CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 107Economic and Environmental ValuationOrganic Food and AgricultureConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling

The impact of environmental sustainability labels on willingness-to-pay for foods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of discrete choice experiments

Open access
Bastounis, Anastasios, Buckell, John, Hartmann-Boyce, Jamie, Cook, Brian, King, Sarah, Potter, Christina, Bianchi, Filippo, Rayner, Mike +1 more·2021·Nutrients
DOI 10.3390/nu13082677PMC PMC8398923
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Food production is a major contributor to environmental damage. More environmentally sustainable foods could incur higher costs for consumers. In this review, we explore whether consumers are willing to pay (WTP) more for foods with environmental sustainability labels (‘ecolabels’). Six electronic databases were searched for experiments on consumers’ willingness to pay for ecolabelled food. Monetary values were converted to Purchasing Power Parity dollars and adjusted for country-specific inflation. Studies were meta-analysed and effect sizes with confidence intervals were calculated for the whole sample and for pre-specified subgroups defined as meat-dairy, seafood, and fruits-vegetables-nuts. Meta-regressions tested the role of label attributes and demographic characteristics on participants’ WTP. Forty-three discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with 41,777 participants were eligible for inclusion. Thirty-five DCEs (n = 35,725) had usable data for the meta-analysis. Participants were willing to pay a premium of 3.79 PPP$/kg (95%CI 2.7, 4.89, p ≤ 0.001) for ecolabelled foods. WTP was higher for organic labels compared to other labels. Women and people with lower levels of education expressed higher WTP. Ecolabels may increase consumers’ willingness to pay more for environmentally sustainable products and could be part of a strategy to encourage a transition to more sustainable diets.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/nu13082677

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Consumer skepticism is heightened by greenwashing-overstated or fabricated environmental claims-creating a climate where repeated exposure to misleading claims depresses responsiveness, even to well-intended messages.

    “At the same time, consumer skepticism is heightened by greenwashing-overstated or fabricated environmental claims-creating a climate where repeated exposure to misleading claims depresses responsiveness, even to well-intended messages (Bastounis et al., 2021;Chen et al., 2015).”

    From Cross-national evidence on influencer-driven green choice: a moderated-mediation model of authenticity, parasocial ties, and greenwashing exposure (2026) · cites this paper as Bastounis et al., 2021

    The Discussion suggests that familiarity with organic certification labels may increase trust relative to other claims. The Introduction discusses the value of accurate environmental information, but neither section addresses greenwashing, repeated exposure to misleading claims, or reduced responsiveness to well-intended messages (searched for greenwashing, skepticism, misleading claims, and trust). (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • AUTH can build trust by lowering inferences of opportunism and increasing perceived truthfulness; PSR can build trust by lowering perceived risk through relational closeness.

    “AUTH can build trust by lowering inferences of opportunism and increasing perceived truthfulness; PSR can build trust by lowering perceived risk through relational closeness.”

    From Cross-national evidence on influencer-driven green choice: a moderated-mediation model of authenticity, parasocial ties, and greenwashing exposure (2026) · cites this paper as Bastounis et al., 2021

    The Discussion says that familiarity with organic certification labels may increase consumers’ trust in those labels. It does not address AUTH, PSR, opportunism, truthfulness, or risk reduction through relational closeness; searches for those mechanisms found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A growing stream highlights authenticity-the perception that the creator is sincere and value-consistent-as the catalyst that turns attention into verifiable green action via trust.

    “A growing stream highlights authenticitythe perception that the creator is sincere and value-consistent-as the catalyst that turns attention into verifiable green action via trust (Bastounis et al., 2021;Chen et al., 2015).”

    From Cross-national evidence on influencer-driven green choice: a moderated-mediation model of authenticity, parasocial ties, and greenwashing exposure (2026) · cites this paper as Bastounis et al., 2021

    The Discussion says that familiarity may increase consumers’ trust in organic certification labels, and the Conclusions suggest ecolabels may encourage sustainable food purchasing. Neither passage addresses a creator’s sincerity or value-consistency, or a trust-mediated path from attention to verifiable green action. Searches for creator authenticity and that proposed mechanism found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 65 · Cited by 107

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. [3]Eyhorn F. Muller A. Reganold J.P. Frison E. Herren H.R. Luttikholt L. Smith P. Sustainability in global agriculture driven by organic farming Nat. Sustain. 2019 2 253 255 10.1038/s41893-019-0266-6 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [4]Editorial: Food audit. Counting the hidden US$12-trillion cost of our dismal handling of global food resources Nature 2019 574 296 10.1038/d41586-019-03117-y 31619797 · DOI
  3. [5]Victor V. Joy Thoppan J. Jeyakumar Nathan R. Farkas Maria F. Factors influencing consumer behavior and prospective purchase decisions in a dynamic pricing environment—An exploratory factor analysis approach Soc. Sci. 2018 7 153 10.3390/socsci7090153 · DOI
  4. [6]Chong F.S. Farmer L.J. Hagan T.D.J. Speers J.S. Sanderson D.W. Devlin D.J. Kerry J.P. Regional, socioeconomic and behavioural-impacts on consumer acceptability of beef in Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Great Britain Meat Sci. 2019 154 86 95 10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.04.009 31022586 · DOI
  5. [7]Hartmann-Boyce J. Bianchi F. Piernas C. Riches S.P. Frie K. Nourse R. Jebb S.A. Grocery store interventions to change food purchasing behaviors: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2018 107 1004 1016 10.1093/ajcn/nqy045 29868912 PMC5985731 · DOI
  6. [8]Thøgersen J. Haugaard P. Olesen A. Consumer responses to ecolabels Eur. J. Mark. 2010 44 1787 1810 10.1108/03090561011079882 · DOI
  7. [9]Printezis I. Grebitus C. Hirsch S. The price is right!? A meta-regression analysis on willingness to pay for local food PLoS ONE 2019 14 e0215847 10.1371/journal.pone.0215847 31141519 PMC6541256 · DOI
  8. [10]Potter C. Bastounis A. Hartmann-Boyce J. Stewart C. Frie K. Tudor K. Bianchi F. Cartwright E. Cook B. Rayner M. The effects of environmental sustainability labels on selection, purchase, and consumption of food and drink products: A systematic review Environ. Behav. 2021 0013916521995473 10.1177/0013916521995473 PMC8384304 34456340 · DOI
  9. [11]Dolgopolova I. Teuber R. Consumers’ willingness to pay for health benefits in food products: A meta-analysis Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2018 40 333 352 10.1093/aepp/ppx036 · DOI
  10. [12]Moher D. Liberati A. Tetzlaff J. Altman D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement Ann. Intern. Med. 2009 151 264 269 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 19622511 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [14]Hensher D.A. Rose J.M. Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK 2015
  12. [15]Bronnmann J. Hoffmann J. Consumer preferences for farmed and ecolabeled turbot: A North German perspective Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2018 22 342 361 10.1080/13657305.2018.1398788 · DOI
  13. [16]De-Magistris T. Gracia A. Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for sustainable food products: The case of organically and locally grown almonds in Spain J. Clean. Prod. 2016 118 97 104 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.050 · DOI
  14. [17]Fernández-Polanco J. Loose S.M. Luna L. Are retailers’ preferences for seafood attributes predictive for consumer wants? Results from a choice experiment for seabream sparus aurata Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2013 17 103 122 10.1080/13657305.2013.772262 · DOI
  15. [18]Gerrard C. Janssen M. Smith L. Hamm U. Padel S. UK consumer reactions to organic certification logos Br. Food J. 2013 115 727 742 10.1108/00070701311331517 · DOI
  16. [19]Grebitus C. Steiner B. Veeman M.M. Paying for sustainability: A cross-cultural analysis of consumers’ valuations of food and non-food products labeled for carbon and water footprints J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2016 63 50 58 10.1016/j.socec.2016.05.003 · DOI
  17. [20]Lombardi G.V. Berni R. Rocchi B. Environmental friendly food. Choice experiment to assess consumer’s attitude toward “climate neutral” milk: The role of communication J. Clean. Prod. 2017 142 257 262 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.125 · DOI
  18. [21]Mondelaers K. van Huylenbroek G. Verbeke W. Van Huylenbroeck G. Importance of health and environment as quality traits in the buying decision of organic products Br. Food J. 2009 111 1120 1139 10.1108/00070700910992952 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [27]Price J. Dupont D. Adamowicz W. As time goes by: Examination of temporal stability across stated preference question formats Environ. Resour. Econ. 2017 68 643 662 10.1007/s10640-016-0039-x · DOI
  20. [28]Hensher D.A. Rose J.M. Li Z. Does the choice model method and/or the data matter? Transportation 2012 39 351 385 10.1007/s11116-011-9329-x · DOI
  21. [29]de Boer W.I. Koning R.H. Mierau J.O. Ex ante and ex post willingness to pay for hosting a large international sport event J. Sports Econ. 2019 20 159 176 10.1177/1527002518771445 · DOI
  22. [30]Hearne R.R. Volcan M.M. The Use of Choice Experiments to Analyze Consumer Preferences for Organic Produce in Costa Rica Proceedings of the AAEA Annual Meetings Long Beach, CA, USA 28–31 July 2002
  23. [31]Tait P. Saunders C. Guenther M. Rutherford P. Emerging versus developed economy consumer willingness to pay for environmentally sustainable food production: A choice experiment approach comparing Indian, Chinese and United Kingdom lamb consumers J. Clean. Prod. 2016 124 65 72 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.088 · DOI
  24. [32]Tait P. Saunders C. Guenther M. Rutherford P. Miller S. Exploring the impacts of food label format on consumer willingness to pay for environmental sustainability: A choice experiment approach in the United Kingdom and Japan Int. Food Res. J. 2016 23 1787 1796
  25. [33]Xie J. Gao Z. Swisher M. Zhao X. Consumers’ preferences for fresh broccolis: Interactive effects between country of origin and organic labels Agric. Econ. 2016 47 181 191 10.1111/agec.12193 · DOI
  26. [34]Stata 16 Base Reference Manual Stata Press: Stata Corp. College Station, TX, USA 2017
  27. [36]Siegrist M. Hartmann C. Impact of sustainability perception on consumption of organic meat and meat substitutes Appetite 2019 132 196 202 10.1016/j.appet.2018.09.016 30322657 · DOI
  28. [37]Buckell J. Hess S. Stubbing out hypothetical bias: Improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data J. Health Econ. 2019 65 93 102 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2019.03.011 30986747 PMC6682418 · DOI
  29. [38]Aizaki H. Nanseki T. Zhou H. Japanese consumer preferences for milk certified with the good agricultural practice (GAP) label Anim. Sci. J. 2013 84 82 89 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2012.01043.x 23302087 · DOI
  30. [39]Akaichi F. de Grauw S. Darmon P. Revoredo-Giha C. Does Fair Trade Compete with Carbon Footprint and Organic Attributes in the Eyes of Consumers? Results from a Pilot Study in Scotland, The Netherlands and France J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2016 29 969 984 10.1007/s10806-016-9642-7 · DOI
  31. [40]Ankamah-Yeboah I. Jacobsen J.B. Olsen S.B. Innovating out of the fishmeal trap Br. Food J. 2018 120 2395 2410 10.1108/BFJ-11-2017-0604 · DOI
  32. [41]Banovic M. Reinders M.J. Claret A. Guerrero L. Krystallis A. A cross-cultural perspective on impact of health and nutrition claims, country-of-origin and eco-label on consumer choice of new aquaculture products Food Res. Int. 2019 123 36 47 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.04.031 31284987 · DOI
  33. [43]Caputo V. Van Loo E.J. Scarpa R. Nayga R.M. Verbeke W. Comparing Serial, and Choice Task Stated and Inferred Attribute Non-Attendance Methods in Food Choice Experiments J. Agric. Econ. 2018 69 35 57 10.1111/1477-9552.12246 · DOI
  34. [44]Carlucci D. Devitiis B.D. Nardone G. Santeramo F.G. Certification Labels Versus Convenience Formats: What Drives the Market in Aquaculture Products? Mar. Resour. Econ. 2017 32 295 310 10.1086/692091 · DOI · Paper page
  35. [46]Fonner R. Sylvia G. Willingness to Pay for Multiple Seafood Labels in a Niche Market Mar. Resour. Econ. 2015 30 51 70 10.1086/679466 · DOI
  36. [48]James J.S. Rickard B.J. Rossman W.J. Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation in Applesauce: Using a Choice Experiment to Assess the Value of Organic, Local, and Nutrition Attributes Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2009 38 357 370 10.1017/S1068280500009618 · DOI
  37. [49]Khai H.V. Yabe M. Consumer preferences for agricultural products considering the value of biodiversity conservation in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam J. Nat. Conserv. 2015 25 62 71 10.1016/j.jnc.2015.02.004 · DOI
  38. [50]Lim K.H. Hu W. Nayga R.M. Is Marine Stewardship Council’s ecolabel a rising tide for all? Consumers’ willingness to pay for origin-differentiated ecolabeled canned tuna Mar. Policy 2018 96 18 26 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.07.015 · DOI
  39. [51]Mamouni Limnios E. Schilizzi S.G.M. Burton M. Ong A. Hynes N. Willingness to pay for product ecological footprint: Organic vs non-organic consumers Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016 111 338 348 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.05.009 · DOI
  40. [52]Liu Q. Yan Z. Zhou J. Consumer Choices and Motives for Eco-Labeled Products in China: An Empirical Analysis Based on the Choice Experiment Sustainability 2017 9 331 10.3390/su9030331 · DOI
  41. [53]Olesen I. Alfnes F. Røra M.B. Kolstad K. Eliciting consumers’ willingness to pay for organic and welfare-labelled salmon in a non-hypothetical choice experiment Livest. Sci. 2010 127 218 226 10.1016/j.livsci.2009.10.001 · DOI
  42. [54]Risius A. Hamm U. The effect of information on beef husbandry systems on consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay Meat Sci. 2017 124 9 14 10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.10.008 27792916 · DOI
  43. [55]Rousseau S. The role of organic and fair trade labels when choosing chocolate Food Qual. Prefer. 2015 44 92 100 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.04.002 · DOI
  44. [56]Rousseau S. Vranken L. Green market expansion by reducing information asymmetries: Evidence for labeled organic food products Food Policy 2013 40 31 43 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.01.006 · DOI
  45. [57]Sakagami M. Sato M. Ueta K. Measuring consumer preferences regarding organic labelling and the JAS label in particular N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 2010 49 247 254 10.1080/00288233.2006.9513715 · DOI
  46. [58]Uchida H. Onozaka Y. Morita T. Managi S. Demand for ecolabeled seafood in the Japanese market: A conjoint analysis of the impact of information and interaction with other labels Food Policy 2014 44 68 76 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.10.002 · DOI
  47. [59]Van Loo E.J. Caputo V. Nayga R.M. Meullenet J.-F. Ricke S.C. Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic chicken breast: Evidence from choice experiment Food Qual. Prefer. 2011 22 603 613 10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.02.003 · DOI
  48. [60]van Osch S. Hynes S. O’Higgins T. Hanley N. Campbell D. Freeman S. Estimating the Irish public’s willingness to pay for more sustainable salmon produced by integrated multi-trophic aquaculture Mar. Policy 2017 84 220 227 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.07.005 · DOI
  49. [61]Wakamatsu H. Miyata T. Reputational damage and the Fukushima disaster: An analysis of seafood in Japan Fish. Sci. 2017 83 1049 1057 10.1007/s12562-017-1129-6 · DOI
  50. [62]Wang J. Ge J. Ma Y. Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment Sustainability 2018 10 603 10.3390/su10030603 · DOI
  51. [63]Witkin T. Dissanayake S.T.M. McClenachan L. Opportunities and barriers for fisheries diversification: Consumer choice in New England Fish. Res. 2015 168 56 62 10.1016/j.fishres.2015.03.019 · DOI
  52. [64]Wu L. Yin S. Xu Y. Zhu D. Effectiveness of China’s Organic Food Certification Policy: Consumer Preferences for Infant Milk Formula with Different Organic Certification Labels Can. J. Agric. Econ. Rev. Can. D’agroecon. 2014 62 545 568 10.1111/cjag.12050 · DOI
  53. [66]Yin S. Hu W. Chen Y. Han F. Wang Y. Chen M. Chinese consumer preferences for fresh produce: Interaction between food safety labels and brands Agribusiness 2019 35 53 68 10.1002/agr.21585 · DOI
  54. [67]Zanoli R. Scarpa R. Napolitano F. Piasentier E. Naspetti S. Bruschi V. Organic label as an identifier of environmentally related quality: A consumer choice experiment on beef in Italy Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2012 28 70 79 10.1017/S1742170512000026 · DOI
  55. [68]Zhou J. Liu Q. Mao R. Yu X. Habit spillovers or induced awareness: Willingness to pay for eco-labels of rice in China Food Policy 2017 71 62 73 10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.07.006 · DOI

Authors
Bastounis, A., Buckell, J., Hartmann-Boyce, J., Cook, B., King, S., Potter, C., Bianchi, F., Rayner, M., & Jebb, S. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK
Corresponding author
Cook, Brian
ORCID
Venue
Nutrients
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-07-31
Volume
13
Issue
8
Pages
2677
ISSN
2072-6643 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/nu13082677
PMC
PMC8398923
OpenAlex
W3189223105
Cited by
107
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 9
FWCI
2.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nutrients (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (205212/Z/16/Z)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Keywords
eco-labels, willingness to pay, organic food labeling, consumer preferences, sustainable diets, seafood, fruits and vegetables, gender differences, educational attainment
MeSH terms
Consumer Behavior, Food, Food Labeling, Humans, Databases, Factual, Food, Organic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review