countries (Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, Poland and France) to produce the general public survey (400

respondents per each of the 6 countries). The randomization was implemented at the country level, meaning that each country was equally represented in the survey. Gathering the data across countries made it possible to ensure the validity in making generalisations

about awareness and understanding of the impact categories as well as about the broader environmental attitudes.

Table 4 Technical specification of samples for the online survey

Population General population. aged 18 to 65 years old


Germany

Italy

Spain

UK

Poland

France


Sample size n=2.400 (n=400 respondents per country)

Quotas Age

Gender

Country


specific data


overall data



116

The following tables show the sample by age, country, gender, and education level.

Table 5 Target sample by country and age group

Country From 18 to 24

years

From 25 to 54

years

From 55 to 74

years

Total

Germany 46 247 107 400

Spain 48 280 72 400

France 53 247 100 400

Italy 53 269 78 400

Poland 64 269 67 400

UK 52 241 107 400

Total 316 1.553 531 2.400

Table 6 Target sample by country and gender

Country Female Male Total

Germany 195 205 400

Spain 197 203 400

France 203 197 400

Italy 191 209 400

Poland 202 198 400

UK 199 201 400

Total 1.187 1.213 2.400

Table 7 Target sample by country and education level

Country 0-11 years of

education

12 years of education

(high school

diploma)

Post-graduate degree (MA,

MS, JD, MD, PhD, etc)

Some years of

university (not

completed)

University degree

(BA, BS)

Total

Germany 172 91 70 21 46 400

Spain 11 94 43 77 175 400

France 39 125 81 30 125 400

Italy 25 142 102 87 44 400

Poland 14 114 162 44 66 400

UK 11 94 43 77 175 400

Total 281 703 512 300 604 2,400


117

The following table shows the sampling errors. They are calculated for a probability no greater

than 95.5% and for the least desired context. i.e. a maximum indeterminate probability (p = q

= 50%) for the reference population. The sampling error is the error caused by observing a

sample instead of the whole population. The sampling error can be found by subtracting the

value of a parameter from the value of a statistic and is calculated with the formula given below:

Where:

e = Sampling error

Z = Confidence level

The value for selected alpha level of .0225 in each tail = 2. The value of Z is set to 2, representing

a confidence level of 95.5%. We aim for the highest possible accuracy with the smallest sample

size. This confidence level gives us the best trade-off between these two goals.

The expected scenario is maximum indetermination (p=q=50) where:

p= The conversion rate we expect (estimate of the true conversion rate in the population)

q= The conversion rate we don’t expect

N= Total population (GP’s)

n= Proposed sample (GP’s)

These sampling errors, in fact, determine the statistical reliability of the sample and,

consequently, it is necessary to take them into consideration. The overall error margin,

therefore, is + 2.04%, with a country specific error margin of +5.00%. These errors are in line

with the statistical criteria that validate the sample design and, being that the sample is

representative and reliable, it is possible to extrapolate the study results to the target population

group in the selected countries.

Table 8 Sampling errors by country


years

From 25 to 54

years

From 55 to 74

years

Germany 14.74 6.36 9.67

Spain 14.43 5.98 11.79

France 13.74 6.36 10.00

Italy 13.74 6.10 11.32

Poland 12.50 6.10 12.22

UK 13.87 6.44 9.67

Total 5.63 2.54 4.34

As each country's total population is different, but is sampled in equal measure, weighting was

applied to ensure a representative sample for interpretation of the overall data. The following

shows the weighting applied by country.


118

Table 9 Weights by country

Country Weight

Germany 1.5135

Spain 0.7688

France 1.1051

Italy 0.8348

Poland 0.5526

UK 1.2252

The experts were contacted by email using a convenience/snowball sample, selected from the

wide network of experts in Life Cycle Assessment. The following tables show the technical

specification for the experts survey and the respondents by country and gender

Table 10 Technical specification for the experts survey

Population Experts in LCA

Scope 48 countries


Sample size n=518

Sampling Convenience/snowball sample

Table 11 Expert respondents by country and gender


Argentina 0 1 1

Australia 1 5 6

Austria 2 9 11

Belgium 17 32 49

Brazil 0 3 3

Bulgaria 2 1 3

Chile 0 2 2

Colombia 1 0 1

Czech 1 1 2

Canada 1 8 9

Spain 10 19 29

China 1 2 3

Croatia 0 1 1

Cuba 1 0 1

Cyprus 1 0 1

Germany 21 57 78


119


Denmark 3 9 12

France 12 42 54

Finland 6 5 11

Netherlands 6 28 34

Greece 1 3 4

Hungary 1 2 3

Ireland 5 4 9

Italy 13 23 36

Iceland 0 2 2

India 1 2 3

Iran 0 1 1

Japan 0 3 3

Latvia 1 0 1

Lithuania 1 0 1

Luxembourg 0 1 1

Malaysia 2 1 3

Norway 3 6 9

Poland 5 1 6

Portugal 5 2 7

Romania 1 1 2

Russian 0 1 1

Slovenia 0 1 1

Sweden 5 11 16

Switzerland 5 20 25

Thailand 3 5 8

Taiwan 0 1 1

Turkey 0 1 1

UK 6 17 23

USA 6 11 17

Uzbekistan 0 1 1

Vietnam 0 1 1

Hong Kong 0 1 1

Others/Did

not answer

5 15 20

155 363 518


120

4.2.3 Fieldwork

For the general population survey, fieldwork commenced on 16 December 2016 with the UK

pilot and was completed on 18 January 2017. A total of 14,427 respondents were invited to

participate across the 6 countries. Of these, 2,460 completed and 2665 did not. The average

duration of the questionnaire was of 18 minutes. The following figure summarizes the fieldwork

process.

Table 12 General public fieldwork

Start End Invited Complete Incomplete Speeder Age filter

Duration (mins)

UK Pilot 16/12/16 16/12/16 307 115 76 18

Field 20/12/16 30/12/16 1,473 401 527 16

Total 1,780 516 603 5 2 16

Germany Pilot 4/1/17 4/1/17 364 21 553 13

Field 5/1/17 18/1/17 7,597 407 0 23

Total 7,961 428 553 6 4 22

France Pilot 10/1/17 10/1/17 138 27 292 25

Field 11/1/17 17/1/17 950 406 11 19

Total 1,088 433 303 5 5 19

Spain Pilot 22/12/16 22/12/16 42 29 279 15

Field 23/12/16 3/1/17 890 403 10 18

Total 932 432 289 3 2 17

Poland Pilot 9/1/17 9/1/17 154 27 262 19

Field 10/1/17 17/1/17 986 401 14 18

Total 1,140 428 276 4 4 18

Italy Pilot 4/1/17 4/1/17 179 27 428 16

Field 5/1/17 16/1/17 1,167 401 8 18

Total 1,346 428 436 1 1 17

TOTAL 14,247 2,665 2,460 24 18 18

The expert survey, commenced on 13 January 2017 and ended on 13 February 2017. A total

of 5,820 were contacted. Of these 1,053 opened the questionnaire and 518 completed the

questionnaire. The following figure summarizes the fieldwork process.


121

Table 13 Experts fieldwork

Experts Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Total

E-Mails data-base 5,820

Opened the questionnaire 825 204 21 3 1,053

Completes 428 75 14 1 518

Incompletes 394 129 7 2 532

Don't pass screener (age) 3 0 0 0 3

Reminders 4

Date start of fieldwork 13/1/17 26/1/17 26/1/17 31/1/17

Date end of fieldwork 13/2/17 13/2/17 13/2/17 13/2/17

Average duration (min) 26 23 20 27

4.3 Findings

Among endpoints, in the general public survey, the median score for human health is 100. This

means that over half of respondents selected Human Health as the category of most concern.

The average scores given to health, environment, and natural resources are 88, 73, and 67.3

respectively.

Table 14 General Public Summary statistics – Endpoints

Impact category (IC) Mean Median Standard deviation

Human Health 88.0 100.0 21.0

Natural Environment 73.0 80.0 25.4

Natural Resources 67.3 70.0 25.2

n=2400

In the expert survey, “Natural Environment” is the highest scoring endpoint (average of 87.3).

The mean scores of Human Health and Natural Resources are 81.7 and 69.9 respectively.

Table 15 Experts Summary statistics – Endpoints


Human Health 81.7 90.0 24.4

Natural Environment 87.3 90.0 16.7

Natural Resources 69.9 77.5 24.9

n=519

With regards to health midpoints, in the general public survey, more than half of respondents

picked “Human Toxicity – cancer” as the most worrying impact category, with a mean score of


122

81.9. On average, “Human Toxicity – non-cancer” and “Climate change” are the second and

third highest ranking categories, with mean scores of 64.9 and 62.6 respectively.

Table 16 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Human Health)


Climate change 62.6 70.0 33.1

Ozone depletion 59.8 60.0 30.4

Human Toxicity - cancer 81.9 100.0 27.6

Human Toxicity - non-cancer 64.9 70.0 28.8

Particulate matter 58.6 60.0 29.2

Ionizing radiation 58.0 60.0 29.6

Photochemical ozone formation 50.2 50.0 29.1

n=2400

Among experts, results mirror the general public survey as “Human toxicity – cancer” ranks first

with an average of 81.1, followed by “Particulate matter” (79.0 on average) and “Climate

change” (74.6 on average).

Table 17 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Human Health)



Ozone depletion 56.2 60.0 28.1

Human Toxicity - cancer 81.1 90.0 25.3

Human Toxicity - non-cancer 69.0 80.0 26.1

Particulate matter 79.0 85.0 21.2

Ionizing radiation 55.8 60.0 28.6

Photochemical ozone formation 61.7 65.0 23.9

n=519

With regards to environmental midpoints, “Climate Change” is the category of most concern

for the general public, scoring 71.2 on average, followed by “Eutrophication – freshwater” (mean

63.7) and “Resource use – water” (mean 63.4). It is worth noting that the “Climate change”

midpoint is featured in all three groups and is also the single category with the highest amount

of variation, as measured by a standard deviation of 33.1 in Health, 32.4 in Environment, and

32.0 in Natural Resources.


123

Table 18 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Environment)



Acidification 61.3 69.0 29.3

Eutrophication - terrestrial 60.5 65.0 28.2

Eutrophication - freshwater 63.7 70.0 28.7

Eutrophication - marine 57.6 60.0 28.6

Ecotoxicity - freshwater 62.7 70.0 29.8

Land use 59.2 60.0 30.4

Resource use - water 63.4 70.0 32.0

n=2400

Among experts, “Climate change” is also and by far the category of highest concern, with more

than half respondents selecting it as first (median of 100) and a mean of 88.5. “Resource use –

water” (mean 75.2), “Ecotoxicity – freshwater” (mean 67.7) and “Land use” (mean 67.5) follow.

Table 19 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Environment)



Acidification 59.2 65.0 26.4

Eutrophication - terrestrial 53.9 55.0 24.1

Eutrophication - freshwater 64.3 70.0 22.9

Eutrophication - marine 55.9 60.0 25.0

Ecotoxicity - freshwater 67.7 70.0 26.4

Land use 67.5 70.0 25.5


n=519

With regards to natural resources midpoints, the category “Resource use – fossil fuels” is the

highest scoring midpoints among the general public, with a mean of 80.4. The second highest

scoring midpoint is “Climate Change” (mean 70.0).

Table 20 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Resources)



Resource use - metal and minerals 66.3 70.0 27.7

Resource use - fossil fuels 80.4 90.0 26.4

Land use 70.0 80.0 27.4


n=2400

Finally, “Resource use – water” (mean 85.2) is the highest scoring midpoint among experts

surveyed. The next most worrying categories are “Climate change” (mean 76.8) and “Land use”

(73.9).


124

Table 21 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Resources)



Resource use - metal and minerals 65.5 70.0 24.9

Resource use - fossil fuels 65.8 74.5 28.6

Land use 73.9 80.0 24.0


n=519

The following figure summarizes the results on midpoints for the three categories in both surveys

– general public and experts. Here, midpoints are ranked according to their means.

Figure 49 Summary of results

In the natural environment group, the pattern shows a similarity among the two groups of

respondents. In the human health group, both experts and the general public are concerned

about cancer the most, while the relative importance of the remaining categories differs. In the

natural resources group, priorities differ significantly among the two groups.

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

General Experts

Humanhealth Naturalenvironment Naturalresources


125

4.4 Lessons learned from the weighting exercise

Endpoints

Over the life cycle of products, resources and energy are used. This creates emissions into air,

water and soil, leading to negative impacts on health, environment and the future availability

of resources. The general public surveyed is especially concerned about impacts on health.

Experts surveyed are more concerned about impacts on the environment.

Midpoints

There are many different ways in which the life cycle of products can negatively affect human

health, the environment, and the future availability of resources.

Health impacts

Emissions of toxic substances can lead to an increased risk of cancer, via the air we

breathe and also indirectly via the food we eat and the water we drink. This aspect is of

highest concern among both experts and the general public.

Experts are also concerned about particulate matter, emissions of tiny particles that

lead to respiratory diseases and the so called “winter smog”, as well as the health

consequences of climate change.

The general public is also concerned about human toxicity (other than cancer), the

emission of toxic substances damaging health, as well as the health consequences of

climate change.

Environmental impacts

Climate change refers to the human-driven changes induced to the natural environment

as a consequence of the emissions in the atmosphere of the so-called greenhouse

gases, such as CO2, N2O, CH4. Climate change is the aspect of highest concern among

both experts and the general public.

The withdrawal of water from lakes, rivers or groundwater can contribute to water

scarcity. Experts and the general public alike are concerned about the use of water

during the life cycle of products.

The emission of toxic substances that are a danger to fish, algae and other organisms

living in fresh water, known as eco-toxicity, is also of concern among experts.

Too many nutrients in freshwater, e.g. by the abuse of fertilizers in farming and release

of wastewater, upset the balance of nature, leading to algal blooms and killing fish. The

general public is concerned about this phenomenon, also known as freshwater

eutrophication.

Natural resource impacts

Water scarcity, and the use of water during the life cycle of products, is also the main

concern among experts in relation of the availability of future resources.

The earth contains a finite amount of non-renewable resources, such as fossil fuels like

coal, oil and gas. The use of fossil fuels may lead to a decrease of availability of

potential functions of resources, and is the aspect of highest concern among the

general public.

Both experts and the general public are also concerned with climate change, as well as

with land use, which is the damage to ecosystems due to the effects of occupation and

transformation of land. Examples of land use are agricultural production, mineral

extraction and human settlement. Transformation is the conversion of land from one

use to another use. Impacts include loss of species, of soil organic matter, erosion, and

reduced primary production.


126

5 Online experiments: certification, willingness to

pay and Ecolabel

5.1 Background

This chapter contains the results from the three online experiments conducted by the

Consortium. The experiment were designed based on the feedback gathered during the previous

steps (focus groups, workshop, weighting exercise), where the following areas were identified

as potential complementary tests:

Certification and Trust: Should PEF labels include a certification? and which institutions

do consumers trust more?

Impact categories: To what extent are consumers concerned about different negative

impacts (e.g. on the environment, on human health) of product life cycle?

Message framing: Are consumers persuaded more by positive or negative messages?

Willingness to pay: To what extent are consumers willing to pay more for

environmentally-friendly product?

Penalisation: Should a company who intentionally misinformed the public about the

environmental performance of a product be penalised?

Ecolabel: How should a PEF label relate to the existing Ecolabel?

Accordingly, three large online experiments were designed to test the relative effectiveness of

CVs in terms of several dimensions, including:

Understanding of PEF information: declared and factual;

Attracting attention for the PEF and OEF information;

Influence on the purchasing intentions in terms of willingness to pay and increased

perceived marginal utility of the product with PEF information over one without.

Box 1 – Discrete choice experiments

To understand what influences people’s choices we used an established methodology - the discrete choice experiment. The method starts with the idea that a product or a service is a bundle of attributes. Take a car for example, where the attributes contributing to a purchase decision might

be (i) number of seats, (ii) engine size and (iii) price. Each attribute may vary: (i) 2 or 4 seats; (ii) more or less than 1500ccs engine size, and (iii) three levels of price low, medium and high.

If every combination of the levels of the three attributes is available then we have 2×2×3 = 12 possible cars to choose from. Of course real life is much more complicated – witness the range of car sizes, colours, extras, prices etc.

Let us return to the simple life where only 12 cars are available. We take two of the possible 12 cars (combinations of attributes) and ask respondents which one of the two they prefer. We then ask

them to choose between another pair of cars. Knowing their preferences for every possible pairing of the 12 cars allows us to determine the relative importance or weight of the three attributes (the number of seats, engine size and price) in their purchase decision.

The discrete choice experiments allows for the testing of several alternatives simultaneously in

a multi-country context. There are limitations to the number of CV variants that can be tested

because each one requires a separate group of respondents. The detailed nature of the

experiment entailed – as this is always the case – some trade-offs between what is desirable

and what is feasible.


127

5.2 Methodology

This section summarises the methodology used in the three experiments conducted. A detailed

description is provided as Annex.


The experiment aimed at understanding the importance of PEF rating certification – the source

of certification, framing, and trustworthiness - on consumer decision-making process. To achieve

this aim, an online experiment was conducted in four different countries: Sweden, Spain,

Germany and Romania. This selection was based on the Special Eurobarometer 416 Attitudes of

European citizens towards the environment (2014). Sweden and Spain are countries above the

EU28 average while Germany and Romania are below the EU28 average. In addition to the

different level of environmentally consciousness, these four countries represent different

geographical locations and different levels of per-capita GDP, Sweden and Germany faring above

the EU-28 average, Spain and Romania below average16.

The online experiment was performed in two steps: the experimental part using a discrete choice

experiment (Part 1) and the self-reported measures (Part 2), including questions (see sections

below) and psychometric scales. A representative sample (age and gender) of 1,500 internet

users was targeted in each country to capture variance.

Figure 50. Experimental design

A discrete choice experiment is a quantitative technique for eliciting preferences, allowing to

understand what is important in consumer decision-making process. The decisions that the

participants take in the experiment are simple. They were asked to choose a preferable product

between two on the basis of its mutually exclusive attributes (in random order). The discrete

choice experiment is the simplest of the choice techniques and has the advantage of low

cognitive complexity – the degree of task complexity and difficulty arising from the experiment.

The discrete choice experiment used two different dimensions, frames and sources of

certifications:

Three message frames: one pointing out the positive (e.g. the benefits for our health),

one pointing out the negative (e.g. the suffering of our children), and a baseline

condition.

Six different sources of certification of the environmental score

A total of 10 comparisons between two options were shown to each respondent. In conditions of

limited information about products, comparisons mean choosing between two items that have

the same rating. As with the rating, the PEF scale was maintained constant (ABCDE-style). The

design was replicated for the following three products, with 500 respondents by product:

Laptop (High cost purchase – Low frequency purchase);

T- shirt (Medium cost purchase – Medium frequency purchase);

Milk (Low cost purchase– High frequency purchase).

Each product carried an environmental label with the following attributes:

Headline “Environmental impact”;

ABCDE-scale PEF rating, which was maintained constant for all options at “B” level;

Frame, one among the following:

16 Source: Eurostat [nama_10_pc].

Part 1: Discrete choice experiment

(6'-8')

Part 2: Self-reported survey (6'-8')


128

1. Positive messages with an emphasis on the benefits:

Protect our environment to benefit our country’s children;

Protect our environment to benefit our health;

2. Negative messages with an emphasis on the risks/costs:

Our countries’ children will suffer if we ignore the environment;

Our health will suffer if we ignore the environment;

3. Baseline condition:

Protect our environment.

Source of certification:

1. None

2. National government

3. The European Commission

4. An Industry body from each country

5. A Consumer Organisation from each country

6. A third party organisation (independent body)

As an example, choice set #3 for milk in Spain is shown in the picture below.

Figure 51 Study on Certification and Trust – Choice example

A random sample of 6,000 individuals was drawn from 4 countries (Sweden, Romania, Spain,

Germany) to produce the general public survey (1,500 respondents per each of the 4 countries).


represented in the survey.

In each country, the total sample was split by the number of products, so that each product

shown had the same sample. This was done to avoid task overload. For each product sample,

the study took the shape of a within-subject design. Each respondent was tested under each

condition17.

17 There are two fundamental advantages of the within subjects design: a) power and b) reduction in error variance associated with individual differences. A fundamental inferential statistics principle is that, as the number of subjects grows, statistical power increases, and the probability of beta error decreases (the probability of not finding an effect when one "truly" exists). This is why it is always better to have more subjects. The reason this is so relevant to the within subjects design is that, by using a within-subjects design you have in effect increased the number of "subjects" relative to a between subjects design.


129




The following table summarises the sample specification.

Table 22 Study on Certification and Trust – Sample specification



Sweden

Romania

Spain

Germany



Quotas Age

Gender

Country


specific data


overall data


After the experimental part, respondents were asked the following questions, each focusing on

a specific aspect:

Certification: How much would you trust the following to certify the accuracy of


Competence: Do you think the following organisations would have the expertise to

provide accurate product environmental information on consumer products? Do you think

the following organisations would have the expertise to verify accurate product

environmental information on consumer products?

Fiduciary responsibility: Do you think they could be relied on to act in the public interest

regarding product environmental information?

Effectiveness: In the development and introduction of product environmental information

for consumers how effective do you think the following would be?

Leadership: Who should lead the development and introduction of product environmental

information?

Penalties: If it is found that a company has intentionally misinformed the public about

the environmental performance of a product, which of the following would be most

appropriate?

Importance: Of the following aspects, which one do you consider the most important

when buying XXYY?

Annex IV. Certification and Trust contains a detailed description of the methodological approach.


130

5.2.2 Study on Willingness to Pay and PEF

This complementary test aimed at understanding the importance of a product’s price, its

environmental performance, and the PEF label’s appearance in consumer decision-making. To

achieve this aim, an online experiment was conducted in four different countries: France,

Germany, Italy and Poland. This selection is based on the same criteria mentioned in the

previous complementary test.

The design of this experiment could be considered as functionally equivalent to the experiment

conducted by the French government “The impact of environmental labelling on consumer

choices: lessons from a large-sample choice experiment”18.

In our complementary test, respondents made choices across three product types – Yogurt,

t-shirt, and laptop. The characteristics that varied in the products’ descriptions are:

PEF description (3 levels)

o Overall PEF score;

o Overall PEF score plus three exemplary midpoints;

o Only three midpoints

PEF performance

o B/better

o D/worse

Prices)

o Baseline

o Plus 7%

o Plus 15%

The choice of midpoints reflected the work conducted by the Dairy pilot (for yogurt), the T-shirt

pilot (for t-shirt), and the IT equipment pilot (for laptops). The following midpoints were

accordingly selected:

Yogurt: Climate Change / Water use / Land use

T-shirt: Climate Change / Particular Matter / Freshwater Eutrophication

Laptop: Climate Change / Particular Matter / Resource use: metals and minerals

As an example, choice set #4 for a t-shirt in Italy is shown in the picture below.

Figure 52 Study on Willingness to Pay – Choice example

The target consisted of 1500 individuals per country and 4 countries (France, Germany, Italy

and Poland). The selection of the countries followed the same criteria of the previous experiment.

18 In May 2016, the report published by the French government read that “The aim of environmental labelling is to educate consumers about the environmental impact of the products they buy. Unlike ecolabels, which are manifested by the presence of a logo on consumer products, the principle of environmental labelling is to display quantitative information on the environmental footprint of the products, in the form of a graduated scale for example”. Within this context, the study aimed at analysing the impact of such a scheme on consumer choices, estimating consumers’ willingness to pay for better environmental quality from their product choices. In the French study, the contrasts were (i) voluntary or compulsory labelling (ii) presentation of an aggregate PEF score or not (iii) environmental impact mentioned or not (iv) branded product or not.


131

The experiment consisted of a repeated measures design for the three products (Yogurt, t-shirt

and laptop in random order) followed by a number of questions on the social context in which

the environmental concern is discussed by the participants and the socio-demographic

characteristics.

A list of questions was asked at the end of the choice experiments in all versions of the

questionnaire exploring the respondents’ opinion of the current environmental information as

they come across it in their daily lives (clarity, usefulness, etc.), their habits in terms of

sustainable consumption and their awareness of ecological issues. These questions are asked

after the choice experiments so as not to influence the product choices. In total, the average

time for answering the questionnaire is 20 minutes. The experiment was conducted over the

internet in the context of an on-line purchase, in which boxes of washing powder, yoghurt and

jeans are offered for sale, with each product bearing a label summarizing its environmental

impact (over its life-cycle).

A random sample of 6,000 individuals was drawn from 4 countries (France, Italy, Germany,

Poland) to produce the general public survey (1,500 respondents per each of the 4 countries).








The following table describes the sample specification:

Table 23 Study on Willingness to Pay – Sample specification



Germany

France

Italy

Poland



Quotas Age

Gender

Country


specific data


overall data


Annex V. Study on Willingness to Pay contains a detailed description of the methodological

approach.


132


The third experiment was conducted in 4 countries (France, Poland, Sweden and Slovenia). In

each country 1,000 people were surveyed. The study aimed at investigating the consumers'

choice when presented with a product displaying a PEF label as opposed to the EU Ecolabel, as

well as with labels that include both PEF information and the Ecolabel, across two products

(laptop and household detergent). It began with a “recognition” stage, where respondents were

asked whether they could recall the Ecolabel. The first stage was followed by a discrete-choice

experiment, an open-ended question, and socio-demographics.

In the experimental stage, the characteristics that varied in the products’ descriptions (laptop

and detergent) are:

1. Label (3 levels)

a) Ecolabel alone

b) PEF information alone

c) Ecolabel + PEF information

2. Style

a) 'Streetlight' 3 ratings (“Environmental impact: compared to similar products, this

product is better/average/worse”)

b) 5 ratings (ABCDE)

3. PEF performance

a. Worst/Red (when presented with three rating style) and D (when presented with

the 5 ratings style.

b. Average/Yellow (when presented with three rating style) and C (when presented


c. Better/Green (when presented with three rating style) and B (when presented


4. Price

a) Baseline

b) Plus 7%

c) Plus 15%

As an example, choice set #7 for a detergent in France is shown in the picture below.

Figure 53 Study on Ecolabel – Choice example

A random sample of 4,000 individuals was drawn from 4 countries (France, Poland, Sweden,

Slovenia) to produce the general public survey (1,000 respondents per each of the 4 countries).



133






broader environmental awareness. The following table describes the sample specification:

Table 24 Study on Ecolabel – Sample specification



France

Poland

Sweden

Slovenia



Quotas Age

Gender

Country


specific data


overall data


Annex VI. Study on Ecolabel contains a detailed description of the methodological approach.

5.3 Findings


Certification is seen as a trustworthy label feature across all products and sources. In

the first experiment, consumer choice is positively correlated with the presence of a message

indicating that a product’s environmental rating has been certified. This is especially true among

laptop buyers, where the effect is the largest for “independent third party” certification followed

by certification issued by the European Commission. Conversely, among milk buyers a

certification from the “consumer association” seems to hold the strongest effect. Certification by

national governments and industry association are likewise positively affecting choice, but by a

lesser margin (compared to the abovementioned sources) across all products.

With regards to how the accompanying message is framed, the effect of negative messages on

consumer choice (compared to the baseline message) is quite large and significant. The most

effective frame across the three products (laptop, t-shirt, milk) seems to be the negative

message regarding children, e.g. (in English): “Our countries’ children will suffer if we ignore the

environment”. This seems to discourage consumers from the choice of a given product ceteris

paribus, and it is particularly true for t-shirt and milk buyers. The negative message on Health

(“Our health will suffer if we ignore the Environment”) has a large (negative) and significant

effect on choice as well. The difference across products is negligible. On the other hand, the

effect of the “positive” message on children (in English, “Protect our environment to benefit our

country’s children”) is not significant.


134

The effect of the “positive” frame on health has an opposite effect: all things equal, respondents

are less likely to choose a product whose label contains the baseline message (i.e. “protect our

Environment”) compared to a message in the vein of “Protect our environment to benefit our

Health”. Summing up, the most effective label seems to be the one combining a negative

message about children (across all products) with the third-party certification (for laptop

and t-shirt buyers) or the consumer association certification (for milk buyers).

Table 25 Study on Certification and Trust – Most effective labels

# Frame # Source

Laptop Laptop



environment”




the environment”



3 “Protect our environment” 3 “This rating has been verified by the


T-shirt T-shirt



environment”




the environment”







Milk Milk



environment”




the environment”








A discrete choice model was used. For each of the attributes, the tables show: coefficients, odds

ratios, the probability of increasing or decreasing product selection, standard errors, t-values

and p-values. In discrete choice models, each coefficient is a “part-worth” estimate, or the utility

associated with that attribute. In the analysis, the “baseline” frame (“Protect our environment”)

and the lack of certification source (“source = none”) were used as reference points, their part-

worth are structural zeroes and therefore do not appear in the following output tables. Two

columns in tables 26, 27 and 28 are important to interpret the results, one reports the odds

ratio (that is the exponential function of the estimates) and another the directly interpretable

positive or negative probability of product selection (e.g. +50% means 50% more chances of

selecting a product, -30% less chances of selecting it).


135

Table 26 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Laptop)

Estimate Odds ratio



-0.3463 0.70 - 30% 0.0420 -8.2417 2.220e-16 ***


-0.1886 0.82 -18% 0.0350 -5.3894 7.068e-08 ***


0.0178 1.01 +1% 0.0350 0.5077 0.6117


0.2201 1.24 +24% 0.0400 5.5030 3.733e-08 ***


0.4106 1.50 +50% 0.0311 13.1940 < 2.2e-16 ***



0.2446 1.27 27% 0.0376 6.5099 7.519e-11 ***


0.6015 1.80 80% 0.0468 12.8638 < 2.2e-16 ***

Certification: Industry 0.2446 1.27 27% 0.0333 7.3474 2.021e-13 ***

Table 27 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (T-shirt)

Estimate Odds ratio



-0.4340 0.64 -36% 0.0420 -10.3246 < 2.2e-16 ***


-0.1746 0.83 -17%

0.0349 -4.9986 5.774e-07 ***


-0.0217 0.97 -3% 0.0349 -0.6203 0.5350482


0.1474 1.15 +15% 0.0398 3.7044 0.0002119 ***


0.3339 1.40 +40% 0.0309 10.8110 < 2.2e-16 ***



0.1713 1.18 +18% 0.0373 4.5904 4.424e-06 ***


0.3413 1.40 +40% 0.0454 7.5214 5.418e-14 ***


Table 28 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Milk)

Estimate Odds ratio



-0.4571 0.63 -37% 0.0421 -10.8511 < 2.2e-16 ***


-0.1976 0.82 -18% 0.0350 -5.6548 1.560e-08 ***


-0.0246 0.97 -3% 0.0350 -0.7041 0.4813


0.2123 1.23 +23% 0.0399 5.3191 1.043e-07 ***


0.3915 1.48 +48% 0.0311 12.5762 < 2.2e-16 ***



0.1870 1.20 +20% 0.0376 4.9708 6.668e-07 ***


0.2900 1.33 +33% 0.0452 6.4174 1.387e-10 ***



136

Experimental results seem to be confirmed in the survey analysis. Consumer

organisations and the European Commission are the most trusted actors to certify the accuracy

of PEF information on products, with the share of respondents trusting “completely” or “a lot”

being 72% (Consumer organisation) and 59% (European Commission). Conversely, less than

half of respondents would trust their national government (46%) or “an independent third party”

(42%).

Figure 54 Study on Certification and Trust - How much would you trust the following

to certify the accuracy of environmental information on consumer products?


In terms of competence, more than three-fourth of respondents believe that a consumer

organisation would have the expertise to provide (76%) and verify (74%) accurate PEF

information on consumer products. The European Commission is the next most trusted entity,

with 67% and 68% of respondents who believe the EC has the competence, respectively, to

provide and verify accurate PEF information. The expertise of industry associations, national

governments, and independent third parties seems granted for at least half of respondents.


to provide accurate PEF information on consumer products?


10%

10%

11%

18%

22%

32%

36%

35%

41%

50%

Nationalgovernment

Thirdparty

Industryassociation

EuropeanCommission


Completely Quitealot Notverymuch Notatall Don’tknow

15%

12%

18%

24%

26%

40%

44%

47%

44%

50%

Nationalgovernment

Thirdparty

Industryassociation

EuropeanCommission




137


to verify accurate PEF information on consumer products?


Likewise, respondents rely on consumer organisations and the EC to act in the public

interest about PEF information. Around 76% of participants believes that consumer

organisations can be relied on, and around 63% thinks the same of the European Commission.

Third parties (55%), industry associations (54%) and the national governments (53%) follow.

Figure 57 Study on Certification and Trust - Do you think they could be relied on to

act in the public interest regarding product environmental information?


In the development and introduction of product environmental information for

consumer products, a consumer organisation is judged as very or moderately “effective” by

82% of respondents, followed by the European Commission (73%), an industry association

(70%), a third party (66%), and the national government (63%). Around the same share of

respondents (83%) believes that consumer associations should lead the development and

introduction of PEF information, as should the European Commission (76%) and national

governments (70%), followed by industry (66%) and third parties (63%).

12%

18%

18%

25%

25%

44%

39%

46%

42%

49%

Thirdparty

Nationalgovernment

Industryassociation

EuropeanCommission



14%

14%

12%

20%

28%

39%

40%

43%

43%

48%

Nationalgovernment

Industryassociation

Thirdparty

EuropeanCommission




138

Figure 58 Study on Certification and Trust - In the development of PEF information

for consumers, how effective would the following actors be?


Figure 59 Study on Certification and Trust - Who should lead the development and

introduction of PEF information?


Finally, with regards to penalties, an overwhelming majority agrees with inflicting sanctions on

misbehaving companies. Should it be found that “a company has intentionally misinformed the

public about the environmental performance of a product”, most respondents believe that the

company should be “named and shamed in public” (80% “agree” or “completely agree”) or pay

a fine (84% “agree” or “completely agree”).

18%

14%

20%

27%

31%

45%

52%

50%

46%

51%

Nationalgovernment

Thirdparty

Industryassociation

EuropeanCommission


Veryeffective Moderatelyeffective Moderatelyineffective Veryineffective

16%

23%

30%

36%

34%

47%

43%

40%

40%

49%

Thirdparty

Industryassociation

Nationalgovernment

EuropeanCommission


CompletelyAgree Agree Disagree CompletelyDisagree


139

Figure 60 Study on Certification and Trust - If it is found that a company has

intentionally misinformed the public about the environmental performance of a

product, which of the following would be most appropriate?


The survey analysis sheds some light on the relative importance to customers of different

factors at the moment of buying a t-shirt, a laptop, and a milk carton. Respondents were asked

to rank a number of factors from first to last. Ranking questions calculate the average ranking

for each choice, so as to determine which factor was most preferred. We define the choice with

the largest average ranking as the most preferred. The following formula shows the calculation

of average ranking:

�̅� =∑ (𝑥𝑖𝑤𝑖)𝑛𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖𝑤𝑖

∑ 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑖=1

In the formula ‘w’ is the weight of the ranked position, and ‘x’ is the response count for the

choice. We have assigned different weights in reverse, giving the largest weight to a

respondent’s favourite choice (#1) and a weight of 1 to the least favourite choice (e.g. #5 for

laptop, and #6 for t-shirt and milk). This ensures that when the data is presented on a bar chart,

it is clear which factor is the most preferred.

Quality is the most important factor across the three products; environmental impact

is the third highest factor for t-shirt and milk buyers, and the fourth highest for laptop

buyers. With regards to t-shirts, quality is the main factor (score of 9,514) followed by price

(8,119) and environmental impact (7,424). Quality is the main factor in the purchasing process

of a laptop (7,432), although the performance (7,219) is a close second, followed by price

(6,475) and environmental impact (5,006). Likewise, milk buyers ranked quality first (score of

9,634) which is clearly distant from the country of origin (6,965) and environmental impact

(6,930).

Figure 61 Study on Certification and Trust – Factors (self-declared) that influence

the decision of buying a t-shirt


PayafinePublicshaming

80% 84%

5036

5319

6588

7424

8119

9514

Brand

Countryoforigin

Organic

Environmentalimpact

Price

Quality


140


buying a laptop

Source: Q10 (n=2,000)


buying a milk carton

Source: Q11 (n=2,000)

3868

5006

6475

7219

7432

Brand

Environmentalimpact

Price

Performance

Quality

4762

6781

6907

6930

6965

9634

Brand

Price

Organic

Environmentalimpact

Countryoforigin

Quality


141

5.3.2 Study on Willingness to Pay

In the second experiment, using midpoints to express PEF yields, compared to overall scores,

to a higher consumer willingness to pay for a product with a given environmental footprint. The

combination of endpoints and midpoints has a significant but negligible effect. Notably, all things

equal, a high environmental score on a label (such as a B) has a very large positive and

significant effect on consumer choice, regardless of the PEF label style19. Effects are similar

across products. Finally, the price increase effect is negative and significant. Summing up, the

most effective label seems to be the one including midpoints combined with a high score


Table 29 Study on Willingness to Pay – Most effective labels

# PEF style PEF score Price

Laptop Laptop Laptop


2 Overall and midpoints Worse (D) +7%


T-shirt T-shirt T-shirt



†

Worse (D) +7%


Yogurt Yogurt Yogurt



†

Worse (D) +7%



In the analysis, a discrete choice model was used. For each of the attributes, the tables show:

coefficients, odds ratio, probability (derived from the odds ratio), standard errors, t-values and

p-values. In discrete choice models, each coefficient is a “part-worth” estimate, or the utility

associated with that attribute. Two columns in tables 30, 31 and 32 are important to interpret

the results, one reports the odds ratio (that is the exponential function of the estimates) and

another the directly interpretable positive or negative probability of product selection. For

example, a PEF Score B increases almost three times and half the probability of selection for

laptops (table 30). The “endpoints only” PEF style, the “negative” PEF score (D), and the baseline

price were used as reference points. Their part-worth are structural zeroes, and therefore they

do not appear in the following output tables.

19 The effect magnitude should be assessed keeping into account that respondents had access to a limited amount of information – i.e. price, PEF score, and PEF label – to make their choice.


142

Table 30 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (Laptop)

Estimate Odds ratio


t-value Pr(>|t|)


points

0.2703 1.31 +31% 0.0220 12.2747 < 2.2e-16 ***


three exemplary mid

points

0.0732 1.07 +7% 0.0216 3.3972 0.0006809

***

Overall PEF score B 1.5022 4.49 +349% 0.0200 75.1190 < 2.2e-16

***

PRICE +15% -1.0923 0.33 -67% 0.0283 -38.5768

< 2.2e-16 ***

PRICE +7% -0.5497 0.57 -43%

0.0209 -

26.2926

< 2.2e-16

***

Table 31 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (T-shirt)

Estimate Odds ratio


t-value Pr(>|t|)


points

0.2758 1.31 +31% 0.0214 12.9106 <2e-16 ***


three exemplary mid

points

0.0371 1.04 +4% 0.0216 1.7163 0.0861


PRICE +15% -1.4381 0.23 -77% 0.0294 -48.8561

<2e-16 ***

PRICE +7% -0.7025 0.49 -51% 0.0208 -

33.7081

<2e-16 ***

Table 32 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (Yogurt)

Estimate Odds ratio


t-value Pr(>|t|)


points

0.1907 1.21 +21% 0.0215 8.8570 <2e-16 ***


three exemplary mid

points

0.0270 1.02 +2% 0.0216 1.2457 0.2129


PRICE +15% -1.3995 0.24 -76% 0.0296 -47.3038

<2e-16 ***

PRICE +7% -0.7074 0.49 -51% 0.0210 -

33.6369

<2e-16 ***


143

Looking at the survey analysis, around seven in ten respondents (71%) think of themselves as

“environmentally-friendly” consumers, and around two-thirds (66%) repute themselves as

people who are “very concerned with environmental issues”. In terms of social context, most

respondents would not be embarrassed to be seen as having an environmentally friendly lifestyle

(70% disagree with the opposite), and do not seem to be living in a hostile context towards

environmental issues (65% disagree with the statement “I would not want my family or friends

to think of me as someone who is concerned about environmental issues”).

Figure 64 Study on Willingness to Pay – Social context


More than two-thirds of respondents (71%) have a family concerned about the environment.

More than half of respondents (58%) believe their friends to be engaged with environmental

issues. Family (68%) and friends (60%) also seem to be the groups with whom respondents

discuss the most about the environment, much more than they do with people in their local

community (40%) or with officials in their municipality (30%).

Figure 65 Study on Willingness to Pay - To what extent do you believe are the

following groups of people around you concerned and engaged about environmental

issues?


20%

20%

46%

51%

27%

30%

43%

35%

Iwouldbeembarrassedtobeseenashavingan

environmentallyfriendlylifestyle

Iwouldnotwantmyfamilyorfriendstothinkofme

assomeonewhoisconcernedaboutenvironmentalissues

Ithinkofmyselfassomeonewhoisveryconcerned

withenvironmentalissues

Ithinkofmyselfasanenvironmentally-friendly

consumer

StronglyAgree Agree Undecided Disagree StronglyDisagree

8%

8%

12%

21%

35%

35%

46%

50%



Friends

Famiy

Verymuch Quitealot Notverymuch Notatall Don’tknow


144

Figure 66 Study on Willingness to Pay - To what extent do you discuss with the

following groups of people around you about environmental issues?



In the Ecolabel study, 32.6% of respondents answered positively to the introductory question

“Have you seen [the Ecolabel] before? There is a large cross-country variation in the recognition

of the label - around half of respondents from France (51%), while less than a third in Poland

(20%), Sweden (29%), and Slovenia (31%).

Figure 67 Study on Ecolabel –Respondents who have seen the Ecolabel logo before,

by country


Moving on to the experimental findings of the study, the PEF label is better at influencing

consumers' preferences than both the ecolabel, and to the PEF+ecolabel combination.

The effect is large and significant. In general, the effect of all attributes is mixed and significant.

The PEF label (“Environmental impact” title accompanied by a rating) seems to be preferred over

both the “Ecolabel only” and the “mixed” (PEF + Ecolabel) solutions, for both laptops and

detergents. Not much difference is found among the two products: the “mixed” label has a

slightly higher effect on detergent buyers, while the PEF label has a relatively higher, but

negligible, effect on laptop buyers than on detergent buyers. Respondents clearly prefer the

presence of a rating, over its absence (“ecolabel only” option).

In terms of rating system, the “ABCDE” style is preferred over the “streetlight”

(better/average/worse) style. All other things equal, consumers are slightly more likely to pay

an extra +15% for environmental-friendly products. The opposite is true for a 7% increase, in

both laptops and detergents. In both cases, the price increase effect is negligible. Summing up,

the most effective label seems to be the one including the PEF component only, combined

with the “ABCDE” 5-rating style, an “average” score and a +15% price increase.

7%

9%

15%

21%

23%

31%

45%

47%



Friends

Famiy

Verymuch Quitealot Notverymuch Notatall

France

51%

Poland

20%

Sweden

29%

Slovenia

31%


145

Table 33 Study on Ecolabel – Most effective labels

# Label PEF style Performance Price

Laptop Laptop Laptop Laptop




Detergent Detergent Detergent Detergent




For the analysis, a discrete choice model was used. For each of the attributes, the tables show:

coefficients, odds ratios, probabilities (increased or decreased probability of selection) standard

errors, t-values and p-values. In discrete choice models, each coefficient is a “part-worth”

estimate, or the utility associated with that attribute. Two columns in tables 34 and 35 are

important to interpret the results, one reports the odds ratio (that is the exponential function of

the estimates) and another the directly interpretable positive or negative probability of product

selection. For example, the label PEF increases of 106% the chance of product selection for

laptops and 104% for detergents.

The “ecolabel only” option, the “streetlight” (better/average/worse) style, the negative rating,

and the baseline price were used as reference points. Their part-worth are structural zeroes, and

therefore they do not appear in the following output tables.

Table 34 Study on Ecolabel – Results (Laptop)

Estimate Odds ratio


t-value Pr(>|t|)





Average/Yellow/C

0.2356 1.26 +26% 0.0207 11.3596 < 2.2e-16 ***

PEF performance

Better/Green/B

0.1582 1.17 +17% 0.0197 8.0289 8.882e-16 ***

PRICE +15% 0.0830 1.08 +8% 0.0206 4.0312 5.550e-05 ***

PRICE +7% -0.1134 0.89 -11% 0.0196 -5.7907 7.009e-09

***


146

Table 35 Study on Ecolabel – Results (Detergent)

Estimate Odds ratio


t-value Pr(>|t|)





Average/Yellow/C

0.2297 1.25 +25% 0.0207 11.0883 < 2.2e-16 ***

PEF performance

Better/Green/B

0.1559 1.16 +16% 0.0196 7.9494 1.776e-15 ***

PRICE +15% 0.0872 1.09 +9% 0.0205 4.2507 2.131e-05 ***

PRICE +7% -0.0839 0.92 -8% 0.0196 -4.2836 1.839e-05 ***

5.4 Lessons learned from the experiments

Study on Certification and Trust

Certification is seen as a trustworthy label feature across all products and sources. A large and significant effect of “negative” frames on consumer choice is found.

The most effective label is the one combining a negative message about children with the third party (or consumer association) certification.

Study on Willingness to Pay

Using midpoints to communicate a product’s environmental performance is more effective compared to both using overall scores and using a mixed approach.

All things being equal, a high environmental score on a label has a very large positive

and significant effect on consumer choice, regardless of how the label looks like. The most effective label is the one displaying midpoints, combined with a high score


Study on Ecolabel

Only a third of respondents, selected through nationally representative samples, recalls having seen Ecolabel before.

The PEF label is preferred to both the Ecolabel, and the “PEF + Ecolabel” combination. The effect is large and significant.

The most effective label is the one combining the PEF label with the “ABCDE” 5-rating

style, an “average” score, and a +15% price increase.


147

6 Further studies

6.1 Brick and mortar test

6.1.1 Design

A brick and mortar test was carried out to corroborate the evidence, and to validate the

results of the online experiments in an everyday setting. The test was conducted by a research

market company (GFK) at a supermarket chain in Belgium (Colruyt), and aimed at answering

the following questions:

Do the CVs stand out in the store? Are customers triggered by the CVs to buy the

associated products?

Which CVs and formats are more effective and best suited to be tested in the future?

What is the impact of such a communication campaign on the retailer’s brand image?

Two logos were prepared for the test. Logo #1 displayed a smiley over a planet-shaped face.

Logo #2 displayed a planet Earth icon.

Figure 68 CV logos tested

Logo #1

Logo #2

Each logo was tested in the following three formats, for a total of 6 CVs:

Product sticker in the upper right corner on the product;

A pancarte in the middle of the product shelf;

A Wobbler at the beginning and the end of the product shelf.

The following figure shows the six CVs displayed.

Figure 69 Labels tested in the brick and mortar exercise

Format Logo #1 Logo #2

Sticker

Pancarte

Wobbler

Fieldwork was conducted in six retail stores of the same company in Belgium. Logos and the

corresponding CVs were shown in three stores each. Logo #1 was tested in Diest, Woluwe,

and Braine l’Alleud stores. Logo #2 was tested in Brasschaat, Ukkel, and Jambes. As an

additional CV, each store displayed the following poster at the entrance of their premises:


148

Figure 70 Poster

6.1.2 Methodology and sample

Two methodologies were used to gather data: exit interviews and in-store observations. In

the former, one interviewer surveyed shoppers at the exit of the store. Respondents were

selected based on their answer to the question: “Were you planning to buy one of the following

products when entering the store today?”

A. Diapers

B. Pork meat

C. Milk cartons

D. None of these

Respondents who gave “D” as an answer were screened out. A total of 620 exit interviews were

conducted across all stores: 305 respondents saw Logo#1, while 315 respondents saw Logo #2.

Although no quota was set, the interviewer took care of sample distribution in terms of gender,

age group, and shopping habits (i.e. alone or with family). Two-thirds (63%) were women, while

the remaining (37%) were men. Around 84% of respondents mainly shop at that retailer. In

terms of household composition, more than half was a member of a family with kids.


149

Figure 71 Sample distribution – exit interviews

Gender Age Household composition

In addition, a number of in-store observations were performed. One interviewer observed

clients visiting a specific section in the shop. Sections, specifically meat, diapers, and milk

cartons, were visited on a rotation basis. The company report that 5,686 observations were

performed: 2,602 observed customers saw Logo #1, while 3,084 customers saw Logo #2.

Around 61% of the customers were female. Some 19% were shopping with kids at the moment

of the observation, while the remaining 81% were shopping without kids. The company

estimates that 44% of the observed were aged 30-50, while 19% was younger and 37% was

older.

6.1.3 Findings

While walking in the store, around half of the customers observed slowed down (53% among

those who saw Logo #1, and 49% among those who saw Logo #2), and four in ten customers

took a closer look at the environmentally-friendly products (46% among those who saw Logo

#1, and 43% among those who saw Logo #2). Around one in four customers took the product

in their hands (26% among those who saw Logo #1, and 29% among those who saw Logo #2),

and a slightly lower share went on to buy the product carrying the label or placed near one

(23% among those who saw Logo #1, and 28% among those who saw Logo #2).

Figure 72 Reactions to the CVs

n= 5,686

63%

37%

Female

Male

42%

25%

17%

14%2%

Couple/Married with kids living at home

Single

Couple/Married without kids

Couple/Married with kids who don’t live at homeLiving with parents

10%

37%53%

< 30

30-50

50+

28%

29%

43%

49%

23%

26%

46%

53%

Buying product

Taking product

Closer look

Slowing down

Logo 1 Logo 2


150

During their shopping visit, around 29% of respondents to the interview spontaneously noticed

the environmental communication. This figure refers to respondents who replied

affirmatively to the question “During your visit today, did you notice any communication, signs,

labels or marks of environmental responsiveness in this store?”. Respondents were then aided,

i.e. they were asked “We now show you the communication labels that were present in this

store. Which of the following labels have you noticed?”. The proportion of respondents who

saw at least one CV increased to 40%.

In terms of which communication vehicle (CV), the affiche (or poster) is noticed most, both

spontaneously (10%) and aided (18%). Among the labels, the sticker was noticed by 10%

(spontaneously) and 9% (aided) of respondents; the pancarte was noticed by 8%

(spontaneously) and 15% (aided) of respondents; and the wobbler was noticed by 1%

(spontaneously) and 5% (aided) of respondents.

Figure 73 Most noticed CVs

n= 620

The pancarte fared slightly better among those who saw Logo #2 (16%) than among those who

saw Logo #1 (14%). Similarly, the wobbler was noticed more often (6%) by those who saw Logo

#2 compared to those who saw Logo #1 (4%). Respondents who saw Logo #1 remember having

seen the sticker slightly more often (9%) than those who saw Logo #2 (8%). The pancarte was

also noticed more often by women (18% for Logo #1 viewers, 21% among Logo #2) then by

men (8% in both cases), who anyway are under-represented in the sample as explained before.

Among those who saw Logo #2, the sticker performed particularly better among younger

customers, having been noticed by 13% of people younger than 50 years old as opposed to 5%

among people aged 50 or older.

CVs do not appear to be the main driver to buy products. Among those respondents who

noticed one label and bought the product (n=64), nearly one in four did so because it was an

“eco-friendly product”. This is higher among those who saw Logo #1 (37%) than among those

who saw Logo #2 (15%). However, only 6% of purchasers were influenced by the CV in their

purchasing decision. The figure is slightly higher for Logo #1 viewers (7%) and lower for Logo

#2 viewers (3%). Among respondents who saw the label but nonetheless decided not to buy the

product, nobody mentioned the CV as a reason not to purchase.

5%

15%

9%

18%

1%

8%

10%

10%

Wobbler

Pancarte

Sticker

Affiche

Spontaneously Aided


151

Figure 74 Purchasing drivers

n= 620

When asked which type of CV they would hypothetically use to communicate environmental

performance, over half of the respondents choose the pancarte label (54%). The sticker was

preferred by 27% of respondents, while the wobbler was preferred by 18% of respondents.

Reasons to justify their choice – regardless of the format – tend to include clarity, visibility, and

simplicity.

Figure 75 Favourite CV

n= 620

9%

7%

3%

29%

29%

8%

15%

2%

7%

10%

15%

15%

15%

37%

5%

6%

8%

23%

23%

16%

28%

Don't know

Influenced by CV

Is good

Needed product

Habit

Other

Eco-friendly product

All Logo 1 Logo 2

54%

18%

27%

Pancarte Wobbler Sticker


152

Overall, logo #1 is preferred to logo #2. Among all respondents, 54% prefer Logo #1. It is

especially popular among women (60%, versus 48% of men) and younger people (74%, versus

50% among those aged 50 or older). Logo #1 is especially liked because of its cheerful and

attractive character. Some people also indicate it as more visible. On the other hand, the 46%

of respondents who prefer Logo #2 does so in relation to its seriousness. Even though it is

more serious, still one out of ten prefer it, because they think it is beautiful.

Figure 76 Perceptions of the two CV logos

n= 620

In addition, the study asked respondents whether taking a stance towards environmental

footprint communication positively impacts the retailer’s brand image. Overall, the answer is

affirmative. Around 72% of the interviewees indicated that it improves their general opinion of

the retailer, and around 68% indicated it fit with the image they already have about the retailer.

In addition, around 42% of respondents are prepared to pay more for eco-friendly products.

This last figure is especially higher among women (45%, compared to 36% of men) and among

environmentally conscious shoppers (54%, versus 36% among low-sensitive shoppers). Logo

#2 has a higher impact on the retailer’s image than Logo #1 (72% versus 64%). Likewise,

respondents who saw Logo #2 tend to have more often an improved opinion of the retailer (76%

versus 68%) and are more often prepared to pay more (43% versus 30%).

Figure 77 Impact on the retailer’s brand image

n= 620

Finally, respondents were asked to give their opinion on how a CV should look like. With regards

to the message, an overwhelming majority (95%) would rather have the CV conveying a

positive message (e.g. “Protect the environment for our children”) than a negative message

(e.g. “Our children will suffer if we ignore the environment”). There is no clear preference

between labels with letters and labels with a three-point scale. Finally, half of the respondents

think that having the possibility to access more information, e.g. through an app or

website is useful, and one third indicates that it would make them buy the product.

73%

64%

51%

59%

54%

51%

55%

18%

78%

63%

75%

64%

58%

49%

47%

19%

Positive

Approachable

Serious

Clear

Light

Convincing

Attractive

Difficult / heavy

Labels Logo A Logo B

6%

7%

15%

8%

6%

16%

18%

15%

28%

42%

39%

25%

26%

33%

17%

Fits with image I have about the retailer

Improves my general opinion of the retailer

Prepared to pay more

Totally disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Totally Agree


153

6.2 Smartphones and apps: a scoping review

6.2.1 Mobile use and access in Europe

ICTs have become widely available to the general public, both in terms of accessibility as well

as costs. Over the last ten years internet access grew steadily across Europe. According to Eurostat20, since 2007 the majority of EU-28 households (55%) has had internet access, and

this proportion continued to increase over the years. In 2016, the share of EU-28 households

with internet access rose to 85%, 30 percentage points higher than in 2007.

The last few years have also seen a shift in how individuals access internet. According to Eurostat21, in 2012, only 36% of Europeans have used a portable computer or a handheld device

to access the internet away from home or work. By 2016 they were 59%. Of the different devises

used by individuals, mobile phones or smart phones were the most used devices to browse the

internet in 2016, with over three-quarters (79%) of internet users. They were followed by

laptops or netbooks (64%), desktop computers (54%) and tablet computers (44%)22. The EU-

28 average does not capture the digital divide found among the different Member States. As

reported in Figure 78, the highest proportion (82%) of individuals that have accessed internet

remotely was recorded in Denmark, while the United Kingdom, Sweden, Luxembourg, the

Netherlands and Finland also reported levels above 75% in 2016.

Figure 78: Individuals who used a portable computer or a handheld device to access

the internet away from home or work, 2012 and 2016

Source: Eurostat

The lowest rates of remote internet access among the EU Member States were observed in Italy

(29%) and Poland (32%), the only two countries with 2016 levels below 40%. However, if there

is still a strong digital divide in terms of remote access to internet across Member States, it is

important to notice that the gap between the top performing and the lowest performing country

has shrunk from 63 percentage points in 2012 to 53 percentage points in 2016.

20 Household – level of internet access [isoc_ci_in_h]. Available at

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=isoc_ci_in_h&lang=en (retrieved 8 February 2018).

21 Individuals – mobile internet access [isoc_ci_im_i]. Available at http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=isoc_ci_im_i&lang=en (retrieved 8 February 2018). 22 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/digital-economy-and-society/data/database

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

EU-2

8

DK

UK SE LU NL FI ES BE IE DE

AT

MT EE CY

FR HU SK SI HR PT

CZ

LV EL BG LT RO PL IT

2016 2012

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=isoc_ci_in_h&lang=en

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=isoc_ci_im_i&lang=en

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/digital-economy-and-society/data/database


154

6.2.2 Mobile in-store shopping

Despite the availability and usage of smart phones research, two different systematic reviews in

the field of mobile shopping (m-shopping) show that research is still in its infancy with findings

being often geographically and methodologically constrained 23,24. The current research available

has identified four main areas:

m-shopping as an online distribution channel addressing the determinants of technology

acceptance and consumer profiling

Marketing viewpoint

Technology perspective tackling mobile IT infrastructure. Mobile user interface and

service and technology convergence.

Advanced technology for in-store shopping covering shopping assistant systems:

o Decision support systems (DSS), for instance, utilize the users’ request for specific

product attributes, which can also include the search for background information,

in order to support their decision-making process.

o Mobile recommender systems (MRS) aims to provide consumers with meaningful

recommendations that might be of interest.

o Navigation systems help users to reach any desired destination faster and can be

located either inside or outside of a brick-and-mortar shop.

o Mobile tracking systems are used to record consumers’ shopping movements and

time, which gives retailers new insights into consumer behavior.

The focus of this scoping review is advanced technology for in-store shopping. The main

applications of the different shopping assistant systems identified above (DSS, MRS,…) could

influence customers shopping experience in a brick-and-mortar shop environment25 by:

designing a customized, real-time interaction channel between retailers and consumers;

delivering non-intrusive mobile marketing that caters to their interests, preferences and

priorities;

assisting customers in making smart purchasing decisions; and

helping in many other typical shopping situations such as navigation and payment.

All these systems and potential influences suggest the emergence of “smart” retail settings

including the use of augmented reality to generate greater customer and business value through

the use of smartphones26. Smart retail settings scenarios envisage the usage of mobile

applications (apps) as self-service technology (SST) allowing customers ownership of various

aspects of provider–customer relationships such as information seeking, price scanning and

actual purchases27. Within this context apps’ design becomes a hub for several elements from

product view presentation methods to product promotion, informative content and consumer

interactions. Since consumers could use their mobile devices for a variety of different shopping-

related activities, the mobile channel can be considered the new service frontier of retailers.

23 Michael Groß , (2015),"Mobile shopping: a classification framework and literature review", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43 Iss 3 pp. 221 – 241 24 Hannah R. Marriott, Michael D. Williams, Yogesh K. Dwivedi, (2017) "What do we know about consumer m-shopping behaviour?", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 45 Issue: 6, pp.568-586, 25 Yang, K. (2010), “Determinants of US consumer mobile shopping services adoption: implications for designing mobile shopping services”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 262-270. 26 Dacko, S. G. (2017). Enabling smart retail settings via mobile augmented reality shopping apps. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 124, 243-256. 27 Christopher L. Newman, Kathleen Wachter, Allyn White, (2018) "Bricks or clicks? Understanding consumer usage of retail mobile apps", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 Issue: 2, pp.211-222,


155

Figure 79 Product and services m-marketing design

Source: Magrath and MacCormicj (2013)28

Nevertheless, when considering the design of m-shopping services, retailers are currently

struggling to overcome obstacles regarding the consumers’ risk perception and restrictions of

mobile devices in terms of limited capabilities and usability issues. The impact and the role of

mobile technologies, such as smartphones and other mobile devices, is a subject still little

explored29. Enhancing value for customers across physical and digital touchpoints in a synergistic

fashion is becoming an increasingly complex task for retailers and many apps are simply not

meeting consumers’ needs27.

An empirical research29 on the impact of mobile device use on shopper behavior in store points

out “in a retail environment, mobile devices and new applications for smartphones allow

shoppers to scan product barcodes, compare prices across retailers or obtain digital coupons to

be redeemed in store. The usage of technologies in pre-shopping phase could help shoppers to

make better decision and being less influenced by the environment while expending less effort

inside the store. Therefore, digital tools may have positive effects on both the quality and the

efficiency of purchase decisions inside the store”.

However, despite shoppers' prolific use of mobile and marketers' shift of resources toward mobile

marketing, not much is known about the integration of mobile into the shopper funnel and how

to influence a shopper along and beyond the path-to-purchase: from a shopping trigger, to

purchase, consumption, repurchase, and recommendation stages.

The influence of mobile on shopping extends well beyond in-store use of mobile devices. It

affects every stage in the shopping cycle of not just the shopper but also his/her social

circle30.Therefore, a new research agenda is rapidly evolving in the intersection of mobile

marketing and shopper marketing. The following figure sketches the mobile shopper journey

and the emerging research questions covering the different entities and areas of interest. This

journey involves not just the shoppers (their motivations and goals; how they search and

discover; how they evaluate the options and choices and how post purchase process is

addressed) but also the employees and organisations.

28 Victoria Magrath, Helen McCormick, (2013) "Marketing design elements of mobile fashion retail apps", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Issue: 1, pp.115-134, 29 Bellini, S., & Aiolfi, S. (2017). The impact of mobile device use on shopper behaviour in store: An empirical research on grocery retailing. International Business Research, 10(4), 58. 30 Venkatesh Shankar, Mirella Kleijnen, Suresh Ramanathan, Ross Rizley, Steve Holland, Shawn Morrissey (2016). Mobile Shopper Marketing: Key Issues, Current Insights, and Future Research Avenues, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 34 pp 37-48.


156

Figure 80: Mobile shopper journey and research questions


Each area sketched in the figure above opens unexplored questions that should be addressed

when considering the design, diffusion, adoption and assessment of smartphones in-store

shopping. The following table lists some of these questions.

Table 36 Research areas and unexplored questions

Entity Area of interest Research questions

Shopper Motivation/shopping goals

RQ-S1 How do we design mobile apps that tap into goods that are dynamic in relation to the shopping cycle and context?

Search and discovery RQ-S2 How do we better measure and enhance mobile shopper engagement?

RQ-S3 How can marketers optimize their mobile app design to best influence shoppers on their path to purchase?

Evaluation, consideration, and choice

RQ-S4 How should apps be designed to deliver rich experiences across a wide range of devices?

RQ-S5 How can marketers enhance mobile co–creation?

RQ-S6 How can mobile enable shoppers to serendipitously discover a potential purchase?

RQ-S7 How can marketers design a dream concierge/intelligent avatar–knowledge-based system/expert system–to assist shopping?

RQ-S8 In designing intelligent recommendation systems, how can marketers walk the fine line between creating personalized solutions but not being perceived as creepy?

RQ-S9 How can mobile create more relevant/valuable relationships with the individual shopper?

RQ-S10 How can mobile be used to create context–related and timely value to shoppers?

RQ-S11 How can the instantaneity of mobile be exploited to create different forms of instant gratification for the engaged shopper?


157

Post–purchase RQ-S12 How can marketers create a positive network effect among shoppers in a social network after purchase of one category through links across mobile apps?

Employee Employee roles RQ-E1 How does mobile change the shopping journey (pre, during, and post) from an employee perspective?

RQ-E2 What are the factors that create resistance toward mobile technologies from the employee perspective, and how can firms develop coping strategies to overcome this resistance?

RQ-E3 How can employees utilize the mobile device within the shopping journey to created new value propositions?

Employee metrics and incentives

RQ-E4 How can employees be incentivized to become mobile shopper marketing ambassadors?

RQ-E5 How can employees be utilized as co–creators of mobile shopping experiences?

RQ-E6 How should employee–mindset metrics be conceptualized, defined, and measured in the context of the mobile shopping journey?

RQ-E7 How should employee performance be measured throughout the mobile shopping journey?

Organisation Resource allocation and spending issues

RQ-O1 How can firms effectively develop and maintain their social capital in the context of mobile shopper marketing?

RQ-O2 How should mobile execution capability be conceptualized, defined, and measured to enhance the mobile shopping experience?

RQ-O3 How can firms effectively develop and maintain partnering networks relevant to delivering a superior mobile shopper experience?

RQ-O4 What are the right conversion metrics relating to mobile shopper marketing relative to other marketing activities?

RQ-O5 How can the return on the investment (ROI) or digital yield on mobile shopper marketing initiatives be quantified compared to that for other desktop related digital activities?

RQ-O6 How should firms spend their limited marketing budgets?

RQ-O7 How much money should be allocated to mobile versus other digital marketing activities?

RQ-O8 How should firms determine the proportion of the marketing budget that should be devoted to mobile shopper marketing?

Data–related issues– collection and management

RQ-O9 How can we harness the dynamic (time, location, weather) nature of mobile data?

RQ-O10 How can we leverage the volume, velocity, variety, veracity of mobile data and derive value for the firm?

RQ-O11 How can we value mobile data?

RQ-O12 What is the price of collecting the data that mobile shoppers want to share?

RQ-O13 How can we enhance data security in a mobile networked world where firms share (APIs) with their partner organizations?

Data–related issues– modeling and analysis

RQ-O14 How can we formulate effective decision models with mobile data?

RQ-O15 How can we integrate mobile data with other data, including offline activities and demographic data and develop cogent models?

RQ-O16 How can we analyze mobile data to formulate models that explain shopper behavior?

RQ-O17 How can we develop predictive models that can forecast mobile shopper behavior at both the individual and the aggregate levels?

RQ-O18 How should firms use mobile data to assist real time mobile marketing decisions?


158

Mobile technology

Convergence RQ-T1 As shoppers increasingly search on their mobile devices through Google and as Google becomes more powerful using shopper data, what technologies can retailers deploy to avoid becoming the fulfillment centers of Google and remain competitive?

RQ-T2 How can marketers leverage technology and use data on shoppers' past purchase patterns and voluntarily disclosed

preferences for offering anticipatory solutions?

RQ-T3 How can marketers use mobile–based virtual currencies in a manner similar to M–pesa, Coke's MyCokeRewards, and China's QQ?

RQ-T4 How will new mobile payment technologies (e.g., Apple Pay, Google Wallet) and systems affect shopping?

RQ-T5 What differences in mobile shopping will emerge across North America, Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world given the differences in mobile technologies across these geographies?

RQ-T6 How can emotion–capture and analyze technology be used to better serve shopper needs?

Wearables RQ-T7 How will augmented reality reshape mobile shopping experience?

RQ-T8 Will augmented reality lead to a fundamentally different shopping cycle?

RQ-T9 How can we measure shopper emotions through wearables?

RQ-T10 How can we create compelling shopper experiences based on shopper emotional states?


All these questions raise the challenges that shall be faced to spread the use of mobiles in-store shopping. If we add to these challenges the current state of development and

research in the field of environmental footprint information and communication vehicle the level of uncertainty does not allow us to drawn solid extrapolation. On the contrary, if the level of maturity of these applications is low, it could be hypothesised that

environmental footprint information and the potential communication vehicles are not the most well-know product’s characteristics to facilitate this take off. The current

consumers’ level of awareness about environmental footprint information may not facilitate the engagement with neither mobiles in-store shopping nor with environmental information.

6.2.3 QR codes as an example

During the communication vehicle pilot phase some initiatives were using Quick-response code

technology (QR code) as and additional information included in their CVs. QR code allows linking

a physical product with additional information displayed in websites or apps. At its simplest,

a QR code might be embedded in a performance label printed on the product packaging.

However, as it has been described in the previous section, how these codes will be adopted by

the consumers is still unknown. The following review was conducted to investigate how

consumers react and perceive QR codes, what are the main drivers and barriers to QR codes

usage, and how QR codes can shape consumer behavior.


159

6.2.3.1 Diffusion

QR code technology is widely used in East Asia, especially Japan and China. According to

Shen Wei, deputy director of a Chinese research institute that specializes in QR codes, more than $1.65 trillion of transactions used the codes in 201631, accounting for about a third of all

mobile payments in China. QR codes remain less common in Europe and North America,

despite their appearance in many fields, especially transport tickets and shipping labels.

QR codes became popular in Japan in 200232, when remote internet access was still at its early

stage. Advertisers, publishers and handset-makers teamed up to popularise QR codes as a way

to share information with customers. Japan led the field until 2012, when the use of 2D codes

in China boomed driven by the mobile payment sector. Two Chinese digital-payment platforms,

WeChat Pay and Alibaba’s Alipay, disrupted the mobile payment market by allowing people to

make contactless payments by scanning codes. A customer can either scan a merchant’s QR

code, or the merchant can scan the customer’s account code.

In Europe and North America, popular mobile payment tools are Apple Pay and Android Pay.

They use near-field communication (NFC) technology to make contactless payments. This

technology is usually only found in higher-end Android and Apple phones. The technology needed

to support Apple Pay and Android Pay is too expensive for many shops in poorer countries, while

QR code payment technology just requires sellers to provide buyers with a QR code (printed or

on a screen).

These geographical difference, make QR codes a well-established means to enable payments,

website discovery and more in certain parts of the world (East Asia), while its potential it is not

fully exploited in others (Europe and North America). These geographic gaps may soon

converge. Apple has responded to the codes’ popularity in China by updating the camera app in

iOS 11, the latest version of its mobile operating system launched in 2017. The system now

automatically recognises QR code that encodes web links, map locations, contact cards and other

data. Before the upgrade, users where required to download specific applications to be able to

scan QR codes. Apple’s upgrade means that QR-scanning will reach hundreds of millions of users

worldwide.

Interest in QR codes has grown more rapidly following Apple’s launch. Apps and websites that allow designers to generate codes easily have gained new users33. Nevertheless, Apple step

towards adopting QR codes as the infrastructure for everything from payment to web traffic may

not raise the popularity of QR codes in Europe and North America. Popularity of QR codes in

China was driven by its use for mobile payments, while NFC is already the standard for payments

In Europe and North America and it will not be challenged.

6.2.3.2 Use cases

If QR code-based mobile payments are unlikely to pick up in Europe and North America, QR code

technology use may increase using other means and applications. Here below we try to report a

few examples of recent QR codes applications and trends implemented in Europe and North

America. The examples focus on two main topics:

The use of QR codes to provide additional information to consumers;

Increase in popularity of QR code use in widely used apps, especially among millennials.

In 2015, the European Medicines Agency has issued guidelines to pharmaceutical companies

on how to use QR Codes in the labelling and package leaflet of centrally authorized medicinal products34. Pharmaceutical companies have now the possibility to include QR codes on their

products to provide users with readily available information extracted from the approved

31 CNN (2017), available at: http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/08/technology/china-qr-codes/index.html 32 The economist (2017), available at: https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/11/economist-explains-0 33 ibid. 34 http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline/2015/07/WC500190405.pdf


160

package leaflet, the approved summary of products characteristics (SmPC) and/or the approved

additional risk minimisation measures as outlined in the Risk management plan (i.e. educational

material).

The QR code may also be used to provide any other information or content that is not

included in the product information annexes as such, but that it is useful to the patients/users

and non-promotional. Additional information provided via QR code should be based on the

product information. For the time being, the inclusion of the QR code cannot replace the

inclusion of the statutory information (e.g. printed package leaflet). The QR code could be

considered a way for providing updated information on medicinal products (i.e. product

information updated to the latest variation approved for the medicinal product still not

implemented in the printed version). At the moment, there has been no in-depth evaluation and

analysis of the impacts and interest of this decision on the QR Codes. The Heads of Medicines

Agencies (HMA), the network of the heads of the National Competent Authorities (NCA) whose

organisations are responsible for the regulation of medicinal products for human and veterinary

use in the European Economic Area, stated that once further experience is gained, further analysis will be carried out on the use of QR codes35.

In 2016 the United States (US) passed a federal law requiring all manufacturers to add a QR

Code to their product packaging that will link consumers to detailed GMO disclaimers. A study conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)36, identify potential

technological challenges that may impact whether consumers would have access to the

bioengineering (GMO) disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods.

While the study recognises that enough shoppers own smartphones, it did admit not all people

have the applications or are savvy enough to read a QR code and may not have access to or

choose not to use cellular data.

The GMO debate in the US also started Smartlabel QR Code initiative by Trading Partner Alliance (TPA), a grocery manufacturers association37. The voluntary initiative consists in providing

consumers with additional information on food, beverage, household and personal care products

by using QR code technology.

Another potential driver that might increase the popularity of QR code technology in Europe is

its introduction in widely used applications. WhatsApp, the most popular instant messaging

application in Europe, introduced QR Codes scanning capabilities in its application. Apart from common uses, the feature allows users to safely login on the desktop application38. Snapchat, a

popular instant image sharing app, introduced Snapcodes in 2015 and an inbuilt QR Code

scanning feature in 2016. Snapcodes are customized 2D code that allow users to add friends on

Snapchat. Similarly, in 2017 Facebook introduced a Messenger Code a customised 2D code that

allow users to add friends on Messenger.

6.2.3.3 Drivers and barriers

As seen in the previous section, geographical differences in the use of the QR code already help

us explain some of the key drivers and barriers to QR code use. It may also explain why a mature

technology such as QR code may do a comeback after it failed to pick up as a marketing tool in

Europe and North America in 2010.

The need to download an app to scan QR Codes is one of the main factors in explaining the

difference between East Asia and Europe. Contrary to what is happening recently, also with the

introduction of iOS 11 on the market, almost no smartphone came already equipped with the

possibility to scan QR codes in the past. WeChat and Alipay were the two applications that lead

to the massive adoption of QR codes in China.

35 http://www.hma.eu/fileadmin/dateien/Human_Medicines/CMD_h_/procedural_guidance/01_General_Info/CMDh_313_2014_clean.pdf 36 https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/USDADeloitteStudyofElectronicorDigitalDisclosure20170801.pdf 37 http://www.smartlabel.org/ 38 https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/web/28080003/


161

Smartphone penetration was much lower in 2010. A survey conducted in 2016 by Eurostat

on ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) usage in households and by individuals

highlighted the relevance of mobile internet access39. More than 80% of persons aged 16 to 74

in the European Union (EU) used the internet in 2016, in many cases via several different

devices. Mobile phones or smart phones were the device most used to surf the internet, by over

three-quarters (79%) of internet users. The importance of smartphone penetration as a driver of QR code usage is also highlighted by the USDA study40.

Mobile speed connection was slower in 2010 as 4G technologies were not widely available.

According to the 2017 report from the GSA Association (GSMA)41, Europe is the most highly

penetrated mobile region in the world. At the end of 2016, there were 456 million unique mobile

subscribers in Europe, equivalent to 84% of the population. This high penetration rate means

that there is little room for subscriber growth over the coming years. However, this is being

offset by the rapid migration to 4G networks. 4G accounted for a third of mobile connections in

Europe at the end of 2016 and is forecast to account for more than 60% of the total by 2020 as

more Europeans take up 4G devices amid growing demand for data and as 4G network coverage

increases.

The increase in mobile access to internet caused as a reaction an increase in availability of

mobile optimised websites. This trend self-reinforces the shift from desktop to mobile

browsing, easing the access of online information from mobile devices and therefore enabling a

better use of QR codes.

In terms of usage frequency, a study on college students’ awareness and use of QR codes was

carried out by Ozkaya et al. (2015). The findings indicate that the purpose of usage is

significantly related to QR code usage rate. Practical users utilise QR codes more than

experiential users and there is a positive relationship between electronic device

ownership and QR code usage. Interestingly, being an early adopter has a negative

relationship with QR code usage. Additionally, perceived usefulness of the QR code and up-to-

date electronic device knowledge do not have significant relationships with QR code usage rate.

The result of the study somewhat supports the results of the analysis conducted so far.

Smartphone penetration, mobile speed connection, easiness to scan QR codes and mobile-

optimised websites help to improve QR code technology in terms of usefulness, easiness to use,

information quality and system quality. Those good features clearly have an impact on

consumers attitude towards QR code and their intention and willingness to use such technology.

Behavioural studies show that consumer intentions and behaviours do not always match as other

factors may affect a consumer final action. The above-mentioned factors all aim at addressing

what ease QR code usage, nevertheless they do not analyse what motivates consumers to

turn to this technology to access and gather information. Smartphone-based access to

information is a promising vehicle to provide additional information to consumers, especially in

retail and point-of-purchase environments, yet what motivates consumers to turn to mobile

information is still under research. Since QR code technology relies on pull-based approaches

rather than push-style information, it becomes crucial to understand what drives consumer in

proactively use such a technology. In the field of advertising, push advertising describes

messages that are initiated by the advertiser, whereas pull advertising refers to communication

of promotional material initiated by the consumer (Barnes, 2002; Bamba and Barnes, 2007,

Unni and Harmon, 2007). By analysing the literature review on the topic, there are various

existing theories being applied for the analysis of QR Codes.

However, two theories are more frequently used. Those are the Uses & Gratifications Theory

(U&G) and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM, Davis, 1989). A research by Lucy Atkinson

(2013), investigates the role of institutional trust, involvement and market mavenism (the

extent to which a person enjoys being a source of market-related information for others) in QR

code usage to access information before purchasing sustainable products. The study uses a U&G

analysis. Sustainability claims about products being organic or fair trade are claims that fall

39 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7771139/9-20122016-BP-EN.pdf 40 https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/USDADeloitteStudyofElectronicorDigitalDisclosure20170801.pdf 41 https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/research/?file=89a59299ac2f37508b252124726a1139&download


162

under the category of credence attributes, meaning attributes buyers cannot confidently

evaluate, even after one or more purchases (after personal experience). Thus, in lack of

alternatives, buyers tend to rely on the reputation of the brand name, testimonials from someone

they know or respect, service quality, and price (Darby and Karni, 1973; Nelson, 1974). When available, consumers rely on eco-labels (such as the EU organic product label42) to affirm the

credibility of the credence claim (Klintman, 2006; Kolandai-Matchett, 2009). However, research

shows that while consumers are continuously moving towards shopping with a morally guided

conscience they have also become more distrustful towards labels that make ethical claims such

as organic health labels and others (Kalafatis and Pollard, 1999; D'Souza et al., 2007; Mostafa,

2007; Shrum, McCarty & Lowrey,1995). QR codes can increase consumer trust by providing

additional detailed, context-specific information.

Atkinson’s study finds that government trust, buycotting (the act of deliberately buying certain

products for political, ethical, or environmental reasons) and market mavenism are positively

related to consumers’ willingness to use mobile phone-based QR code information. At the same

time, corporate trust is negatively related to QR code usage. The results suggest that there is a

need to improve institutional trust in QR code usage. According to the author, the relation

between institutional trust and QR code usage is twofold: while institutional trust enables QR

code usage, the implementation of QR Codes containing more in-depth information concerning

the precise meaning of labels and other characteristics of the products will in return also increase

the institutional trust. Furthermore, QR code content should be carefully crafted to provide

meaningful, usable information for involved consumers. Finally, consumer market mavens’

tendency to share information should be harnessed by providing QR code content that is easily

passed on to other consumers.

Atkinson’s findings are supported also by other studies in the field of QR code usage. A study by

Dong-Hee Shin et al. (2012) examines why people adopt certain new technologies, in this case

QR code, while refusing or ignoring others. The authors develop a TAM model to predict users’

intentions to continue using QR codes by integrating the model with interactivity and quality

motivations as primary determining factors. According to the study, not only any new

technology needs to be perceived as being useful in order to be accepted and assimilated

into people’s daily routines, but it also needs to be easy to use. Consumers tend to lack the

technological sophistication to understand the complex nature of QR codes, nevertheless the

scanning process should be easy. As already described above, some developments such as the

automatic inclusion of QR code scanning capabilities in most new mobile operating system has

improved the easiness of scanning QR codes. The model from Dong-Hee Shin et al. therefore

includes the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease of use.

Other factors considered in the model are information quality, system quality and interactivity.

Information quality captures the user perceived value of the output produced by a system

and can be measured by information accuracy, relevance, timeliness and completeness (Lee et

al. 2002; Parasuraman et al. 1988). System quality is a measure of the functionality of a

system, including usability, availability, reliability and response time (DeLone & McLean, 1992;

Parasuraman et al., 1988). System quality differentiate itself from perceived ease of use as it

does not relate to the interaction between the user and the system, but it only considers intrinsic

qualities of the system. Interactivity, intended as responsive interaction, is an important

feature in QR codes. The authors define interactivity as responsiveness, content sharing and

content control. By scanning a QR code, users expect an immediate response. As already seen,

QR code are increasingly used on social media and instant messaging platforms (i.e. Facebook,

Snapchat and WhatsApp) to enhance social interaction. The model also controls for intrinsic

motivation, that the authors define as subjective norm.

Dong-Hee Shin et al. finds that all the above-mentioned factors are correlated to QR code

adoption. Interactivity in particular stands out as a major driver of QR code user behaviour.

Similar results using a TAM model have also been found in Gao et. al. (2013). Furthermore, the

results imply that, while users might perceive the good features of QR codes (usefulness,

easiness to use, information quality and system quality), they may not intend to use those codes

42 https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/downloads/logo_en


163

unless something is confirmed. They may want to personally ensure that a QR code is secure

and dependable. Even if not directly captured by Dong-Hee Shin et al. model, as in Atkinson’s

conclusions trust seems to play an important role to transform the intention to use QR code

technology into a behaviour. According to Mallat, Rossi, Tuunainen, & Öörni (2008), institutional

trust is considered a necessity for mobile communication in general due to the spatial and

temporal distance between the communicating organization and the consumer.

The figure below sums up the consumer behavioural drivers and barriers extracted from the

literature analysed.

Figure 81 Consumer behavioral drivers and barriers

6.3 Lessons learned

Brick and Mortar test

While walking in the store, half of the customers observed slowed down. Around 40%

took a look at the product displaying the environmental CV. One in four took the

product in their hands; among them, most ended up buying it.

Once exited the shop, three in ten customers spontaneously recall the CVs. When

aided by the interviewer, the number rises to four in ten. Many noticed the affiche/poster.

Among the labels, the pancarte (in the middle of the product shelf) and the sticker

(embedded in the product packaging) were noted more than the wobbler (at the

beginning and the end of the product shelf).

Customers tend to be more aware of the shelf CVs (pancarte and the wobbler) if they

included Logo #2 (blue-and-white icon of planet Earth) than Logo #1 (a smiley face


164

on top of a coloured planet-Earth icon). Customers tend to be more aware of the product

CV (the label) if it included Logo #2.

CVs do not appear to be the main driver to buy products. Among those respondents

who noticed one label and bought the product, one in four did so because it was an “eco-

friendly product”, but only 6% were influenced by the CV.

When asked which type of CV would they hypothetically use to communicate

environmental performance, over half choose the pancarte. The sticker was preferred

by 27% of respondents, while the wobbler was preferred by 18% of respondents. Reasons

to justify their choice – regardless of the format – tend to include clarity, visibility, and

simplicity.

Overall, logo #1 is preferred to logo #2. Among all respondents, 54% prefer Logo #1.

It is especially popular among women and younger people. Logo #1 is especially liked

because of its cheerful and attractive character. Some people also indicate it as more

visible. On the other hand, those who prefer Logo #2 does so in relation to its seriousness.

Taking a stance towards environmental footprint communication positively impacts

the retailer’s brand image, according three in four respondents. Most indicated it fit

with the image they already have about the retailer. Four in ten are prepared to pay more

for eco-friendly products.

Nearly everyone would rather have the CV conveying a positive message (e.g.

“Protect the environment for our children”) than a negative message (e.g. “Our children

will suffer if we ignore the environment”). Half think that having the possibility to access

more information, e.g. through an app or website is useful, and one third indicates that

it would make them buy the product.

Mobiles and QR Codes

Despite the widespread use of mobiles, the current state of the art of mobile in-store

shopping does not seem to support the use of these applications/services among the

triggers of the environmental footprint information and its potential communication

vehicles. There are still many unsolved questions to be addressed by more mature

products/services before applying lessons learned to environmental issues.

The pick-up of QR code technology in specific parts of the world (Asia) has pushed mobile

producers and mobile system operator providers to include QR code scanning capabilities

into the default settings of new smartphones.

All those factors contribute positively to some of the drivers (usefulness, ease of use

and system quality) behind consumer behaviour decision to use QR code technology to

retrieve additional information about products.

Studies have shown how other crucial factors are quality of information provided, as

well as the interactivity and institutional trust. Ultimately, intrinsic motivation is also a

strong driver, that is nevertheless linked mainly to how digital native and used to QR

code technology consumers are.

QR code content should be carefully crafted to provide meaningful, usable information

for involved consumers, with particular attention to the quality of the information

provided.

The information retrieved through QR code technology should be easily sharable

(interactivity) through the different social media channels to incentivise consumer

willingness to use the technology.

The institution providing the information should build up consumer trust by

guaranteeing high level of privacy and reliability of the overall system. If for example

Environmental Footprint information would be provided by producers, they might be

tempted to collect cookies information about consumers accessing the information. This

solution could constitute a barrier to certain consumers due to privacy concerns or lack

of trust towards the producer.


165

QR code technology represent a cheap and smart way to provide consumers with

additional information about products. So far QR codes are the best technology available

in terms of 2D encoding techniques, even if multicolour codes might substitute this

technology in the future.

Concerns remain whether or not the technology will fully pick up in Europe even if

recent trends have made the technology more accessible. Moreover, as it is the case of

mobile in-store shopping more research is needed to transfer the lessons learned to



166

7 Conclusions

The Commission work on the development of the Product/Organisation Environmental Footprint

(PEF/OEF) method started in 2010 in reaction to requests from business complaining about

difficulties in differentiating themselves based on environmental performance due to the

proliferation of environmental labels/certification schemes.

Moreover, in 2010 the Council adopted the conclusions asking the Commission to develop a

harmonised method for the calculation of the life cycle environmental performance of products.

In 2013 the European Commission adopted the Communication "Building the Single Market for

Green Products" (COM/2013/0196 final). The Commission Recommendation 179/2013 (OJ L

124, 4.5.2013, p. 1–210) was also adopted establishing and recommending the use of the PEF

and OEF methods to calculate the environmental performance of products (PEF) and

organisations (OEF). The Recommendation clarified that these methods are not intended to

directly support comparisons or comparative assertions, i.e. claims of overall superiority or

equivalence of the environmental performance of one product compared to another, and that

such comparisons require the development of additional PEF category rules or OEF sector rules

that complement the general guidance, in order to further increase methodological

harmonisation, specificity, relevance and reproducibility for a given product-type. Such category

rules and sector rules were developed during the pilot phase. Based on these rules, different

ways of communicating the Environmental Footprint (EF) profile of products and organisations

were tested.

The pilot phase has provided some valuable insights on the current status of the effectiveness

and use and communication vehicles. A number of conclusions can be drawn that prove of

particular relevance with view on providing support to different aspects of communication

vehicles, stakeholders’ perceptions and behaviours, and their evaluation

Overall, the development, testing and feedback of the different communication vehicles has been

an iterative process based on exhaustive and continuous support and feedback provided to and

gathered from the pilots, and complemented by evidence gathered through a multi-stakeholder

process, engaging groups that were underrepresented during the pilot phase – such as SMEs –

as well as additional groups who play a particularly crucial role due to the specificities of the

project, such as retailers. Through the involvement of the general public within the framework

of the complementary tests of both quantitative and qualitative nature, the study could

successfully fill evidence gaps left from the tests conducted within the pilots.

Communicating EF to consumers

Citizens involved in the communication tests were significantly interested in PEF information and

in the environmental impact of products in general. Whilst the main criteria driving purchase

decisions are price, quality, brand and availability (especially for products bought on a regular

basis), consumers involved showed high interest in the environmental impact of products in

general, and in PEF information specifically.

Situations where environmental performance becomes a key driver of purchasing decisions

include

with prices being equal, a high environmental score on a label has a very large positive

and significant effect on consumer choice;

products that are new or big, expensive, durable items (e.g. cars);

products that impact consumers' own or their children's health.

Results from the general public surveyed confirmed that citizens are especially concerned about

impacts on health. At the same time, the general public considers impacts on the environment

and natural resources as increasingly pressing problems. They also are aware of their individual

responsibility in reducing the impact on the environment, a responsibility that they know to

share with companies and governments.


167

We can identify a series of lessons learnt on conditions for the effectiveness of communicating

environmental footprint information to consumers.

Translate complex results into simple information: clarity, readability and transparency are

essential. Consumers find many of the Environmental Footprint impact categories difficult to

grasp. Whilst consumers have a good understanding of impacts such as climate change, CO2

emissions, energy and water consumption, the use of technical/scientific terms such as

acidification, terrestrial eutrophication and ecotoxicity is not understood. In particular,

consumers often don't grasp the link of impact categories to the specific product and the meaning

of Life Cycle Assessment results.

In line with these difficulties, consumers prefer the use of graphics, bars and colour scales to

numbers, scientific terms. Consumers gave high support to the traffic light (better, average and

worse represented with colours) and to the energy label format (A-E performance scale).

Avoid information overload. Consumers indicated that showing 3 midpoints is sufficient.

Although only a small portion of consumers consults detailed information, half of those surveyed

in the brick and mortar test prefer to have these available, e.g. through an app or website,

accessible through a QR code.

Certification proves an important element to increase trustworthiness of information. Scepticism

and mistrust is one of the main barriers towards being receptive to environmental footprint

information. The experimental evidence gathered when testing of the relative effectiveness of

communication vehicles on several dimensions demonstrates that certification is seen as a

trustworthy label feature across all products and sources. Certification must be third party or

come from a consumer association.

Framing is important. One statistically significant test identified a large and significant effect of

negative frames – messages emphasising negative environmental consequences for people – on

consumer choice. The highest impact was registered when including messages on consequences

for children. However, this result was not supported by the brick and mortar test, where nearly

everyone expressed their preference for CVs conveying a positive message (e.g. “Protect the

environment for our children”) over a negative message (e.g. “Our children will suffer if we

ignore the environment”).

Preferences considering the EU Ecolabel. Options tested were a PEF label, the EU Ecolabel and a

combination between PEF and the EU Ecolabel. The PEF label was the most preferred between

the three options, with highest preference given to an A-E type label. About one third of the

respondents recalled having seen the EU Ecolabel prior to the study, which might have influenced

results.

Consumers are ready to pay a bit more for environmentally friendly products. A +15% price

increase was acceptable for consumers for an average product on the A-E scale. This is supported

by the results from the brick and mortar test where four in ten respondents indicated to be

willing to pay more for environmental-friendly products. Furthermore, retailers confirmed that

consumers are willing to pay some extra costs for environmentally-friendly for certain products,

but the cost difference should not be significant. A further experiment focussing on willingness

to pay, however, found that price increase had a negative, significant effect on purchasing

intentions.

Communicating to businesses and stakeholders

Businesses acknowledge the increasing importance of environmental sustainability for

consumers and see important benefits of PEFs both for business-to-business (B2B) and business-

to-consumer (B2C) activities, among which are brand valuation, opportunity for comparison of

products in terms of their environmental products, higher quality of products, and last but not

least, common rules for both manufacturers and industries.

More than half of environmentally active SMEs know and use Life Cycle Assessment indicators.

The online SMEs’ online survey shows that a significant number of mid-sized SMEs and those

operating in agriculture and industry are committed to environmental issues. Environmental

concern is likewise higher among medium-sized enterprises and in the primary and secondary


168

sectors. Similarly, the demand for environmental information is lower in the service sector and

among micro-sized enterprises. About half of the SMEs consulted have an internal environmental

policy in place, often based on LCA indicators and covering topics such as climate change, water

use, land use, but also topics related to human health, such as toxicity and cancer, and the

future availability of resources. About 30% of the SMEs publish information on environmental

issues targeted at clients.

An interesting finding is that when communicating in a B2B setting, SMEs see labels as the most

effective CV, followed by PR campaigns, environmental reports, product passports and

Environmental Product Declarations. As opposed to that, for B2C participants use websites,

leaflets and labels to communicate environmental information. They see websites and POS

product advertisement as the most effective CVs, followed by PR campaigns.

As main drivers for LCA’s, SMEs surveyed indicate that the most important ones cover

organizational awareness, customer satisfaction and improvements of environmental practices.

Conversely, data collection difficulties, and the costs of personnel, such as involvement of

internal human resources or experts constitute main barriers. A common method and the

simplification potential of the EF methods will help to overcome these barriers but taking into

account the cost of access to both the methods and/or the experts to conduct the assessment.

Relevance to decision-making. When communicating in-house or to external partners, clear

conclusions and action points are needed.

Clarity and simplicity is important. Business partners expect more detailed information and are

more likely to have the expertise to understand it. However, often non-experts (e.g. purchasers)

are involved, therefore complex technical messages need to be clearly explained or simplified.

Graphical information is appreciated.

Customers often expect to compare the product with its competitors or to a benchmark.

Verification as a guarantee of fair competition. A credible verification scheme and audit regime

is needed to guarantee the trustworthiness of information and fair competition.

Implications for EU policy development

Overall, the study has provided extensive insights into the issue of different communication

vehicles for environmental footprint information, providing an evaluation, stakeholders

perception and highlighting different design aspects of communication vehicles to increase their

effectiveness, while indicating areas for improvement to raise consumer awareness.

The exploratory nature of this study does not allow for comprehensive, externally valid

conclusions. In an ideal world citizens and business would be presented with reliable and

harmonised product environmental performance labels from trusted sources; have the

competence to understand the communication vehicles and have the incentives and available

alternatives to convert good intentions to changes in behaviour. However, the world is far from

ideal, there is a plethora of logos, label designs and information content.

Against this background, the development of an information system for products and

organisations through the implementation of the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and

Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) methods is undeniable as it could provide a common

knowledge to be used by existing policy tools to substantially increase consistency of approaches

and coherence of objectives. This may enable innovative companies to design more sustainable

products, reduce costs and improve their environmental performance in those areas where it

delivers the largest environmental advantages. Furthermore, based on this information, citizens

could make more informed choices without flooding them with excessive and non-

comprehensible information and Member States could introduce incentives/disincentives linked

to the environmental performance of a product along its supply chain.

PEF/OEF concept is a scientific approach to LCA characterised by specific terminology,

abstraction, quantification and complexity. This is necessarily so, as the environmental impacts

of a product over the life cycle are complex. However, the public (and many in businesses) do

not think in systemic terms. They are ‘narrative thinkers’ who are more persuaded by stories,


169

pictures and graphics than by quantified facts. Most likely, they will switch off from complex

information and from information removed from everyday experience. Therefore, the dilemma

for the roll out of PEF/OEF is how can validity of information be achieved at the same time as

simplicity? Without validity consumers who seek to purchase environmentally sustainable

products may be misled; but if the PEF/OEF information is valid but too complex individuals will

ignore it.

Solving such a dilemma should be seen as a process over time and not the result of a one off

campaign or policy intervention (c.f. two decades for climate change). To achieve an impact on

companies, consumers and Member States there is a need:

To raise awareness about the PEF/OEF method among all the stakeholders emphasising

the impact of the methods in their daily live/business.

To achieve consensus about the communication vehicle, guided by clarity, readability and



To integrate and test the selected communication vehicle with other product/business



170

References

Atkinson, L. (2013), Smart shoppers? Using QR codes and ‘green’ smartphone apps to mobilize

sustainable consumption in the retail environment, International Journal of Consumer Studies,

Volume 37, Issue 4, Pages 387–393

Bamba, F. & Barnes, S.J. (2007) SMS advertising, permission and the consumer: a study.

Business Process Management Journal, 13, 815–829.

Barnes, S.J. (2002) Wireless digital advertising: nature and implications. International Journal

of Advertising, 21, 399–420.

Chandran, A.(2014), Review on Color QR Codes: Decoding Challenges and Security Issues,

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), Vol. 3, Issue 4

D'souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P. & Peretiatko, R. (2007) Green decisions: demographics and

consumer understanding of environmental labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies,

31, 371–376.

Darby, M.R. & Karni, E. (1973) Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of

Law and Economics, 16, 67–88.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of

information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success. Information Systems

Research, 3(1), 60–95.

EMA (2017), Quick Response (QR) codes in the labelling and package leaflet of centrally

authorised medicinal products, available at:

http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideli

ne/2015/07/WC500190405.pdf

Eurostat (2017), Internet access and use statistics - households and individuals, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/digital-economy-and-society/overview

Gao, T., Rohm, A., Sultan, F. & Pagani, M. (2013). Consumers un-tethered: A three-market

empirical study of consumers' mobile marketing acceptance. Journal of Business Research,

66(12), pp.2536-pp.2544.

Grillo, A., Lentini, A., Querini, M. and Italiano, G. (2008), High Capacity Colored Two Dimensional

Codes, Proceedings of the International Multiconference on Computer Science and Information

Technology pp. 709–716

GSMA (2017), The Mobile Economy, Europe 2017, available at:

https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/research/?file=89a59299ac2f37508b252124726a1139&do

wnload

Kalafatis, S.P. & Pollard, M. (1999) Green marketing and Ajzen's theory of planned behaviour:

a cross-market examination. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, 441–460.

Klintman, M. (2006) Ambiguous framings of political consumerism: means or end, product or

process orientation? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 427–438.

Kolandai-Matchett, K. (2009) Mediated communication of ‘sustainable consumption’ in the

alternative media: a case study exploring a message framing strategy. International Journal of

Consumer Studies, 33, 113–125.

Lee, Y., Strong, D. M., Khan, B. K., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). AIMQ: A methodology for Information

quality assessment. Information & Management, 40(2), 33–146.


171

Mallat, N., Rossi, M., Tuunainen, V.K. & Öörni, A. (2008). An empirical investigation of mobile

ticketing service adoption in public transportation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 12(1),

57-65

Mostafa, M.M. (2007) A hierarchical analysis of the green consciousness of the Egyptian

consumer. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 445–473.

Nelson, P. (1974) Advertising as information. Journal of Political Economy, 82, 729–754.

Ozkaya et al. (2015), Factors affecting consumer usage of QR codes, Journal of Direct, Data and

Digital Marketing Practice, 16-03, 209-224.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for

measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.

Seema Ahlawat, Dr. Chhavi Rana, Rashmi Sindhu (2017), A Review on QR Codes: Colored and

Image Embedded, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science

Shin, D., Jung, J. & Chang, B. (2012). The psychology behind QR codes: User experience

perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1417-1426

Shin, D.H., Jung, J. and Chang, B. H. (2012), The psychology behind QR codes: User experience

perspective, Computers in Human Behaviour 28, 1417–1426

Shrum, L. J., McCarty, J.A. & Lowrey, T.M. (1995) Buyer Characteristics of the Green Consumer

and Their Implications for Advertising Strategy. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 71-82

Singh, A. and Singh, P. (2016), A REVIEW: QRCODES AND ITS IMAGE PRE-PROCESSING

METHOD, International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research (IJSETR),

Volume 5, Issue 6

Unni, R. & Harmon, R. (2007) Perceived effectiveness of push vs. pull mobile location-based

advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7, 48–71.

USDA (2017), Study of Electronic or Digital Link Disclosure A Third-Party Evaluation of

Challenges Impacting Access to Bioengineered Food Disclosure.


172

Annex I. The final version of Logbook

Purpose of the Logbook

The main purpose of the Logbook is to monitor, understand and collect data with regard to:

1. the Communication Vehicles (CVs) that you will be testing

2. the way you will test the CVs

3. the impacts the CVs have/had on your target groups (i.e. their purchasing and/or

using/disposal behaviour) and on your organization (i.e. opinions, discussions and actions

following your communication of PEF/OEF)

The European Commission (EC) requests the Technical Secretariats (TS) to collect data for all

the organisations that test CV’s within their pilot. To prevent inconvenient administrative burden

we aim to collect information as lean and tailor-made as possible. Therefore, we have created a

logbook that can be filled out per company. We aim to send you your Logbook as prefilled as

possible at moments that match your timing as much as possible.

Your answers are of importance to us (the Contractor), because based on what you have chosen

to test, we will decide which complementary tests we will carry out, such as field tests (brick-

and-mortar), control group tests, and additional testing of the representation of information,

etc. Moreover, based on the data collected after the CV testing, we will give policy

recommendations to the EC.

Logbook format

The Logbook consists of two parts. Part 1 should be filled out prior to the CV testing. Part 2

should be filled out after the CV testing. Therefore, we will gather the information from you

twice. We keep the process as easy and logic as possible to prevent any possible program or

process hick-ups. Therefore, we use Microsoft Word for the Logbook so that everybody can work

with it. It can also be easily sent via email or uploaded into the Wiki.

Please note that when answers are not clear or raise further important questions, we will contact

you directly to get the needed information from you directly. The new pieces of information will

be added to the Logbook and sent to you and the TS coordinator for your and their information

and your check.

The logbook should stay up to date. Whenever you change something after the Logbook Part 1

is filled out (e.g. the CVs and/or its features that you are testing, the testing methods, the target

groups that you address, etc.) we like you to inform us. This is needed because we are working

on complementary tests that should match with the tests that are being done by the pilots.

Therefore, we need the overview of what is tested (and how).

Steps to fill out Logbook

1. The Consortium will start filling in the logbook as soon as the draft PEFCR/OEFSR is

approved by the Steering Committee.

Please note that we keep track of the approved PEFCRs/OEFSRs but would appreciate if

you could signal any upcoming approvals so we can make sure we keep contacting pilots

at the right moments. Also whenever you signal/hear that pilots are changing the CVs or

methods that they are testing, we would appreciate it that you let us know.

2. We will send the filled out logbook (Part 1) to the company and its TS coordinator with a

guiding email on the process.

Please note that we will also attach Part 2 of the Logbook, as an outlook to what will be

collected after the CVs testing periods.


173

3. The company will fill out the logbook and send the filled out version to the TS coordinator

and to [email protected]. We will ask companies to fill out

questionnaires within a period of 2 weeks. Please note that:

- The TS coordinators are responsible for collecting the data from the companies

that test CVs within their pilot,

- It is up to the TS coordinator if s/he will store the filled-out logbook on its TS Wiki

Work Space.

4. We will call or email the company to ask for clarifications when the filled-out logbook

raises questions.

Please note that when important effects are expected in 2017, after the CV testing period is

finished, we will send you a few more questions in 2017 to get a better insight in these effects.

It would be highly appreciated if we can obtain your inputs.

Further information and contact details

Supportive materials that you can use to fill out the logbook (e.g. about the selection of CV(s),

effectiveness of CVs and set-up of tests) can be found at the wiki:

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/Support+on+the+communication+phase

Please bear in mind that you can always contact us to let us know if you are satisfied with this

way of data collection or if you have suggestions to make it more effective.

You can also contact us for questions, clarification or other issues, via: env_footprint@open-

evidence.com.






174

1. Logbook questions to be filled out before you start the CV testing period

Supportive materials that you can use to fill out this logbook (e.g. about the selection of CV(s),

effectiveness of CVs and set-up of tests) can be found at the wiki: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/Support+on+the+communication+phase

Contact details

Company XXX

Name responsible

person at company

Mr. or Ms. XXXXX

Job title

Email address, telephone number and working days

[email protected], +31611111111 (not on Fridays)



175

Category Question Response options

Keep these options intact. Give your answers in the column to the right.

YOUR ANSWER HERE

Please Select or Give the responses of your choice in this column.

CV descriptions

1. Which CV’s will

you test during the pilot phase period?

PEF • Performance label • Performance label + QR code • Performance improvement label • Barcode • Pictogram, POS product advertisement • Consumer receipt – basket comparison • Loyalty schemes • Leaflets, catalogues, etc. • Instruction manuals • Websites (producer, vendor) • Websites (3rd party) • App based on performance • Campaigns targeting user behaviour

• Marketing campaigns/ advertising • Other (please specify) • Declaration/ product passport (B2B) • On invoices (B2B) • PEF external communication report (B2B) • Performance tracking report (B2B). • Other (please specify) OEF • OEF external communication report • OEF performance tracking report • as part of an environmental sustainability or integrated report • environmental/sustainability ranking or indice (3rd party) • reporting initiative (3rd party) • POS communication related to a group of products (B2C) • environmental campaign • public relation effort • Other (please specify)

2. What does/do

the Communication vehicle(s) look like?

Picture(s) of the CV(s) (if applicable)

Short description of the characteristics of the vehicle.


176



YOUR ANSWER HERE


3. Which impact

categories will you communicate via the CV(s)?

A single performance score Specific impact categories

(please specify which) Specific impact categories

(please specify which) and a single performance score

Additional environmental information (please specify which)

Target groups

4. What target groups will be exposed to or participate in the CV(s) test(s)?

Please provide one answer per CV

Consumers: _______ please fill out their characteristics including age groups, income levels and countries in which the persons addressed live.

Corporate clients/businesses: ________ please fill out their characteristics, including the region/countries in which they are based.

Investors: ________ please fill out their characteristics including the region/countries in which they are based.

Others: ________ please fill out their characteristics including the region/countries in which they are based.

Methods 5. How are you going to test the CV(s)?


Focus groups Experiments with a control

group Individual interviews Observations (via observers

that take notes of behaviour) Other Methods,(please

specify):___________ (please explain your answers)


177



YOUR ANSWER HERE


Measured Effects

6. What are you going to test?


Understanding of CV(s) Effect of CV(s) on attitude

towards the product Effect of CV(s) on

buying/using/disposal behaviour

Effect of CV(s) on reputation of the company

Effect of CV(s) on awareness of environmental issues

Other things I don’t know

(please explain your answers)

Durations 7. When will the tests run?


Periods:___________ (please

describe in months)

Challenges 8. What are main

challenges that you foresee when testing the CV?


Get enough responses from the target group(s)

Good cooperation between the person who is responsible for the CV test(s) and those who are involved in carrying out the tests

Time restrictions Costs of the test Interpretation of results I see no challenges Other (please specify)



178



YOUR ANSWER HERE


Expected Biases

9. Are there any circumstances that you expect to change (bias) the effectiveness of the CV? e.g. unforeseen or intended communications /events that impact the possible effectiveness of the CV.


Yes, namely: ______ (please explain)

No No idea

Cooperations

10. Do you cooperate with other pilots that participate in the CV testing phase?

Yes, with:_____ No Maybe, with:_____


11. Do you (plan to) consult external experts for (parts of) the testing?

Yes, for the purpose of:_____ No Maybe, for the purpose

of:_____


179

2. Logbook questions to be filled out after the CV testing period is finished

Contact details

Company XXX

Name responsible person at company

Ms. XXXXX

Job title

Email address and telephone number and working days

[email protected]; +31611111111 (not on Fridays)

mailto:


180



YOUR ANSWER HERE


Duration 1. When did the tests run?

Please provide one answer per CV tested.

Periods:___________ (please describe in months)

2. What was tested?

3. Were there any complementary communication activities?

Please include activities even if they are not part of the EF pilot phase, but are considered relevant for the effectiveness of the communication vehicle tested

This is an open question. Please describe complementary communication activities.

Effects on target groups

4. Which kind of results did come

out of the CV(s) tests?


Results about:

Understanding of CV(s) Effect of CV(s) on

awareness of environmental issues

Effect of CV(s) on attitude towards the product

Effect of CV(s) on buying/using/disposal behaviour

Effect of CV(s) on reputation of the company

Other things I don’t know

5. What are the

effects of the CV(s) on consumers?

&

6. Which features or characteristics of the CV(s) made the CV(s) effective? Which features or characteristics were not effective?


This is an open question.


181



YOUR ANSWER HERE


7. Which

improvements would be needed to increase the effectiveness of the CV(s) on consumers?



Effects on company

8. How did/does

your company respond to the CV(s) test results?


Results are being discussed to see how the company can further improve its environmental performance.

Results are being discussed because the CV

has the potential/seems to affect the competitiveness of the product/company.

Costs versus benefits of communicating PEF/OEF are being discussed.

Other (please specify) No reaction received.


9. To what extent did

stakeholders respond to the CV(s)? What was said/written?


Please choose a number on a scale of 1 to 3 or when your really do not have an opinion on this; choose ‘No idea’

1=No responses

2=Some responses

3=Many responses

No idea

(please explain your answer)

10. How do(es) the CV(s) contribute to the reputation of the company to your idea?




182



YOUR ANSWER HERE


11. To what extent do

you think that the CV(s) can further improve the environmental footprint of the product or organisation (PEF/OEF)?



1=Absolutely no impact

2=Not impactful

3=Neutral

4=Impactful

5=Very impactful

No idea

(please explain your answer)

Costs 12. What were the

financial costs of implementing the CV(s)?



13. Where these

financial costs acceptable to your organisation?



1=Absolutely not acceptable

2=Not acceptable

3=Neutral

4=Acceptable

5=Very much acceptable

No idea

14. Do you consider

the administrative burden related to the implementation of the CV(s) that you have tested acceptable from

Please choose a number on a scale of 1 to 5 or when you really do not have an opinion on this; choose ‘No idea’

1=Absolutely not acceptable


183



YOUR ANSWER HERE


your company point of view?


2=Not acceptable

3=Neutral

4=Acceptable

5=Very much acceptable

No idea

Complications/

Barriers

15. Were there problems or barriers (e.g. restricted time, too high costs) during the tests?



16. How did you

overcome the

problems or barriers in the testing period?



Recommendations

17. What would you

do differently in hindsight?


Choose other CV(s) Do another test(s) Ask for more research Ask for help in carrying out

the tests Other things (please

specify)

18. What is needed for

you to proceed with communicating environmental footprints to your target groups?


Remarks 19. Are there any

other things that have not been asked but might be relevant to share?



184

Annex II. Focus groups

Discussion guide

This discussion guideline is meant to safeguard that all relevant research topics will be

covered in the focus groups.

Listed questions are main research questions. The moderators will adjust wording and

order of questions according to discussion situation, atmosphere and dynamic group

processes.

Each research topic will first be approached openly. This entails that participants will

indirectly influence and control content and depth of discussion according their own

requirements –unaided approach.

Once participants have exhausted their “own agenda” for each topic, the moderators will

explore relevant topic details that might not have been discussed – aided approach.

Main objective of this session is to explore consumers’ views about both, PEFs (Product

Environmental Footprint) and OEFs (Organization Environmental Footprint) in the present and

what their expectations are for the coming decade.

WELCOMING AND INTRODUCTION (10 min.)

Introduction of the moderator and the setting (drinks, toilet, etc.)

Introduction of the topic of discussion: environment-related topics (moderator: DO NOT

provide any further explanations at this point)

Explanation of the need for audio-visual recording

Reassurance of respondents about data security and privacy issues (e.g. no uploading

of the recording to the Internet, anonymous reporting, etc.)

Reference to attending observers and the one-way mirror, or TV internal circuit, when it

is the case

Explanation of the rules of communication

o Spontaneous and open discussion

o No right nor wrong answers; no judgements

o No need for agreement with each other; different points of view will be stimulated

o A balanced intervention of all participants is expected

o Listening to each other is a must

o Smartphones or mobile phones are requested to be silenced and kept away

Introduction of participants

First name (no surname to ensure anonymity), age, background education, current

occupation and family status

MODERATOR: please put a sticker with the participant’s name on his / her chest so that it is

visible at all times (the transcription needs to differentiate the participants)


185

PART I: PERCEPTION AND EXPERIENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINTS (30 min.)

Moderator:

The objective is to explore:

o What are participants’ main concerns regarding the environment

o How the environmental issues impact on their lives

o The different variables that might play some role on this impact (e.g. cultural

background, having children, life style).

o The emotional and rational meaning of environmental footprints

Pay special attention in case the idea of “environmental footprint”, “PEF” or “OEF” arises

spontaneously before being prompted

Spontaneous associations about environment: Brainstorm

Let’s start by doing a brainstorming. Let’s see what immediately comes to our mind when we

hear the word “environment”. Anything goes: images, feelings, etc.

Moderator: Promote quick and single-word or short answers. Keep going on until you have a

minimum of 15 different answers

Environmental issues and their impact on respondents’ lives

Let’s now have an open discussion about what your concerns are regarding the environment...

What are the things that concern you about the environment? How come?

If we do a ranking of the relevance these different things have in our lives, what the

rating will be, being the ranking “very relevant”, “moderately relevant” and “little

relevant”?

Moderator: write on the flipchart what elements belong to each category and then go through

each category from the “most relevant” to the “little relevant”:

What are the reasons for placing these elements in the first position?

And in the second one?

And in the third one?

I we have to decide on the very three top concerns, which ones will they be? What makes

them so important? How would it be like if these problems were solved?

Meaning of environmental footprints

Spontaneous associations: Brainstorm

Let’s start by doing another brainstorming. Let’s see now what immediately comes to our mind

when we hear the concept of “environmental footprint”. Anything goes: images, feelings, etc.


minimum of 15 different answers

Emotional projections: Collage

Now we will use images to talk about environmental footprints. Here we have a set of different

pictures and the purpose is that you choose the three top ones that best represent how we feel

about environmental footprints...


186

Moderator:

Insist on expressing “feelings”, “emotions” or “moods”

Different participants can choose the same picture/s

Once all participants have done their choice, take separate photos of the choice each

participant did and register which set of photos belongs to which participant

Per participant/choice:

What does each photo represent for you?

Moderator: ask each participant to say the number of the photos she/he chose before explaining

what they represent to her/him

Knowledge about environmental footprints

What do we know about environmental footprints?

What does environmental footprint mean?

What is the relation with products?

And with organizations?

To what extent are environmental footprints relevant? How come?

o Which ones are more relevant? What makes them more relevant?

o And which ones are less relevant? What makes them less relevant?

o Do they have any impact in our lives? How do we notice this impact?

o What is the impact in the short-term? And in the long-term?

PART II: ACTIONS DONE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT (30 min.)

Moderator: The objective is to check:

The meaning of environmental sustainability

To what extent environmentally-friendy actions are integrated in participants’ lives

What these actions are

What are the drivers and barriers in order to develop environmentally-friendly attitudes

and behaviours

Knowledge and expectations about the actions the Government is doing to protect the

environment

Now, we will focus on the protection of the environment...

Perception and meaning of environmental sustainability

Spontaneous associations: Brainstorm

Let’s do the third and last brainstorming. Let’s see now what immediately comes to our mind

when we hear the concept “environmental sustainability”. Anything goes: images, feelings, etc.


minimum of 15 different aswers

Related products and services

What are the products or services that you consider more damaging with respect to the

environment? What makes them so damaging?

And on the contrary, what are the products or services that you consider more respectful

with the environment? What makes more environmentally friendly?


187

Knowledge and practice of environmentally-friendly actions

What are the things we can do to protect the environment in our daily lives?

From all the things you just said, which are the ones you really do?

Moderator: write down the things they do on the flip-chart and the number of participants who

actually do them on the side. Discuss the three most common and the three less common

actions they do. Start the discussion by the most common ones.

Per action:

How come that you started doing this (say the name of the action)? What motivated you

to start doing it? (Moderator: check the drivers and triggers)

What is the benefit you take from doing it?

What can help you do this action even better or more frequently?

What other things could you do in your daily life and you do not do?

What refrains you from doing them? (Moderator: check the barriers)

What could be done in order to help you doing them? (Moderator: probe in detail)

What can help you having a more environmentally friendly life style?

Perception of the Government’s role

Now let’s talk about the Government and its involvement in this issue...

What do you think the Government does in order to protect the environment?

What regulations or measures do you know about this issue?

What is your evaluation about the Government actions regarding the protection of the

environment?

Are there things you think the Government should do and it is not doing? What are these

things?

What are the most urgent things to be done by the Government? What makes them so

urgent?

Potential actions and measures to promote environmental sensitivity

Let’s focus on the things that could be done by the public sector, by companies or by ourselves

to promote sensitivity towards protecting the environment...

What can be done in order to make you more aware and sensitive about the

environmental footprints?

If we think of these three different involved parties, public sector, private companies

and ourselves, what can be done by each one?

Per each party involved:

What can (say the name of the party) do in the short-term?

What can (say the name of the party) do in the coming decade?

Now I’ll tell you some things that could be done to see what you think of them...

Moderator: read out the following six actions one by one (if not said spontaneously):

1. Knowing what the most environmentally friendly people do

How come it might / might not influence you?

In case of being considered a potential influence: how should this be done to really

reach and touch you?


188

2. Integrating the environmentally friendly behavior in your routines in a simple

way




3. Helping you avoid losing money




4. Making the environmentally friendly choices be default choices




5. Making visible the environmental consequences of your daily actions (e.g.

taking your car)




6. Being shown the results of having environmentally-friendly behaviours





189

PART III: PERCEPTION OF PEFs AND OEFs (30 min.)

Moderator: The objective is to check to what extent PEFs and OEFs are influencing participants’

purchasing behaviour or decisions and what might be more effective to increase this influence.

Awareness of PEFs and OEFs

Let’s move to the different ways the environmental footprints can be shown to us…

What are the different ways we can be aware of the environmental footprint of products

and organizations?

Do you know the PEF and the OEF? (Moderator: if not discussed spontaneously

before)

How did you get to know about them?

Probe on:

1. Products labelling

Do you know whether products have a label with their environmental footprint

scoring?

Do these labels affect your purchasing or usage decision? In what way?

What can be done in the labelling to be more effective in influencing your decisions?

How important is the PEF/OEF information in comparison to other information on a

product label (e.g. price, quality)?

What weight do you attribute to the PEF/OEF information in comparison to other

existing labels (e.g. simultaneous presence with Ecolabel, energy label, nutritional

information, organic label, etc.)?

2. Actions at the POS

Do you know whether there are actions at the point of sale about environmental

footprints?

Do these actions affect your purchasing or usage decision? In what way?

What can be done at the point of sale to be more effective in influencing your

decisions?

How important is the PEF/OEF information in comparison to other information

displayed at the point of sale?

3. Communication

Do you know whether there is publicity (TV ads, online ads, billboards, ads in the

public transport, etc.) about environmental footprints?

Does publicity affect your purchasing or usage decision? In what way?

What kind of publicity can be more effective in influencing your decisions?

How important is the PEF/OEF information in comparison to other messages in

communication?


190

In general:

What do you think of the different ways to convey environmental performance – in

particular, traffic lights versus A-E performance ratings?

What are the most effective ways of communicating PEFs - labels, barcodes, text,

symbols, information packs, etc.? Or some combination of these?

In what circumstances would you need a thorough understanding of PEF/OEF

information?

To what extent does PEF/OEF information, the presence or absence of such information

or the level of PEF/OEF performance of the product influence your purchasing

intentions? And how might that change in the coming years?

To what extent do you think PEF/OEF information creates awareness and promote the

cause of environmentally sustainable consumption?

How does PEF/OEF information affect the reputation of the brand or the seller?

How does the reputation of the brand/seller affect your perception of a particular PEF or

OEF (e.g. How the reliability of the information is affected by the reputation of the

brand )?

How can we increase the reliability of the results on PEF/OEF (e.g. the contribution of

third part certifications, the seal of the European Commission, etc.)? Which

certifications or contributions are more credible and reliable for this issue?

PART IV: EXPLORATION OF DIFFERENT COMMUNICATION VEHICLES FOR PEF/OEF (20

min.)

Moderator:

The objective is to elicit participants’ reactions to different kinds of communication

vehicles showing environmental footprint information and evaluate their potential to arise

environmental sensitivity

Project the ppt. document with the stimuli page by page

To finish this discussion we will show you some materials to see what you think of them…

1. Slide 1

Which categories are more relevant? How come?

2. Slide 2

What is the importance of each of both phases (production vs. use) when

purchasing?

When is the production phase more important? when is it the use one?

3. Slide 3


191

Which kind of labelling is easier to understand? What makes it easier to be

understood?

Where would you put it?

What is more inviting to check further information, a QR code or a barcode (both

have to be scanned by the smartphone)? (figure L2)

4. Slide 4

Would you download an app to be able to check PEF or OEF when shopping? How

come?

For what items would you use it the most?

5. Slide 5

Is it engaging to check on the receipt how environmentally friendly has your

purchased been in comparison to the rest of consumers in that point of sale?

6. Slide 6

What environmental information would you like to see when shopping online?

7. Slide 7

What do you think of pictograms to show you environmentally friendly tips?

Where would you like to see these pictograms?

Is this kind of display appealing at the point of sale?

What can be appealing at the POS?

WRAP UP (if time allows)

Let’s do an individual and final reflection about all we have been talking about today...

What is your interest on the environmental footprint and what can particularly motivate

you to protect the environment more?

THANK & CLOSE


192

Selection of images

Participants were shown the following 32 images as projective input to facilitate

the discussion going further in how they perceive environmental footprints:


193

Selection of Verbatim

This annex contains a selection of verbatim to support and illustrate the content

of this report. The verbatim has been classified according to the different

subsections of this report.

The coding in bracket reflects the participant’s classification regarding her/his

level of environmental sensitivity, gender and country as follows:

Environmental sensitivity: Hi = high, Me = medium

Gender: F = female, M = male

Country: SP = Spain, GE = Germany

Meaning

“If you take a bottle of oil and you throw it in the mountain, it is leaving an environmental

footprint. That will take a long time in disappearing. What we do today will be present during a

long time. That is the footprint.” (Hi, M, SP)

“This picture is showing someone practicing a sport in nature, which is supposed to be very

healthy and in relation to the nature. But many of these types of sports pollute wherever they

go, because they leave garbage behind, containers...Plus manufacturing processes for

equipment bring along quite an energetic and polluting impact. So I chose a sport in nature

because it leaves an environmental footprint.” (Hi, F, SP)

“I chose picture 186, where there is a series of flags, telling me about the unification of countries

in negotiations for the environment, talking about the Earth and health.” (Me, M, SP)

“I chose this picture because I thought about my family. Also in my nephew, because of the

sneakers picture...In my family, friends, and everything that could happen in the future. The

lion, because we are finishing off with many species (…). And this (picture 196) is a beautiful

picture, and it makes me wonder how long we'll be able to do this...being there with that

neatness...” (Hi, F, SP)

“I chose the shoes that leave a footprint when walking; if we step on a pathway, that pathway

won't ever be the same. Or it will take a long time to be as it was.” (Me, M, SP)

“Picture 146…I believe it is like faith or trust in that we wake up some day so that we react.

Picture 108 because it is work to look at little details in our lives, all those little things generate

our footprint and we don't even notice.” (Hi, F, SP)

“Then I chose picture 155, it is the typical image of the American winner. In Spain this would be

different, but it would be that one of the opulence, of the pollution, the great cars, who does not

care... Due to his posture, instead of feeling that this man triumphed, it feels like he is saying

"Here I am, doing everything I wish to do". The one in picture 192 feels like that same man and

here he is begging for pardon. He is aware now that what we are doing is wrong, and he is

saying "let's change things”." (Me, M, SP)

“Companies don't care, anyway…Really, I think they just don't care. As long as they do their

business and keep on making money...unless they see that they can also make money by being

clean. Then, they would tend to do it.” (Me, M, SP)

“Environmental footprints have to do with the future of the next generation...what planet we

are leaving to them.” (Hi, F, GE)

“Environmental footprints lead to the extinction of species...maybe one day of human beings as

well.” (Me, F, GE)

“I have a child about that age, almost 9. And I always think about the polluted environment that

we will pass on to our children and how will they deal with that, the poor ones. They will have

to live with that environment and deal with it. With this other picture I thought about the task


194

of governments to get together and reach a consensus and not just reach those poor sort of

interim solutions or questionable commitments that they don't stick to.” (Hi, F, GE)

“Virtual water is related with environmental footprint, it is a chart containing the figures on how

much water is used to manufacture a certain product. For example, in order to produce potatoes

they have to be irrigated throughout the year.” (Me, M, GE)

“I liked the picture with the fish because it reminded me of the story of one person swimming

against the current. Most people today believe you need petro to fuel a car, but some know that

electricity works better. And that is often the case, that someone started something that people

at first didn't believe in.” (Hi, M, GE)

“I hope we'll still have snow in the future and not 10 degrees above zero in Christmas.” (Me, M,

GE)

“I chose the picture with the skier because of sports and fun outdoors in nature, which might

not be possible in the future, because of climate changes. (...). The next picture is the one with

the big wallet. I associate that with the global economy growing because of over-exploitation of

natural resources. And you can't eat money.” (Me, M, GE)

“Each and every one of us has to think about what he or she can do and how we can contribute.

That would be this picture. Caring more about sustainability, repairing things. I think this picture

addresses the throwaway society. We should move away from that. This other picture is

associated, like many others have said before me, with working together towards one goal and

the American president obstructing negotiations. A big problem lies ahead of us.” (Hi, F, GE)

Concerns

“When you see that tunas that used to be 500 kg. are now only 200 or 300 and they are being

caught even with 100…They are still babies!” (Me, M, SP)

“The most relevant is climate change denial. With this new US president he says that the

environment issues are a Chinese invention. When you deny reality, you won’t make any

objections in terms of pollution, resources, exploitation, etc.” (Me, M, SP)

“The overexploitation of resources could bring war. We grow exponentially and resources are

limited on Earth, so overexploitation of the planet can bring wars, hunger, etc.” (Me, M, SP)

“What worries me is the future. What our kids will inherit.” (Hi, M, SP).

“Pollution influences our health, in cities such as Madrid or Barcelona, it is quite harmful in our

lungs and bronchi.” (Hi, F, SP).

“We are creating a much worse ecosystem, the melting will be great, food exploitation is

destroying the jungles.” (Hi, M, SP).

“The other day I told my wife “we are just grocery shopping and we have already filled a whole

bag of plastic!”” (Me, M, SP)

“The climate change would extinct everything; animals, plants, humans, everything.” (Me, F,

SP)

“Hunger, wars, melting, desertification, deforestation…It is where we are heading.” (Me, M, SP)

“Pollution also means spending in cities in terms of dirtiness, for instance, which is covered with

our taxes. So at the same time that we are polluting it is costing us money.” (Hi, F, SP)

“I am worried about the extreme heat that we lived through this year. Why? Because of the

cycle of plants and animals movement, unable to reproduce...Pollution also affects me, because

I go out in the street and breath. I am worried about how to solve this, because people are not

aware and being able to solve this implies costs: three bins at home, I have to make an effort

to separate, then a hybrid car which means an added cost to what I have.” (Me, M, SP)

“Environmental issues are deteriorating the health level...For instance, there were toxic

discharges in my village, and most people of my generation, a little over 30, we have gone

through cancer or a chronic disease.” (Hi, F, SP)


195

“I go to the Islas Medas, which is a protected area, and I see fish there. I believe there might

not be fish there in 10 years”. (Me, M, SP)

“Our weather is turning closer to that of the Sahara!” (Hi, M, SP)

“Illegal discharges AND legal discharges, because those that are legal have really high limits,

not counting that they are cumulative.” (Hi, F, SP)

“We've seen cases in which they payed a 10% of a quantity of money, insignificant in respect to

the harm they've done. At the end, it is in their interest discharging toxics, paying their fines,

and keeping with business.” (Me, M, SP)

“The TTIP agreement between the US and Europe. There is a number of products, legalized in

the US, to be used in crops and anywhere, that are banned in Europe. With this agreement

between the US and Europe we would allow bringing these products to be used legally, as well

as food, which is what could concerns us the most right now, that are banned in Europe, without

any control.” (Me, M, SP)

“What concerns me the most in relation with the environment is plastic, vehicle emissions and

global warming.” (Hi, F, GE)

“I think the most important things regarding the environment are the plastic waste in the

sea...We live in a throwaway society that is provoking this global warming.” (Me, F, GE)

“It is important to protect the climate and the sea, and to control the plastic waste and the

vehicle emissions. Overfishing is also a problem.” (Me, M, GE)

“Those big concerns here, they do not care. Because there aren’t any consequences. Compared

to the Americans we don’t do anything. And with this minister there will never be anything done

against that. Without being mean and raising a warning finger...There should be very clear

consequences and rules.” (Hi, M, GE)

Habits

“In general, I would consider more sustainable not consuming as many products and services.

(…).Consuming less and being very selective in what we consume. Making sure that it doesn't

come from far away, that it hasn't contaminated that much due to the trip, that it doesn't have

pesticides... the only issue is that it is expensive” (Hi, F, SP)

“Using collaborative consumption, any type of it. If I use the car, bringing more people along in

my car. If I have this [picking up a glass] at home, why not giving it to you instead of throwing

it away?” (Me, F, SP)

“I recycle paper, and I try to use it all again. In the office or anywhere else. I don't use one page

and write something on it, and then throw it away. I recycle paper, plastic at home... What I

don't do is separating organic. I have to admit that…Due to the size of my kitchen. I don't have

more space for bins.” (Me, F, SP)

“There is also not a very good explanation of what is organic and what disposable garbage is. In

theory, the organic is good for compost. But some organic things cannot go into the organic bin.

They have to go into general waste. So it is confusing, and when you don't know where to place

it, you just throw it away in general waste.” (Hi, M, SP)

“The only time of my life that I recycled organic was when I had a real compost space, and it

was as easy as throwing it there, it didn't smell” (Hi, F, SP)

“I control water consumption. (…). I open and close the water tap 20 times when washing my

teeth, but I don't let it running half an hour. Or showers, instead of 15 or 20 minutes, they are

just 10.” (Me, M, SP)

“I try to reduce containers by buying in bulk, but it is expensive, because most bulk stores are

also ecological, so it is quite expensive” (Hi, F, SP)


196

“I was motivated to recycle due to education. Being taught in school since you are a kid…Yes,

they taught me. But my parents didn't recycle at home, and I don’t think they even knew about

it.” (Me, F, SP)

“What motivated me to recycle was my grandmother. To my grandmother, a bag lasted 20

years. She was using the food that was left for the hens, the water left for the vegetable garden...

I lived that philosophy when I was a kid. My grandmother never threw anything away.” (Hi, M,

SP)

“Ads making you aware of having to use public transportation because cars pollute... You think

about it a bit.” (Me, F, SP)

“The trolley that grandmothers used in the past. It disappeared and it came back when it was

announced that bags would go for 3 or 5 cents.” (Me, M, SP)

“The ideal would be that the infrastructure of buildings had a system to recycle grey waters,

which is probably not that difficult.” (Hi, F, SP)

“I have a friend working at the recycling plant, and whenever a plastic container comes with a

glass bottle, the entire container is dismissed… Most of them are dismissed. Recycling is a

business that four or five companies hold: it is useless as it is. And I most certainly know it” (Hi,

M, SP)

“Instead of turning the central heating up to 24, we put it up to 22 and we wear a sweater at

home” (Me, M, SP)

“The issue in this country is: we create a Ministry, call it Environment, how nice! But then the

Ministry of Agriculture allows pesticides...” (Hi, F, SP)

“GMOs should be banned in Spain…Short-term, we are eating food that we don't know what

effect might have on us, and long-term, it could finish off with our own species. GMOs

contaminate non-GMOs. The issue is that we do not know what the consequences are. It is an

experiment” (Hi, F, SP)

“I would give back the can to the supermarket. I did it in Germany. Of course I'd do it here as

well!” (Me, M, SP)

“Make public transportation be more comfortable, more attractive... But it is just not acceptable

that, on any day, public transportation takes 7 minutes between trains. That is just not effective

for anyone. If you have a car or a motorcycle, you’ll prefer taking it.” (Hi, M, SP)

“For instance, plastic toys don't go there (in the plastic bin). That goes to garbage. There are so

many things... it is not well explained” (Me, M, SP)

“You shouldn’t only show the environmental footprint here, but actually raise awareness among

people. If my 15-year old son goes shopping I ask myself what he has learned in the last 15

years. (...). I think this raising of awareness should really be part of this whole footprint-thing.

If everyone buys the red one because it is cheaper or they don’t care anyway and don’t know

what they actually do when buying the genetically modified food...There are people here who

think about these things. But if you go to Aldi and see what people buy there then you can

assume that 80% of these people never thought about what they’re actually buying.” (Hi, M,

GE)

“But all the airplanes and rich people with their private jets. Why doesn't the government just

prohibit certain things instead of putting everything on the small people?” (Hi, F, GE)

Perception

“Pouring the oil I don't want any more through the drain. That would be a negative

environmental footprint. And that would be at an individual level. And then, at a company or a

national level, if you have polluting discharges, if you throw plastic to the sea, if you contribute

to deforestation to build wood houses or for paper, etc...” (Me, M, SP)

“I believe plastic lasts... I was going to say 1000 years, but I don't know if it is 300 or 400 years

in being degraded” (Me, M, SP)


197

“For instance clothing. It is being brought from China. How much pollution does a container from

China create?” (Hi, F, SP)

“When you buy food that comes from the hyper-production of food. Those companies are cutting

down the Amazon in order to be able to plant crops: soy, palm oil... so they are breaking the

world's lung. That is very important.” (Hi, M, SP)

“Massive production of pigs --for instance, we do it in the area of Lleida in Catalonia-- or chickens

in Tarragona, is intensive production with animal feed (...). This diet destroys soil and

production, contaminates the environment with methane and other toxics, and what you are

eating is meat of very poor quality, so it is harmful for our health.” (Hi, M, SP)

“There are several labels. There's the European environmental label, the leave. Then there's the

"Fair trade"-label. New labels could be added, but it's already quite a lot on the packages. There's

already the nutrition table and other things.” (Hi, F, GE)

“When I travel by Flixbus, there's a little box on the last page, where you can choose to

contribute to climate protection. A CO2 compensation.” (Hi, M, GE)

“Many products have a pollution certification. Bees’ mortality. You can buy certain honeys that

cost three euro more. But I'm sceptical about whether they might put part of the money into

their own pockets” (Hi, F, GE)

“If you make the production so dependent on these environmental footprint certifications it gets

impossible for a small farmer to sell his products, because he cannot afford all of these 25

monthly tests” (Hi, M, GE)

“The obligation to label ... not all labels are protected, everyone can use them. (...). I think

there's a lot of corruption. That many politicians who are responsible for those decisions are on

the payroll of certain companies.” (Hi, F, GE)

“They often lie about the certificates. In the clothing industry for example harmful dyes are used

and then there are certificates that they produce themselves, but that's usually not true.” (Hi,

F, GE)

Influence

“If I buy a t-shirt and they told me that it made 3000 kilometers from China to here, and we

paid 50 cents per hour to a girl to make it, I won't buy it….labelling wouldn't be important just

for people, also for companies. Because whenever responsibility is placed in companies... when

Governments make policies it seems it is just us who have to save the planet. And it is multiple

things.” (Hi, F, SP)

“I look at the barcode and the labelling. Because when you buy meat, you see the tray: "Cow

grown in Germany, killed in Poland, chopped in Spain, and packaged in... wherever". I take that,

and I leave it there.” (Hi, M, SP)

“The DGT [traffic authority] sent me a sticker for the car, green, with the car's license plate and

a QR code, related to the efficiency level of the car. They gave me a C level. With that I have

benefits in parking... I know it is voluntary, I imagine everyone will get that. It is a campaign

the DGT did to show which cars contaminate the least.” (Me, M, SP)

“If it is an appliance, labels do influence my purchase. (...). But it is not due to the environment,

it is due to a long-term vision. If you buy A, A+ or A++, it will consume way less energy than

others” (Hi, F, SP)

“It depends on the use that you'll give it, and the profitability that you will get out of it. If I'm

going to use it today and tomorrow, it won't matter to me, because I'll use for this, and that will

be it. But if I am planning on using it for a long time, that footprint might matter to me.” (Me,

M, SP)

“You go to the hairdresser and you don't know what they are using. And there are more

ecological hairdressers now. If I'm going to have a massage or waxing, I'd like to know...” (Me,

F, SP)


198

“PEF helps me to be more aware when buying and using the products. Back in time, for instance,

cleaning products, were super toxic. Then we invented biodegradables, and you know that when

you are using the washing machine, depending on the product that you are using for it, you are

contaminating a number of litres of water.” (Me, M, SP)

“The institution providing the certification should be public, otherwise I'll think that it is bought

from the start. Even if they are public they can still be bought...And it should be integrated by

well-known personalities of the environmental sciences... people seriously involved with the

environment.” (Hi, F, SP)

“The EC would not be credible neither for me. That is full of lobbies.” (Hi, M, SP)

“Within the EC, even if there are lobbies, there are also independent organisms that certify

things, for good and for bad” (Me, M, SP)

“Where are things produced? When I consume something that has been produced in China, I

know it has travelled a long distance, which has negative impacts.” (Me, F, GE)

“Of course labels do have an influence on me. However, there's no harm in being sceptical and

inform yourself.” (Hi, F, GE)

“When I buy fish, I tend to pay attention to the labels.” (Me, M, GE)

“Whether it's free-range hens. I wouldn't buy eggs from hens that are kept in laying batteries”

(Hi, M, GE)

“It (organic food) shouldn't cost three times as much, but a little is ok” (Me, M, GE)

“At first you would have to define the aspects that are included in the environmental footprint.

And that's where the key figures come in. And they should be comparable.” (Hi, F, GE)

“It's not only about the footprint but also about an authority controlling the footprint and who is

responsible sanctioning. (...).To me there's no benefit from the label. If it's a false label there's

no one who says: You can’t do that, no one who sanctions the company who is responsible. If a

label doesn't fulfil the requirements companies should be sanctioned. Until that's not the case,

the labels are useless. It if says no tuna or dolphins have been bycaught, how can we proof that?

” (Hi, M, GE)

“Unfortunately there are much more Internet sites that are untrustworthy. If you have the

possibility to inform yourself. If a company uses a certificate to promote their product und you

have the right sources to understand the certificate. If I have the possibility to research whether

a certificate is trustworthy or not” (Hi, F, GE)

“Labels should be monitored by a governmental authority.” (Hi, W, GE)

“It should be an independent organization without any governmental influence. Germany is not

exactly exemplary in terms of energy consumption and environmental pollution. And if the

government would be responsible for environmental certificates they probably wouldn't act

independently...they represent their own interests” (Me, M, GE)

“Why there are so few articles about the Rothschilds. That's because the five largest media

groups belong to the Rothschilds...If the superrich somehow participate in something, they tell

the media what to write” (Hi, F, GE)

“I think it depends on if it will be mandatory or if it will be a voluntary statement of the brand.

Because if it would be voluntary and the dedicated concerns would put the footprint on there,

then those who wouldn’t put it on their products would already seem suspicious. Then of course

you wouldn’t buy those things” (Hi, F, GE)

Labels

”Bio” which doesn't really mean that it is biologic... there are lots of labels that are confusing.”

(Hi, F, SP)

“Letters (L1) make you understand better the difference between maximum and minimum...”

(Me, M, SP)


199

“The traffic-lights system (L2) is more visual, because even if you can't read you know that

green is something good…it is intuitive. And you know red is oriented to stopping.” (Me, F, SP)

“The PEFs information label should the same as with tobacco, on the label, by the brand” (Me,

M, SP)

“If I see that each time I do the scanning (QR code) there is advertising, I would stop doing it

after the third time. Which is what usually happens” (Hi, M, SP)

“I'm missing the kilometres it travelled...why does it have to be on the QR and not on the

product? I'd like to see it on the label!” (Hi, F, SP)

“Then you'd get the other bottle of water and you'd say "This one has a B this one a C, I take

B".” (Me, M, SP)

“(L3) I would need someone to explain that to me. And then I could understand.” (Me, M, SP)

“I would download the app depending on who did that app.” (Hi, F, SP)

“This (further information on the PEF) would have to give me information that helped me decide

whether to buy it or not.” (Me, M, SP)

“(It would be interesting to check on the app) Something telling you about products that comply

with the environment...or recommendations on shops.” (Me, F, SP)

“The app should have a database, so every time you scan a product, it keeps it, and compares

that product to others, doing a mix, saying "there were 20 water products scanned in Barcelona,

and the best was x because it has this, that and the other"” (Me, M, SP)

“If they are right next to each other, I would always choose the product with the label.” (Hi, F,

GE)

“There shouldn't be ten or hundred different labels but one general label.” (Me, M, GE)

“I don’t think text would be really effective because you don’t necessarily read all of it... Because

you would rather take a look at the stickers than standing there and reading a text for every

product. Maybe at home. But then it’s too late anyway. It should be something that you can

visually see and not text.” (Hi, F, GE)

“You don’t spend too much time in a supermarket and I think something like that (traffic-lights

performance rating) would make it easier” (Me, M, GE)

“Already when you’re a child you learn that green is good and red is bad. Everyone knows that.

And it doesn’t matter what I buy” (Hi, F, GE)

“I’d like further information on PEF for electronic devices...Because you have them longer and

you have them at home. Personally I would also like to know about that when buying clothes.

Especially when you have problems with your skin, like neurodermatitis and also with children

when it is problematic there then you would want to know about these things.” (Hi, F, GE)

“I think the more expensive it gets the more you think about all that. Because you don’t just

buy a car like that, you really do concern yourself with it. But if you buy milk then of course you

do not think about it that much. Maybe on the big picture. But especially if you spend more

money…those are usually always the things that you use over a long time so you just think about

it more. When I buy a car I think about that or when I buy a computer or a house.” (Me, M, GE)

“If there are genetically modified things in these products then I feel affected by that myself...

Clothes that were produced using toxic chemicals. Anything that affects my personal health.”

(Hi ,F, GE)

“In Romania he is driving around with a tractor that looses more fuel than he actually uses. How

do you want to compare that with the one here where they drive around with some kind of

electric vehicles. That’s why this is all so different. If it was a community that was on the same

level I would say okay then we are talking about the same things but when you are so different

then… That’s why I don’t think that this is a European thing” (Hi, M, GE)


200

“Of course the goal should be to have such a seal all over Europe or worldwide, but I think it is

difficult to start with such a seal which is why you should go step by step” (Me, M. GE)

“...with red, green, yellow. That would be for a first impression and then I can read something

about the background and about what I need. (...). Nobody will take a look at those (figure 1).

When you have six or seven or eight different things…” (Hi, M, GE)

“I think the most concrete thing to know is actually the packing a product has. When you have

plastic waste lying around I think that is the most tangible. And I think that this is also something

that responds to most people” (Hi, M, GE)

“As customers we do not have an influence on the phase of production but we can influence the

phase of usage” (Hi, F, GE)

“I like the first one best (L1). Because with the last one (L3) you get like a manual and when

you buy something like that you don’t really know what to compare it with or so. I like the first

more. It does give a bit more information than the second one...and it is still better divided

because there are five different levels and the other one has only three. I do like that. And I also

like how it is divided.” (Me, F, GE)

“I like the one in the middle better (L2) because you can inform yourself. And you could add

steps. For example, between green and yellow there could be another step. And if I want to I

can get more information. I think that is really important. I cannot do that with the one on the

right (L3). I also like numbers.” (Hi, F, GE)

“I like the one with the letters (L1) because I don’t have a stated measurement or a relation.

There are like 27mg in there (L2), but I don’t have a proportion. So the number itself doesn’t

really help.” Me, M, GE)

“I would add the numbers on the right side to the thing on the left side. Because over time you

might want to compare these numbers. For example, I also started comparing nutritional values

of groceries. You get more sensitive and realize if a value is high or low. You learn about the

comparability, if 27 is a lot or not.” (Hi, F, GE)

“I think the five-level version is better (L1). Because the other one with the values is relative. I

mean with the use of water…where does this use of water take place? In Sweden? Then it doesn’t

matter. Does it take place in Africa? Then it would be a catastrophe. There are so many details

that add up and make it difficult to evaluate it. There is some authority who decides that and

who says for this year you get the green B and that is great. And for me the statement is made

then. To know one has 75g in his yogurt, the other one hat 73,5g the next one has 52g and then

I add it up and count in if it was recycled or not and it gets too complicated.” Hi, M, GE)

“It’s just difficult if you go to the butcher or so. It is difficult on a counter. You would have to

think about how to do it there. If you print something out and put it in there. I mean if I do care

about it. If I bought meat that is in a packaging I could see the values on there but it wouldn’t

say that when I bought the meat from the butcher. You could put it on a card in front of the

meat.” (Me, M, GE)

“At the Butcher’s they need to change those labels with every new pig that comes. Maybe the

other pig is from somewhere totally different and was maybe also fed in a different way. I don’t

think that this would work. (...). The farmer will rather saw downs his apple trees before he gets

these labels. It’s done for them. I mean that has also to do with trust. If I go to the farmer’s

market and I trust them then they do not need to prove things to me because I know who he is

and where these apples come from.” Hi, M, GE)

“There is an app like that. About different groups of products. You can see there what they have

in the supermarkets. They also use red and green labels. (...). You don’t have to scan anything.

You can only look products up that are on there. For example, Landliebe yogurt Natur has that

many pollutants and so on.” (Hi, F, GE)

“An app where you can scan the QR code and if the product is there you can find it and otherwise

add it. I mean it would be good if I scanned it and then I could see the website of the brand. I


201

do like the idea. I mean you do compare everything by now. You look up how much is that car

here or there. And you can do the same with groceries” (Me, M, GE)

“(Having further PEF information): Maybe for groceries that you buy regularly. I think that would

be worth it as well. But for things that you do not always buy or that you always buy from

different brands it would be too complicated” (Me, F, GE)

“If a third party is evaluating this product as a light green then it is a light green for me. I would

trust them. Because if I don’t I would have the problem that I would have to compare it with 20

other nougat cremes. Then I take the other nougat crème because it needed less water or

whatever. That is too complicated.” (Hi, M, GE)

Point of sale

“I consume lots of Coca-Cola. I'd take the packaging with my bag and get money back... or a

coupon. I can buy some more, then!” (Me, F, SP)

“I don't pay attention to leaflets, but I do to images…I take the leaflet and it goes directly to

the garbage.” (Me, M, SP)

“The salesperson will sell you whatever... even if it is D. But if you have a large enough sign

with letters: A, A+, A++... Level of efficiency, etc... It needs to catch your attention… Washing

machines are down here, so up top on the wall, and while you are seeing the washing machine,

at the eye level” (Me, M, SP)

“(PEF information when purchasing online) It shouldn't be directly like this. You'd have to have

the option to want to know about it or not. (…). It is an issue of usability. If I want to buy

something fast in Amazon I don't want 30 screens, because I'm going fast.” (Me, F, SP)

“(PEF information when purchasing online ) There should be something. At least the letter, A B,

C or whatever, and then you click on details, if you'd like” (Hi, F, SP)

“(Placing eco-friendly products in the POS) But at least it should be integrated. If I see it

somewhere where it is not normalized, as he said, I won't go there, because I know it is

expensive. If this is with the normalized, I might even take it along.” (Me, M, SP)

“(Comparing your purchase with others’) I think that would be frustrating...Because you don’t

really get anything. I mean you don’t get 10€ back if you have two smilies (figure 5).” (Hi, F,

GE)

“(Comparing your purchase with others’) If there were ten millions before me who bought the

worst thing and I buy the second worst thing then I am the green one. This comparability is very

difficult.” (Me, M, GE)

Communication

“When I saw what the Nutella people did with monkeys... I am not buying Nutella anymore.”

(Hi, F, SP)

“The images of Madrid when they banned 50% of traffic, and you could see pollution, it was like

a mushroom. And what is this, you said? Automatically, me, a regular Madrid inhabitant, I said

"Where am I living?" It is not that I won't take the car because the Mayor tells me not to. I'm

not driving in a week, or two, or I will simply take public transportation” (Me, M, SP)

“Seeing the negative consequences is more motivating. If you see the positive, you are just a

happy man” (Me, M, SP)

“What happens in the desert in Africa, since I don't see it, it doesn't affect me. What I see in

Barcelona is what affects me.” (Me, M, SP)

“If you are going to take public transportation, in the metro, or the bus, you can see the slogan.

Or something could show up while you are waiting on a stop” (Me, F, SP)


202

“Probably not a company itself would show its environmental footprint, because that wouldn't

be promotional. If a TV advertisement would say: These are our emissions, people might not

buy the product” (Hi, M, GE)

“Obligations could be introduced as is the case with cigarettes that contain a message that says:

Smoking is a danger to your health. Every company could be obliged to state their environmental

impact.” (Me, M, GE)

“(Environmental information on TV) That doesn’t have to be 24 hours and seven days a week

but regularly. So that people who are otherwise not that interested in all that are confronted

with it and think about it.” Me, M, GE)

“(PEFs and OEFs on TV) You should make it mandatory. Like with drugs. “For information on

risks and side-effects please read the pack insert and ask your Doctor or Pharmacist.” What

always comes in the end. After every product there should be a flash with this label.” (Hi, F, GE)

“There should also be one negative ad during a commercial break. For example, about how

plastic waste damages the oceans. You should make aware of these things over and over again.”

(Hi, F, GE)

“If you want to get more information about these bad brands there is a book that is called Das

Schwarzbuch der Markenfirmen. It gets reissued every two to three years and everything gets

revealed relentlessly. They are two reporters who enter these companies incognito and create

reportages from there. Very interesting.” (Hi, F, GE)


203

Annex III. SME questionnaire

Q0. Are you responsible for or have a good knowledge of your company’s environmental policies?

Yes – Continue with survey

No – Could you please forward it to the appropriate person within your company?

Section 1: The company and its sector

Q.1. In which commercial sector do you operate? (Tick from NACE Rev.2)

Q.2. How many full time employees were in the company in 2016?

1. 1-9 employees

2. 10-49 employees

3. 50-249 employees

Q.3. What was the turnover of your company in 2016? (€=) [Free text]

Q.4. What level of resources are devoted to improving the environmental performance of

your operations and/or products? (As % of 2016 turnover) [0-100]

Q.5. What is the legal status of the company?

a. For-profit

b. Non-for-profit

Q.6. What is the market scope of your company is…? (tick those that apply)

1. Local

4. Regional

5. National

6. European

7. Worldwide

Q.7. The primary commercial activity costumers of your company is are….

1. Business to Business (B2B)

2. Business to Consumers (B2C)

3. Both

Q.8. In the context of B2B activities are these intermediate or final products?

(Filter: Q7 = 1 and 3)

1. Intermediate products/Services

2. Final products/Services

3. Both intermediate and final products/Services

Q.9. Does your firm have at least one person with explicit responsibility for environmental

concerns?

1. Yes

2. No

Q.10. Which of the following best describes the location of this individual within your firm?

1. Senior management

2. Production/operations

3. Finance/accounting

4. Specialised environmental department (or equivalent)

5. External/media relations

6. Marketing/Sales

7. Purchasing

8. Human resources

9. Product development

10. Other department (please specify)


204

Q.11. Are your company a member of a trade association?

1. Yes

2. No

Q.12. To what extent is your sector committed to environmental sustainability? (5 point

scale: 5-Very –1- Not at all)

Q.13. To what extent is your company committed to environmental sustainability? (5 point

scale: 5-Very – 1-Not at all)

Q.14. In your sector, is there a demand for more information about environmental issues?

(5 point scale: 5-Yes definitely/1-No, not at all)

Q.15. In your company, is there a demand for more information about environmental

issues? (5 point scale: 5-Yes definitely/1-No, not at all)

Q.16. How relevant are environmental concerns to your sector? (5 point scale: 5-Very/1-not

at all)

Q.17. How relevant are environmental concerns to your company? (5 point scale: 5-Very/1-

not at all)

Section 2: Environmental Information

Q.18. Does your company have an environmental policy?

1. Yes

2. No

Q.19. Is your environmental policy based on Life Cycle Assessment indicators?

(Filter: Q18 = 1)

1. Yes

2. No

Q.20. Which of the following topics does your environmental policy cover? (tick all that

apply)

(Filter: Q18 = 1)

1. Human Health. The negative effects on people’s health, for instance, as a

consequence of chemicals or radiation emitted during the life cycle of a product or

indirectly as consequence of climate change

2. Natural Environment. The negative effects on the function and structure of natural

ecosystems, for instance, as a consequence of the emission of chemicals or

physical interventions that take place during the lifecycle of a product

3. Natural Resources. The negative effects, for instance, to the use of physical

resources such as energy, metals and minerals and water, which results in a

decrease in the availability of the total resource stock, as physical resources can be

finite and non-renewable.

Q.21. Which of the following topics does your environmental policy cover in relation to

human health? (tick all that apply)

(Filter: Q20 = 1)

1. Climate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases changing temperature and the

climate for the worse, impacting indirectly on your health.

2. Ozone depletion. Emissions damaging the ozone layer leading to increased

ultraviolet radiation resulting in skin cancer.

3. Human Toxicity - cancer. Emissions of toxic substances leading to an increased risk

of cancer, for instance, through the air we breathe and indirectly through the food

we eat and the water we drink.

4. Human Toxicity - non-cancer. Emissions of toxic substances damaging your health,

for instance, through the air we breathe and also indirectly through the food we

eat and the water we drink.


205

5. Particulate matter. Emissions of tiny particle, for instance, leading to respiratory

diseases and the so-called “winter smog”.

6. Ionizing radiation. Radiation increasing the risk of cancer.

7. Photochemical ozone formation. Emissions creating, for instance, the so called

“summer smog” and respiratory diseases.


natural environment? (tick all that apply)

(Filter: Q20 = 2)

1. Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changing temperature and the

climate for the worse, impacting indirectly on the ecosystems.

2. Acidification. Emission of substance leading, for instance, to acid rain and poorer

quality of air, water and soil.

3. Eutrophication - terrestrial. Too many nutrients in the environment, for instance by

overuse of fertilisers in farming, upsetting the balance of nature.

4. Eutrophication - freshwater. Too many nutrients in freshwater, for instance, by the


nature, e.g. leading to algal blooms and killing fish.

5. Eutrophication - marine. Too many nutrients in marine water, for instance, due to


nature and leading to algal blooms in seawater.

6. Ecotoxicity - freshwater. Emission of toxic substances that are a danger to

organisms like fish, algae and other organisms living in fresh water.

7. Land use. Use of land and soil endanger, such as soil fertility as well as the

wellbeing and survival of some animals and plant species.

8. Resource use - water. Use of freshwater reducing its availability for needs of the

ecosystem


natural resources? (tick all that apply)

(Filter: Q20 = 3)

1. Resource use: metals and minerals. Use of minerals, metals and other resources in

products reducing their availability for future uses.

2. Resource use: fossil fuels. Use of fossil fuels, reducing their availability for future

uses.

3. Resource use: water. Use of freshwater reducing its availability for future uses.

4. Land use. Use of land and soil endanger e.g. soil fertility as well as the survival of

some animals and plant species.

5. Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changing temperature and the

climate for the worse, impacting directly and indirectly on natural resources.

Q.23a Are there other aspects that your environmental policy covers? (please specify)

Q.24. Which of the following aspects does your company’s environmental policy cover? (tick

those that apply)

(Filter: Q18 = 1)

1. Product/Services

2. Organisation

3. Others. (please specify)


206

Q.25. While purchasing and/or marketing your products, does your firm regularly consider

the following measures? (5 point scale: Very/not at all)

1. Informing clients of your product/organization's environmental performance

2. Assessing the environmental performance of suppliers

3. Requiring suppliers to undertake environmental measures

Q.26. Does your company publish environmental information?

4. Yes

5. No

Q.27. Who is the target(s) of the communication? (tick all that apply) (Filter: Q26=1)

6. Clients

7. Suppliers

8. Investors

9. Public administrations

10. NGOs

11. Other (please specify)

Q.28. Is the information verified/ certified?

1. Internally audited

2. 3rd party certified

3. 3rd party verified

4. Provided to a public register


Q.29. How is B2B environmental information conveyed, what (if any) communication

vehicles are employed by company? (tick all that apply)

(Filter: Q7 = 1 and 3 and Q26 = 1)

1. Environmental Product Declaration

2. Product passport (a set of information about the components and materials that

a product contains, and how they can be disassembled and recycled at the end

of the product's useful life).

3. Environmental label on product

4. Environmental information on invoices

5. Environmental report (provides information on the current environmental

performance of the company/ products)

6. Environmental performance tracking report (provides comparison of current

performance to performance in previous years)

7. Other report (please specify)

8. Environmental/sustainability ranking or index (own or third party)

9. Environmental campaign

10. Public relation effort related to the environment


Q.30. More and more companies are developing B2B communication vehicles for

environmental information. Which of the following do you think would be possible for

your company? (tick all that apply)











207








Q.31. How would you rate the effectiveness of the following B2B communication vehicles? (5

point scale: 5-Very effective –1- Not at all)

















Q.32. How is B2C environmental information conveyed, what (if any) communication

vehicles are employed by company? (tick all that apply)


1. Label

2. QR code

3. Barcode

4. POS product advertisement

5. Loyalty schemes

6. Leaflets, catalogues, etc.

7. Instruction manuals

8. Websites

9. Apps

10. Marketing campaigns/ advertising


Q.33. More and more companies are developing B2C communication vehicles for

environmental information. Which of the following do you think would be possible for

your company? (tick all that apply)


1. Label

2. QR code

3. Barcode


5. Loyalty schemes



208


8. Websites

9. App



Q.34. How would you rate the effectiveness of the following B2C communication vehicles? (5

point scale: 5-Very effective – 1-Not at all)


1. Label

2. QR code

3. Barcode


5. Loyalty schemes



8. Websites

9. App



Section 3: Product Environmental Footprint (PEF)

The Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) is a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) based method to

quantify the relevant environmental impacts of products (goods and services) and organisations.

It builds on existing approaches and international standards.

Q.35. To what extent has the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) been discussed in your

sector? (5 point scale: A great deal/none at all)

Q.36. Please tell us to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements

related to the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) benefits (5 point scale: 5-Totally agree/1-

Totally disagree)(Filter: Q35 = 2 or 3 or 4 or 5)

LCA can…

1. …. be a tool to identify environmental hotspots

2. ... be a tool to define environmental strategies and actions

3. … support the implementation of monitoring systems

4. … create new marketing opportunities

5. … be useful for product design

6. … involve top managers in environmental issues

7. … improve the reputation of the organization

8. … drive environmental improvement in products/organisations

9. … improve the competitive advantage of organisations

10. … improve environmental management practices

11. … improve customer satisfaction

12. … increase awareness of employees in environmental issues

13. … increase the level of cooperation within the company

14. … Increase the differentiation of products/ services

15. … improve the relations with public institutions

16. … improvement legal compliance

17. … improve the relations with suppliers

18. … improve the relations with the owner or the group

19. … increase sales of the products

20. … improve financing opportunities


209

Q.37. Please tell us to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements

about possible problems with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) (5 point scale: 5-Totally

agree/1-Totally disagree)

(Filter: Q35 = 2 or 3 or 4 or 5)

LCA creates problems such as…

1. Difficulty collecting data from suppliers

2. Too time consuming

3. Significant involvement of internal human resources

4. High costs for expert involvement

5. Difficulty collecting data inside the organization

6. Software is too expensive

7. Difficulty to communicate the results

8. Evaluation of data quality

9. Difficult to find good quality data

10. Difficult to assess the quality of data

11. Difficulty coordinating internal and external resources

12. Collection of data from supply chain

13. With the analysis and interpretation of the results

14. Certification/review of the study

15. Definition of system boundaries

16. Definition of scope and object of the study

17. Definition of the functional unit

Q.38 The Product Environmental Footprint method has new features respectively to traditional

Life Cycle Assessment. Please tell us to what extent you consider these useful or not (5

point scale: 5-Very useful – 1-Not useful at all)

(Filter: Q19 = 1)

1. Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules pre-identify most relevant

environmental impacts, processes and life cycle stages for the product group

2. Primary data gathering is focussed on a limited number of specific processes

3. Data quality requirements vary based on environmental relevance and access to

data

4. Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules list secondary data to be used

5. Secondary data are available for free to users of Product Environmental Footprint

Category Rules

6. The environmental performance of the average product on the market

(representative product/ benchmark) is stated in the Product Environmental

Footprint Category Rules

7. It is possible to compare the Environmental Footprint profile of the product with

the benchmark


210

Annex IV. Certification and Trust

Choice sets

Figure 82 Study on Certification and Trust – choice sets

Se

t

Frame Source

1 Our health will suffer if we ignore the environment Consumer

association

1 Protect our environment European

Commission

2 Protect our environment to benefit our country’s children Government

2 Protect our environment to benefit our health Industry

3 Protect our environment to benefit our health European

Commission

3 Our health will suffer if we ignore the environment -

4 Protect our environment to benefit our country’s children Consumer

association

4 Our health will suffer if we ignore the environment Government

5 Our health will suffer if we ignore the environment Consumer

association

5 Our countries’ children will suffer if we ignore the

environment

-


environment

Consumer

association

6 Protect our environment to benefit our country’s children Industry

7 Protect our environment to benefit our country’s children European

Commission

7 Protect our environment Consumer

association

8 Protect our environment to benefit our health -


environment

Industry

9 Our health will suffer if we ignore the environment European

Commission

9 Protect our environment to benefit our health Government

10 Protect our environment Third party

10 Protect our environment -


211

Questionnaire - procedure

(This heading and others below will not appear in the questionnaire)

Thank you very much for your interest in participating in this online self-administered survey

that should take about 15 minutes of your time. Please note all the information you provide will

remain strictly confidential and will be treated following all applicable data protection regulations.

You can now start the online online by clicking on the "NEXT" button below

EXPERIMENTAL TASK

Q1. We would like you to consider the two XXXXX presented below and their

characteristics. Which XXX would you choose?

QUESTIONNAIRE

Certification

Q2. How much would you trust the following to certify the accuracy of


Completely Quite a lot Not very

much

Not at all Don’t

know

National government

The European Commission

An Industry body – an

industry association

A Consumer Organisation

A third party organisation

Competence

Q3. Do you think the following organisations would have the expertise to provide

accurate product environmental information on consumer products?

Yes

definitely

Yes

probably

Probably not Definitely

not

Don’t

know

National government

The European

Commission





Q4. Do you think the following organisations would have the expertise to verify

accurate product environmental information on consumer products?


212

Yes

definitely

Yes

probably


not

Don’t

know

National government

The European

Commission





Fiduciary responsibility

Q5. Do you think they could be relied on to act in the public interest regarding

product environmental information?

Yes

definitely

Yes

probably


not

Don’t

know

National government

The European

Commission






213

Effectiveness

Q6. In the development and introduction of product environmental information for

consumers how effective do you think the following would be?

Very

effective

Moderately

effective

Moderately

ineffective

Very

ineffective

National government


An Industry body – an industry

association



Leadership

Q7. Who should lead the development and introduction of product environmental

information?

Completely

Agree

Agree Disagree Completely

Disagree

National government


An Industry body – an industry

association



Penalties

Q8. If it is found that a company has intentionally misinformed the public about

the environmental performance of a product, which of the following would be

most appropriate?

Completely

disagree

Disagree Agree Completely

agree

The Company should be

named and shamed in

public

The Company should

pay a fine


214

Importance

“T-SHIRT GROUP” ONLY

Q9. Of the following aspects, which one do you consider the most important when

buying a t-shirt? Please rank them from n.1, the most important, to n.6 the

least important (Random order)

Price

Quality

Environmental impact

Country of origin

Organic

Brand

“LAPTOP GROUP” ONLY


buying a laptop? Please rank them from n.1, the most important, to n.5 the

least important.

Price

Quality


Performance

Brand

“MILK GROUP” ONLY


buying milk? Please rank them from n.1, the most important, to n.6 the least

important.

Price

Quality


Country of origin

Organic

Brand

Socio-demographics

ALL

Q12. Gender

Female

Male

Q13. Age

____ years old

Q14. What is the highest level of education you have completed? [SINGLE ANSWER]

0-11 years of education

12 years of education (high school diploma)

Some years of university (not completed)

University degree (BA, BS)

Post-graduate degree (MA, MS, JD, MD, PhD, etc)


215

Q15. Think of this ladder as representing where people stand in your country. At the

top of the ladder are the people who are the best off - those who have the

most money, the most education and the most respected jobs. At the bottom

are the people who are the worst off - who have the least money, the least

education, and the least respected jobs or no job. Taking all things into

consideration, where would you place yourself on this ladder?

Target sample


Table 37 Study on Certification and Trust – Target sample by country and age group


years

From 25 to 54

years

From 55 to 74

years Total

Sweden 206 860 434 1,500

Romania 247 1,054 199 1,500

Spain 176 1,054 270 1,500

Germany 173 930 397 1,500

Total 802 3,898 1,300 6,000

Table 38 Study on Certification and Trust - Target sample by country and gender


Sweden 745 755 1,500

Romania 719 781 1,500

Spain 740 760 1,500

Germany 731 769 1,500

Total 2,935 3,065 6,000

Table 39 Study on Certification and Trust - Target sample by country and education

level

Country

0-11

years of

education

12 years

of

education

(high

school

diploma)

Some

years of

university

(not

completed)

University

degree

(BA, BS)

Post-

graduate

degree

(MA, MS,

JD, MD,

PhD, etc)

Total

Sweden 201 580 274 308 137 1,500

Romania 45 372 196 596 291 1,500

Spain 52 436 359 514 139 1,500

Germany 589 438 82 157 234 1,500

Total 887 1,826 911 1,575 801 6,000


216

Fieldwork

In the first experiment, fieldwork started on 30 May 2017 with the pilots and finished on 9 June

2017. A total of 28,459 respondents were invited to the questionnaire across the 4 countries

(Sweden, Spain, Germany, Romania). Of them, 4,243 did not complete the questionnaire, while

6,060 did. The average duration of the questionnaire was around 12 minutes. The following

figure summarizes the fieldwork process.

Figure 83 Experiment 1 - Fieldwork

Pilot Fieldwork

Experiment 1

Invite

d

Com

ple

te

Incom

ple

t

e +

Scre

en

out

Invite

d

Com

ple

te

Incom

ple

te

Speeders

Scre

en

Out (A

ge)

Dura

tion

Sta

rt

End

SE Total 34

1

61 16 989

5

1512 956 3 35 10,

6

30/5/

17

9/6/17

Group 1 142

20 9 3034

502 119 1 5 11,4 30/5/17 9/6/17

Group 2 107

20 6 2985

500 487 2 14 10,3 30/5/17 9/6/17

Group 3 92 21 1 3876

510 350 0 16 10 30/5/17 9/6/17

ES Total 14

5

62 3 722

0

1532 1207 1 19 13 30/5/

17

9/6/17

Group 1 27 21 1 2157

507 259 0 3 13,2 30/5/17 9/6/17

Group 2 86 21 1 248

3

522 365 0 3 12,5 30/5/17 9/6/17

Group 3 32 20 1 2580

503 583 1 13 13,3 30/5/17 9/6/17

DE Total 92 62 19 654

6

1508 1527 4 33 11,

6

30/5/

17

9/6/17

Group 1 26 20 3 2196

502 591 2 7 12 30/5/17 9/6/17

Group 2 26 21 3 2306

504 639 1 12 10,9 30/5/17 9/6/17

Group 3 40 21 13 2044

502 297 1 14 11,9 30/5/17 9/6/17

RO Total 153

60 9 4798

1510 553 0 17 12,2

30/5/17

9/6/17

Group 1 22 20 1 1695

503 220 0 9 12,3 30/5/17 9/6/17

Group 2 66 20 6 1595

503 250 0 6 12 30/5/17 9/6/17

Group 3 65 20 2 1508

504 83 0 2 12,2 30/5/17 8/6/17


217

Codebook

Figure 84 Study on Certification and Trust - Variables

Variable Label

Q Number of questionnaire

CO_1 Country

WEIGH Weighing

ROTATION Rotation Images

IMAGE1 Image 1

IMAGE2 Image 2

IMAGE3 Image 3

IMAGE4 Image 4

IMAGE5 Image 5

IMAGE6 Image 6

IMAGE7 Image 7

IMAGE8 Image 8

IMAGE9 Image 9

IMAGE10 Image 10

Q2_1 National government

Q2_2 The European Commission

Q2_3 An Industry body – an industry association

Q2_4 A Consumer Organisation

Q2_5 A third party organisation





















218







Q8_1 The Company being named and shamed in public

Q8_2 The Company should pay a fine

Q9_1 T-Shirt: Price

Q9_2 T-Shirt: Quality

Q9_3 T-Shirt: Environmental impact

Q9_4 T-Shirt: Country of origin

Q9_5 T-Shirt: Organic

Q9_6 T-Shirt: Brand

Q10_1 Laptop: Price

Q10_2 Laptop: Quality

Q10_3 Laptop: Environmental impact

Q10_4 Laptop: Performance

Q10_5 Laptop: Brand

Q11_1 Milk group: Price

Q11_2 Milk group: Quality

Q11_3 Milk group: Environmental impact

Q11_4 Milk group: Country of origin

Q11_5 Milk group: Organic

Q11_6 Milk group: Brand

Q12 Gender

Q13 Q13. Age

CAGE Q13. Age

Q14 Q14. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

Q15 Q15. Where would you place yourself on this ladder?


219

Annex V. Study on Willingness to Pay

Choice sets

Figure 85 Study on Willingness to Pay – Choice sets

Set Style Score Price

1 Overall B +7%

1 Overall + Midpoints B +15%

2 Midpoints D +15%

2 Overall B Baseline

3 Overall B Baseline

3 Overall + Midpoints D +7%

4 Overall B +7%

4 Midpoints D Baseline

5 Overall D Baseline

5 Overall + Midpoints B +7%

6 Midpoints D Baseline

6 Overall + Midpoints D +7%

7 Overall + Midpoints D Baseline

7 Midpoints B +7%

8 Midpoints D +7%

8 Overall B +15%

9 Midpoints B +7%

9 Overall D +15%

10 Overall D +7%

10 Midpoints B +15%

11 Overall D +7%

11 Overall + Midpoints B Baseline

12 Overall B +15%

12 Overall + Midpoints B Baseline


INTRODUCTION

(This heading and others below will not appear in the questionnaire)

Thank you very much for your interest in participating in this online self-administered survey



You can now start the online online by clicking on the "NEXT" button below

EXPERIMENTAL TASK



QUESTIONNAIRE

Social context


220

Q2. To what extend do you believe are the following groups of people around you

concerned and engaged about environmental issues?

Very

much

Quite a

lot

Not very

much

Not at all Don’t

know

My family

My friends

People in my local community

Officials and municipality

Q3. To what extend do you discuss with the following groups of people around you

about environmental issues?

Very much Quite a lot Not very

much

Not at all

My family

My friends

People in my local community

Officials and municipality


221

Q4. To what extend do you agree with the following statements?

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly

Disagree

‘I think of myself as an

environmentally-friendly consumer’

‘I would be embarrassed to be seen as

having an environmentally friendly

lifestyle’ (scoring reversed)

‘I think of myself as someone who is

very concerned with environmental

issues’

‘I would not want my family or friends

to think of me as someone who is

concerned about environmental

issues’ (scoring reversed)

Socio-demographics

ALL

Q5. Gender

Female

Male

Q6. Age

____ years old












consideration, where would you place yourself on this ladder?


222

Target sample


Table 40 Study on Willingness to Pay – Target sample by country and age group


years

From 25 to 54

years

From 55 to 74

years Total

Germany 172 931 397 1,500

France 198 926 376 1,500

Italy 199 1014 287 1,500

Poland 239 1009 252 1,500

808 3,880 1,312 6,000

Table 41 Study on Willingness to Pay - Target sample by country and gender


Germany 732 768 1,500

France 761 739 1,500

Italy 715 785 1,500

Poland 759 741 1,500

2,967 3,033 6,000

Table 42 Study on Willingness to Pay - Target sample by country and education level

Country

0-11

years of education

12 years of

education (high

school diploma)

Some years of

university (not

completed)

University

degree (BA, BS)

Post-

graduate degree

(MA, MS, JD, MD,

PhD,

etc)

Total

Germany 643 418 92 130 217 1,500

France 140 494 175 467 224 1,500

Italy 113 612 279 195 301 1,500

Poland 104 606 164 182 444 1,500

1,000 2,130 710 974 1,186 6,000


223

Fieldwork

In the second experiment, fieldwork started on 24 May 2017 with the pilots and finished on 12

June 2017. A total of 28,459 respondents were invited to the questionnaire across the 4 countries

(France, Italy, Poland, Germany). Of them, 4,285 did not complete the questionnaire, while

6,071 did. The average duration of the questionnaire was around 8 minutes. The following figure

summarizes the fieldwork process.


Pilot Fieldwork

Experiment 1

Invite

d

Com

ple

te

Incom

ple

t

e +

Scre

en

out

Invite

d

Com

ple

te

Incom

ple

te

Speeders

Scre

en

Out (A

ge)

Dura

tion

Sta

rt

End

FR Total 26

9

49 2 4437 1518 1414 2 29 8,8 24/5/

17

1/6/17

Group 1 28 15 2 940 502 191 0 17 8,5 24/5/17 30/5/17

Group 2 208

20 0 1686 506 882 1 2 9,1 24/5/17 31/5/17

Group 3 33 14 0 1811 510 341 1 10 8,9 24/5/17 1/6/17

IT Total 134

42 1 14926

1502 583 4 12 8,5 24/5/17

6/6/17

Group 1 36 16 1 1430 502 484 2 8 9,5 24/5/17 31/5/17

Group 2 41 13 0 8339 500 26 2 2 8,1 24/5/17 7/6/17

Group 3 57 13 0 5157 500 73 0 2 8,1 24/5/17 7/6/17

PL Total 153

55 0 5238 1505 1182 5 9 8,7 24/5/17

30/5/17

Group 1 109

15 0 1794 500 427 2 2 8,1 24/5/17 30/5/17

Group 2 21 20 0 1652 502 354 2 2 9,1 24/5/17 30/5/17

Group 3 23 20 0 1792 503 401 1 5 8,8 24/5/17 30/5/17

DE Total 310

58 0 8274 1546 1106 10 18 7,7 24/5/17

12/6/17

Group 1 194

23 0 2530 504 226 4 4 7,4 24/5/17 9/6/17

Group 2 23 19 0 3097 506 422 0 3 8,4 24/5/17 10/6/17

Group 3 93 16 0 2647 536 458 6 11 7,4 24/5/17 12/6/17

Codebook

Figure 87 Study on Willingness to Pay - Variables

Variable Label


CO Country

WEIGH Weighing


IMAGE1 Image 1

IMAGE2 Image 2

IMAGE3 Image 3

IMAGE4 Image 4

IMAGE5 Image 5


224

IMAGE6 Image 6

IMAGE7 Image 7

IMAGE8 Image 8

IMAGE9 Image 9

IMAGE10 Image 10

IMAGE11 Image 11

IMAGE12 Image 12

Q2_1 My family

Q2_2 My friends

Q2_3 People in my local community

Q2_4 Officials and municipality

Q3_1 My family

Q3_2 My friends



Q4_1 I think of myself as an environmentally-friendly consumer

Q4_2 I would be embarrassed to be seen as having an environmentally

friendly lifestyle

Q4_3 I think of myself as someone who is very concerned with


Q4_4 I would not want my family or friends to think of me as someone

who is concerned about environmental issues

Q5 Q5.Gender

Q6 "Q6.

CAGE "Q6.

Q7 "Q7.



CO Country

WEIGH Weighing


IMAGE1 Image 1

IMAGE2 Image 2

IMAGE3 Image 3

IMAGE4 Image 4

IMAGE5 Image 5

IMAGE6 Image 6

IMAGE7 Image 7

IMAGE8 Image 8

IMAGE9 Image 9

IMAGE10 Image 10

IMAGE11 Image 11

IMAGE12 Image 12


225

Q2_1 My family

Q2_2 My friends



Q3_1 My family

Q3_2 My friends



Q4_1 I think of myself as an environmentally-friendly consumer

Q4_2 I would be embarrassed to be seen as having an environmentally

friendly lifestyle

Q4_3 I think of myself as someone who is very concerned with


Q4_4 I would not want my family or friends to think of me as someone

who is concerned about environmental issues

Q5 Q5.Gender

Q6 "Q6.

CAGE "Q6.

Q7 "Q7.



226

Annex VI. Study on Ecolabel

Choice sets

Figure 88 Study on Ecolabel – Choice sets

Set Label Style Score Price

1 PEF “Compared to similar products”

average/yellow/C Baseline

1 Pef “Compared to similar products”

worst/red/D Baseline

2 Pef ABCDE better/green/b +15%

2 Eco+Pef ABCDE worst/red/D +15%

3 Eco+Pef ABCDE worst/red/D +7%

3 Eco+Pef “Compared to similar

products”

average/yellow/C +15%

4 Pef “Compared to similar

products”

worst/red/D +7%

4 Pef ABCDE worst/red/D +7%

5 Eco+Pef “Compared to similar products”

better/green/b Baseline

5 Eco+Pef ABCDE average/yellow/C +15%

6 Ecolabel None None Baseline

6 Pef ABCDE worst/red/D +15%

7 Pef “Compared to similar products”

better/green/b +15%

7 Ecolabel None None +7%

8 Pef ABCDE better/green/b +7%




better/green/b +7%

9 Eco+Pef ABCDE average/yellow/C +7%

10 Pef ABCDE better/green/b Baseline


average/yellow/C Baseline

11 Eco+Pef ABCDE better/green/b +7%

11 Eco+Pef ABCDE average/yellow/C Baseline

12 Pef ABCDE average/yellow/C +7%

12 Pef “Compared to similar

products”



227


“Thank you very much for your interest in participating in this online self-administered survey



You can now start the online online by clicking on the "NEXT" button below.”

Q1. Have you seen this logo before?

Yes GO TO Q2

No GO TO Q3

Q2. (OPEN QUESTION) Could you please tell us on which product?

_______________________________


228

Experimental task



Q4. (OPEN QUESTION) Can you say in a few words what the ecolabel means to you

and your family?

______________________________________________________________

____

______________________________________________________________

____

______________________________________________________________

____

Q5. Gender

Female

Male

Q6. Age

____ years old












consideration, where would you place yourself on this ladder?43

43 Adler, N., & Stewart, J. (2007). The MacArthur scale of subjective social status. MacArthur Research Network on

SES & Health.


229

Target sample


Table 43 Study on Ecolabel – Target sample by country and age group


years

From 25 to 54

years

From 55 to 74

years Total

France 130 618 252 1,000

Poland 160 673 167 1,000

Sweden 137 573 290 1,000

Slovenia 134 693 173 1,000

561 2,557 882 4,000

Table 44 Study on Ecolabel - Target sample by country and gender


France 512 488 1,000

Poland 199 801 1,000

Sweden 285 715 1,000

Slovenia 308 692 1,000

1,304 2,696 4,000

Table 45 Study on Ecolabel - Target sample by country and education level

Country

0-11

years of

education

12 years

of

education

(high

school

diploma)

Some

years of

university

(not

completed)

University

degree

(BA, BS)

Post-

graduate

degree

(MA, MS,

JD, MD,

PhD, etc)

Total

France 101 340 110 312 137 1,000

Poland 82 383 107 119 309 1,000

Sweden 139 369 182 216 94 1,000

Slovenia 55 323 214 356 52 1,000

377 1415 613 1,003 592 4,000


230

Fieldwork

In the third experiment, fieldwork started on 19 May 2017 with the pilots and finished on 31

May 2017. A total of 14,583 respondents were invited to the questionnaire across the 4 countries

(France, Poland, Sweden, Slovenia). Of them, 2,379 did not complete the questionnaire, while

4,012 did. The average duration of the questionnaire was around 8 minutes. The following figure

summarizes the fieldwork process.


Pilot Fieldwork

Experiment 1

In

vite

d

Co

mp

lete

In

co

mp

l

ete

+

Screen

ou

t

In

vite

d

Co

mp

lete

In

co

mp

l

ete

Sp

eed

ers

Screen

Ou

t

(A

ge)

Du

ratio

n

Sta

rt

En

d

FR Total 13

3

47 2 2831 1000 1102 8 10 8,6 19/5/17 30/5/17

Group 1 59 26 0 1544 499 677 4 9 8,5 19/5/17 30/5/17

Group 2 74 21 2 1287 501 425 4 1 8,7 19/5/17 26/5/17

PL Total 10

4

51 2 2668 1007 648 1 2 9,7 19/5/17 29/5/17

Group 1 52 25 1 1367 503 325 0 1 9,8 19/5/17 29/5/17

Group 2 52 26 1 1301 504 323 1 1 9,6 19/5/17 29/5/17

SE Total 128

46 4 5940 1000 381 13 17 7,6 19/5/17 30/5/17

Group 1 57 24 4 2830 496 201 7 9 7,7 19/5/17 30/5/17

Group 2 71 22 0 3110 504 180 6 8 7,5 19/5/17 29/5/17

SI Total 100

50 3 3144 1005 248 3 7 7,9 19/5/17 31/5/17

Group 1 48 25 0 1602 502 160 2 4 8,5 19/5/17 31/5/17

Group 2 52 25 3 1542 503 88 1 3 7,3 19/5/17 31/5/17

Codebook

Figure 90 Study on Ecolabel - Variables

Variable Label


CO Country

WEIGH Weighing


Q1 Q1. Have you seen this logo before?

Q2 Q2. Could you please tell us on which product?

IMAGE1 Image 1

IMAGE2 Image 2

IMAGE3 Image 3

IMAGE4 Image 4

IMAGE5 Image 5

IMAGE6 Image 6

IMAGE7 Image 7


231

IMAGE8 Image 8

IMAGE9 Image 9

IMAGE10 Image 10

IMAGE11 Image 11

IMAGE12 Image 12

Q4 Q4. Can you say in a few words what the ecolabel means to you

and your family?

Q5 Q5. Gender

Q6 Q6. Age

CAGE Q6. Age

Q7 Q7. What is the highest level of education you have completed?


final report - european...

Documents