Multi-level labelling: too complex for consumers?

Author/s Ramona Weinrich, Annabell Franz, Achim Spiller
Publishing Year 2016 Issue 2016/2
Language English Pages 18 P. 155-172 File size 161 KB
DOI 10.3280/ECAG2016-002004
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

For many consumers, sustainability attributes are a relevant consideration concerning the purchase decision. However, as more food labels enter the retail market it is becoming increasingly difficult for consumers to evaluate the underlying meaning of these labels. The most common labels communicating sustainable values tend to be binary. However, many attributes, such as animal welfare, are of a continuous nature. One solution to communicate differentiated information about process or product standards is by using multi-level labels, which indicate various levels of standards. However, while multi-level labels may help consumers realize the differences in production or process qualities, they may also cause confusion since they convey more complex information. Therefore, the impact of multi-level labels on consumers’ comprehension remains unclear. The primary objective of this paper is to test whether consumers can easily comprehend a multi-level labelling approach by using the case of animal welfare standards. This paper will also assess whether a multi-level label could be an effective tool to communicate information about standards and enhance consumers’ willingness to pay. The results show that when an explanation about the levels of the label is provided, there is an increasing willingness to pay for products with higher standards. Hence, a multi-level label can work if information is provided and is thus an adequate tool to communicate sustainable and ethical values.

Keywords: Labelling, animal welfare, sustainability, ethical consumption, willingness to pay

Jel codes: Q13

  1. Harper, G.C., & Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal, 104(3), 287-299. DOI: 10.1108/00070700210425723
  2. Aarset, B., Beckmann, S., Bigne, E., Beveridge, M., Bjorndal, T., Bunting, J., & Young, J. (2004). The European consumers’ understanding and perceptions of the “organic” food regime: The case of aquaculture. British Food Journal, 106(2), 93-105. DOI: 10.1108/00070700410516784
  3. Ahlheim, M., Ekasingh, B., Fror, O., Kitchaicharoen, J., Neef, A., Sangkapitux, C., & Sinphurmsukskul, N. (2007). Using citizen expert groups in environmental valuation. Lessons from a CVM study in Northern Thailand. Hohenheimer Diskussionsbeiträge Nr. 283/2007.
  4. Akerlof, G.A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488-500.
  5. Andrews, J., Burton, S., & Kees, J (2011). Is simpler always better? Consumer evaluations of front-of-package nutrition symbols. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing Article Postprint. Retrieved from
  6. Annunziata, A., Ianuario, S., & Pascale, P. (2011). Consumers’ attitudes toward labelling of ethical products: The case of organic and fair trade products. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 17(5), 518-535. DOI: 10.1080/10454446.2011.618790
  7. Antle, J.M. (2001). Economic analysis of food safety. In B. Gardner & G. Rausser (Eds.), Handbook of agricultural economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier (pp. 1084-1136).
  8. Asioli, D., Varela, P., Hersleth, M., Almli, V.L., Olsen, N.V., & Nas, T. (2016). A discussion of recent methodologies for combining sensory and extrinsic product properties in consumer studies. Food Quality and Preference, in press.
  9. Batte, M.T., Hooker, N.H., Haab, T.C., & Beaverson, J. (2007). Putting their money where their mouths are: Consumer willingness to pay for multi-ingredient, processed organic food products. Food Policy, 32(2), 145-159.
  10. Bokkers, E.A.M., de Boer, I.J.M., & Koene, P. (2011). Space needs of broilers. Animal Welfare, 20(4), 623-632.
  11. Busch, G., Kayser, M., & Spiller, A. (2012). Massentierhaltung aus Vebrauchersicht - Assoziationen und Einstellungen. 22. Jahrestagung der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Agrarökonomie. Ökodienstleistungen und Landwirtschaft: Herausforderungen und Konsequenzen für Foschung und Praxis, September 20-21, 2012, Vienna, Austria (pp. 123-124).
  12. Caputo, V., Nayga, R.M., & Scarpa, R. (2013). Food miles or carbon emissions? Exploring labelling preference for food transport footprint with a stated choice study. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 57(4), 465-482. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8489.12014
  13. Caswell, J.A., & Mojduszka, E.M. (1996). Using informational labeling to influence the market for quality and in food products. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78(5), 1248-1253. DOI: 10.2307/1243501.
  14. Caswell, J.A., & Padberg, D.I. (1992). Toward a more comprehensive theory of food labels. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(2), 460-468. DOI: 10.2307/1242500
  15. Dantas, M. I.S., & Minim, V.P.R. (2004). The effect of packaging on the perception of minimally processed products. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 16(2), 37-41.
  16. Darby, M.R., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. The Journal of Law and Economics, 16(1), 67-88. DOI: 10.1086/466756
  17. Deutscher Tierschutzbund e.V. (2012). Tierschutzlabel. Retrieved from
  18. Elbakidze, L., Nayga, R.M.J., & Li, H. (2012). Willingness to pay for multiple quantities of animal welfare dairy products: Results from random nth, second-price, and
  19. incremental second-price auctions. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue Canadienne D’agroeconomie.
  20. Fernqvist, F., & Ekelund, L. (2014). Credence and the effect on consumer liking of food – A review. Food Quality and Preference, 32, 340-353.
  21. Fischer, C., & Lyon, T.P. (2013). Competing environmental labels. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 23(3), 692-716.
  22. Fischer, C., & Lyon, T.P. (2014). A Theory of Multi-Tier Ecolabels. Working Paper, University of Michigan. --Retrieved from file: http//$/Downloads/ATheoryOfMultiTieredEcolabels_preview.pdf.
  23. German Federal Statistical Office (2011). Statistisches Jahrbuch 2011. Wiesbaden. --Retrieved from
  24. Grimsrud, K.M., Nielsen, H.M., Navrud, S., & Olesen, I. (2013). Households’ willingness-to-pay for improved fish welfare in breeding programs for farmed Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture, 372-375, 19-27.
  25. Grunert, K., Hieke, S., & Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy, 44, 177-189.
  26. Grunert, K.G., & Wills, J.M. (2007). A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. Journal of Public Health, 15(5), 385-399.
  27. Harbaugh, R., Maxwell, J.W., & Roussillon, B. (2011). Label confusion: The Groucho effect of uncertain standards. Management Science, 57(9), 1512-1527.
  28. Harper, L., Souta, P., Ince, J., & Mckenzie, J. (2007). Food Labelling Consumer Research: What Consumers Want. A Literature Review. Food Standards Agency. --Retrieved from
  29. Harrington, L., & Damnics, M. (2004). Energy Labelling and Standards throughout the World. naeeec Report 2004/04, Australia: The National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee. Jahn, G., Schramm, M., & Spiller, A. (2005). The reliability of certification: Quality labels as a consumer policy tool. Journal of Consumer Policy, 28(1), 53-73.
  30. Kehlbacher, A., Bennett, R., & Balcombe, K. (2012). Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling. Food Policy, 37(6), 627-633.
  31. Kelly, B., Hughes, C., Chapman, K., Louie, J.C.-Y., Dixon, H., Crawford, J., & Slevin, T. (2009). Consumer testing of the acceptability and effectiveness of front-of-pack food labelling systems for the Australian grocery market. Health Promotion International, 24(2), 120-129.
  32. Kolodinsky, J. (2012). Persistence of health labeling information asymmetry in the United States: Historical perspectives and twenty-first century realities. Journal of Macromarketing, 32(2), 193-207. DOI: 10.1177/0276146711434829
  33. Kroeber-Riel, W., & Esch, F.-R. (2004). Strategie und Technik der Werbung: Verhaltenswissenschaftliche Ansätze. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer GmbH.
  34. Langer, V.A., Eisend, M., & Kus, A. (2008). Zu viel des Guten? Zum Einfluss der Anzahl von Okolabels auf die Konsumentenverwirrtheit. Marketing ZFP -Zeitschrift Für Research and Management, 19, 20-29.
  35. Lee, T.-R., Lin, C.-H., Dadura, A.M., & Genshi, K. (2012). Promotion of economic animal welfare by market force: a case study. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 6(3), 302-321. DOI: 10.1504/IJBIR.2012.046629
  36. Lusk, J.L. & Shogren, J.F. (2007). Experimental Auctions – Methods and Applications in Economic and Marketing Research. Cambridge and others: Cambridge University Press.
  37. National Health Service (2015). Food labels. Page reviewed 13 July, 2015. --Retrieved from
  38. Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78(2), 311-329.
  39. Orth, U.R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 64-81.
  40. Procher, V., & Vance, C. (2013). Who does the shopping? German time-use evidence. Ruhr Economic Papers (No. 393), 199-2009.
  41. Roberto, C., Bragg, M., Schwartz, M.B., Seamans, M.J., Musicus, A., Novak, N., & Brownell, K.D. (2012). Facts up front versus traffic light food labels: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43(2), 134-141.
  42. Schulze, B., Spiller, A., & Lemke, D. (2008). Glucksschwein oder arme Sau? Die Einstellung der Verbaucher zur modernen Nutztierhaltung. In A. Spiller & B. Schulze (Eds.), Zukunftsperspektiven der Fleischwirtschaft - Verbraucher, Märkte Geschäftsbeziehungen. Gottingen: Universitatsverlag Gottingen (pp. 465-489).
  43. Snyder, W., & Cotter, M. (1998). The Michelin Guide and restaurant pricing strategies. Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing, 3(1), 51-67.
  44. Sorensen, H.S., Clement, J., & Gabrielsen, G. (2012). Food labels - an exploratory study into label information and what consumers see and understand. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Reseach, 22(1), 101-114.
  45. Mayer, T. Alfoldi, F. Leiber, D. Dubois, P. Fried, F. Heckendom, … & H. Willer (Eds.), Werte - Wege - Wirkungen: Biolandbau im Spannungsfeld zwischen Ernährungssicherung, Markt und Klimawandel. Beitrage zur 10. Wissenschaftstagung Okologischer Landbau, eth Zurich, 11.-13. Februar 2009.
  46. Band 2: Tierhaltung, Agrarpolitik und Betriebswirtschaf. Berlin: Verlag Dr. Koster (pp. 336-340).
  47. Talebi, A., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Telezhenko, E., & Weary, D.M. (2014). Reduced stocking density mitigates the negative effects of regrouping in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 97(3), 1358-1363.
  48. Turnbull, J.F., Bell, A., Adams, C.E., Bron, J., & Huntingford, F. (2005). Stocking density and welfare of cage farmed Atlantic salmon: application of a multivariate analysis. Aquaculture, 243(1-4), 121-132.
  49. Upham, P., Dendler, L. & Bleda, M. (2010). Carbon labelling of grocery products: public perceptions and potential emissions reductions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 348-355.
  50. Van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H., Paeps, F., & Fernandez-Celemin, L. (2008). Consumer preferences for front-of-pack calories labelling. Public Health Nutrition, 11(2), 203-13. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980007000304
  51. Vecerek, V., Grbalova, S., Voslarova, E., Janackova, B., & Malena, M. (2006). Effects of travel distance and the season of the year on death rates of broilers transported to poultry processing plants. Poultry Science, 85(11), 1881-1884.
  52. Verbeke, W. (2005). Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32(3), 347-368.
  53. Weinrich, R, Sarah, K., Franz, A. & Spiller, A. (2015). Consumer preferences for high welfare meat in Germany: self-service counter or service counter? International Journal on Food Systems Dynamics, 6(1), 32-49.

  • Backing biodiversity? German consumers’ views on a multi-level biodiversity-labeling scheme for beef from grazing-based production systems Ekaterina Stampa, Katrin Zander, in Journal of Cleaner Production 133471/2022 pp.133471
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133471
  • The Hierarchical Utility of Credence Attributes of Orange Marmalade: What do ConsumerS Look for in a Multi-Claim Food Product? Giuseppe Di Vita, Raffaele Zanchini, Daniela Spina, Gioacchino Pappalardo, Emanuele Schimmenti, Mario D’Amico, in Journal of Marketing Communications /2023 pp.1
    DOI: 10.1080/13527266.2023.2273539
  • How green is your packaging—A comparative international study of cues consumers use to recognize environmentally friendly packaging Carsten Herbes, Christoph Beuthner, Iris Ramme, in International Journal of Consumer Studies /2020 pp.258
    DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12560

Ramona Weinrich, Annabell Franz, Achim Spiller, Multi-level labelling: too complex for consumers? in "ECONOMIA AGRO-ALIMENTARE" 2/2016, pp 155-172, DOI: 10.3280/ECAG2016-002004