Can a Multi-Level Label do Better than a Binary Label for Animal Welfare? A PLS-Analysis of Consumer Satisfaction

Labeling is an important marketing tool for food producers and retailers. With growing product heterogeneity, labels can help consumers differentiate higher quality products on supermarket shelves. Currently, most labels are of a binary nature—meaning a product either has certain characteristics or not—although there is a larger product heterogeneity in the food market than just two standards. A multi-level label might be a solution to addressing this problem. The objective of this article is to investigate if influences on consumer satisfaction with ethical food labeling systems differ between a binary and a multi-level labeling system. A consumer survey was carried out in Germany (n = 1,538) comparing the two types of labels with a split-sample approach. The influence of five factors (comprehensibility, involvement, time pressure, trust and use), derived from the literature, were analyzed in a structural equation model. All these factors influence satisfaction with labeling. Furthermore, differences between the two labeling systems were detected. This article delivers important results for food producers and policy makers. The group comparison indicated that trust as a precondition is more necessary for a binary label whereas time pressure factors reduce satisfaction with multi-level labeling.


Editor(s):
IFAMR, IFAMA
Issue Date:
Aug 15 2016
Publication Type:
Journal Article
DOI and Other Identifiers:
(ISSN #: 1559-2448) (Other)
Record Identifier:
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/244646
PURL Identifier:
http://purl.umn.edu/244646
Published in:
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Volume 19, Issue 3
Page range:
1-30
Total Pages:
30
JEL Codes:
M31; D12
Note:
The IFAMR is published quarterly my IFAMA. For more information visit: www.ifama.org.
Series Statement:
Volume 19
Issue 3




 Record created 2017-04-01, last modified 2018-01-23

Fulltext:
Download fulltext
PDF

Rate this document:

Rate this document:
1
2
3
 
(Not yet reviewed)