1. AARHUS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
MASTER THESIS
Can a Carbon Label Influence
Consumers’ Purchasing Behavior On
Coffee?
Author:
KRISTIAN STEENSEN NIELSEN [300652]
M.Sc. Consumer Affairs Management
Supervisor:
JOHN THØGERSEN
Professor
Department of Business Administration
Number of characters:
128.761
January 2015

2.
1
Abstract
Purpose – Current food consumption patterns are unsustainable and contribute to
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. In an effort to change food
consumption patterns and direct consumers toward environmentally friendly products,
the consumer tool of eco-labeling has been widely applied. Eco-labels seek to inform
consumers about the environmental properties of different products at the point of
purchase. However, existing eco-labeling schemes on food products in Denmark
largely fail to take the carbon emissions of product’s into account. The purpose of this
thesis is to develop and test a carbon label on coffee products.
Design/methodology/approach – Focus group interviews were undertaken to explore
consumer knowledge of, attitudes toward, and use of eco-labels, while providing
useful inputs into the design of a discrete-choice experiment. The carbon label was
tested in a discrete-choice experiment involving Danish consumers, which was
applied through an online survey. The integration of a traffic light ranking into the
label design was similarly tested.
Findings – The analysis of the discrete-choice experiment indicated that the carbon
label significantly influenced the purchase of coffee, although price and the Danish
Organic label were the most important determinants of product selection. The traffic
light ranking design positively enhanced the effects of the carbon label by directing
consumers away from carbon-intensive coffee products and toward low-carbon ones.
Research limitations – The discrete-choice experiment only involved a limited
number of product attributes, which could influence the effect of the carbon label.
Implementing the carbon-labeling scheme might be unfeasible under current
conditions, as it would require mandatory certification and comprehensive carbon
footprinting.

3.
2
Table of Contents
1. Problem Statement 4
1.1 Introduction 4
1.2 Research Question 5
1.3 Structure 5
1.4 Description of Data Basis 6
2. Theoretical Review 6
2.1 The Attitude-Behavior Relationship 6
2.2 Dual-Process Models 8
2.3 Deliberate Processes 9
2.3.1 Theory of Reasoned Action 9
2.3.2 Theory of Planned Behavior 10
2.4 Spontaneous Processes 11
2.4.1 Fazio’s Attitude-to-Behavior Model 12
2.4.2 Heuristics 13
2.5 MODE Model 15
2.6 Other Variables 16
2.6.1 Values 16
2.6.2 Knowledge 17
3. Eco-Labeling 19
3.1 Perception and Informational Processing 20
3.2 Knowledge and Understanding 21
3.3 Consumer Trust 22
3.4 Adoption Process 23
4. Focus Groups 25
4.1 Planning 25
4.2 Recruitment 26
4.3 Moderation 27
4.4 Findings 27
4.4.1 Decision-Involvement and Heuristics 28
4.4.2 Environmental Concern 29
4.4.3 Environmental Information 30

4.
3
4.4.4 Eco-Labels 31
5. Carbon Label on Food Products 33
5.1 Carbon-Labeling 33
5.2 Traffic Light Ranking 35
5.3 Mandatory Certification 37
5.4 Methodological Challenges 38
6. Hypotheses 38
7. Discrete-Choice Experiment 40
7.1 Attributes and Levels 41
7.2 Experimental Design 42
7.3 Questionnaire 44
7.4 Data Collection and Sample 44
7.5 Results 45
8. Discussion 49
8.1 Limitations 52
8.2 Concluding Remarks 52
9. References 54
10. Appendix 65
10.1 Appendix 1 – Focus Group Interview Guide 65
10.2 Appendix 2 – Introduction of Discrete-Choice Experiment 67
10.3 Appendix 3 – Items and Descriptive Statistics 68

5.
4
1. Problem Statement
1.1 Introduction
Mounting evidence indicates that the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions is
vastly unsustainable and causes severe changes to the global climate (IPCC, 2013). A
significant contributor to the global CO2-emissions is the consumption patterns of
developing countries (WWF, 2014). Besides impacting the climate, overconsumption
in the developed world also contributes to loss of biodiversity, deforestation, species
extinction, and pollution (WWF, 2014). Consumption is widely considered as a means
to ensure continuous economic growth, which historically has led to rising prosperity
and materialistic wealth for citizens across the world. However, the use of
consumption as an economical instrument has largely occurred without taking
externalities such as the environment into account (Jackson, 2011). The limited
emphasis on the environment partly counteracts the widespread public concern for the
state of the environment, where many have formed positive attitudes toward
protecting the environment (European Commission, 2008a). Although the protection
of the environment is widely prioritized, it is in direct competition with other
prevailing societal issues, which often affects its saliency in the minds of European
consumers (European Commission, 2008b). Furthermore, the possession of pro-
environmental attitudes does not always translate into environmentally friendly
behavior – behavior that consciously seeks to minimize the negative impact of one’s
action on the natural and build world (Wagner, 1997; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
The observed discrepancy between attitudes and behavior has been named the
attitude-behavior gap. Research suggests that the predictability of attitudes on
behavior depends on the accessibility in memory and strength of behavior relevant
attitudes, and the amount of decision-related deliberation (e.g. Fazio, 1990). To assist
consumers in selecting products, which reflect their environmental attitudes, the
consumer instrument of eco-labels is particularly useful. Eco-labels provide
consumers with information concerning the environmental quality of products at the
point of purchase, thereby allowing them to choose environmentally acceptable
products (Thøgersen et al., 2010). Moreover, it reduces consumers’ information
search costs, which is especially important in relation to low-involvement purchases,
where product selection often occur with limited cognitive effort and product
assessment.

6.
5
Eco-labels have been applied to various products across the non-food and food sector.
The latter being very interesting, as food is a basic human need, but simultaneously
greatly contributes to the global carbon emissions (IPCC, 2013). Although food is a
basic need, which cannot be renounced or substituted, the greenhouse gas emissions
from different meals with the same amount of calories and protein can vary by a
factor of nine dependent on the ingredients (Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998). This stresses
the significance of eco-labels in guiding consumers toward environmentally friendly
product alternatives. In Denmark, mainly two eco-labels apply to food products – the
Danish Organic label and the EU Organic label, where the former has been widely
adopted by Danish consumers. While the organic labels are environmentally
informative, neither takes carbon emissions into account. As a result, consumers are
unable to assess the carbon-friendliness of food products in-store. To accommodate
this informational deficiency, it suggests the appropriateness of a carbon label on food
products. According to a Eurobarometer study, there is also a profound consumer
demand for a carbon label, where 72 percent of the respondents stated that a label
indicating the carbon emissions of a product ought be mandatory (European
Commission, 2009).
1.2 Research Question
The present study seeks to investigate the usefulness of a new carbon label on coffee
products and whether the label design can influence its effectiveness. The following
research question is of particular interest and relevance concerning the significance of
a carbon label.
What are the prospects of a carbon label on coffee products, when controlling
for existing environmental parameters in the choice of coffee and what are
some important contingencies for the label to work as intended?
1.3 Structure
The thesis will begin with a theoretical review concerning the relationship between
attitudes and behavior including the psychological factors that influence and
determine this relationship. Following, literature on current eco-labels is outlined
focusing on important factors relating to the adoption and use of eco-labels. The
literature review will create the framework for the development of a new carbon label

7.
6
on coffee. Focus group interviews will be held to gain insights on consumers’
decision-making processes regarding the purchase of coffee and to explore their
knowledge of, attitudes toward, and use of eco-labels. The focus group findings are
used in the proposal of a new carbon label design, which is tested in a discrete-choice
experiment. Afterwards, the resulting statistical analyses will be presented and
discussed.
1.4 Description of Data Basis
In order to answer the research question both qualitative and quantitative techniques
will be applied. Given the exploratory nature of present thesis, as only limited
research has been conducted on a carbon label on coffee, focus group interviews are
found the most appropriate technique to obtain qualitative information. The
information is useful in the creation of the label and the subsequent discrete-choice
experiment. The discrete-choice experiment will be used to measure the effect of the
carbon label in a simulated purchasing situation. The label will compete with other
product attributes imitating a conventional purchasing situation. For the experiment,
two label designs are created with inspiration from the Carbon Trust and Grankvist et
al. (2004). Besides the choice experiment, the questionnaire will include questions
related to the respondents’ environmental concern, knowledge, attitudes, and
behavior.
2. Theoretical Review
2.1 The Attitude-Behavior Relationship
Several studies report that although many consumers have pro-environmental
attitudes, they are not always reflected in their consumption behavior (e.g. Cowe and
Williams, 2000; Carrigan and Attala, 2001; Chatzidakis et al., 2004; UNEP, 2005).
Therefore, gaining insight into the attitude-behavior relationship is essential in order
to understand, interpret, predict and influence consumer behavior (Carrington et al.,
2010). In the literature, different terminologies have been applied to explain the
discrepancy between attitudes and behavior. This inconsistency has been named both
the “attitude-behavior gap” and the “intention-behavior gap”. While both strive to
explain the same issue, one must distinguish between their theoretical meaning and
application. To put it into perspective, most consumer behavior models are build on a

8.
7
core cognitive progression: (1) beliefs determine attitudes, (2) attitudes lead to
intentions and (3) intentions inform behavior (Carrington et al., 2010). Thus,
behavioral or purchasing intentions function as a mediating element between attitudes
and behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1991). This implies that there are two
conditions that could contribute to the attitude-behavior inconsistency – a gap
between attitudes and behavioral/purchasing intention, and a gap between behavioral
intention and behavior (Carrington et al, 2010). This cognitive progression
predominantly applies to behaviors, which are conscious, deliberate and planned.
However, due to people’s cognitive limitations in taking deliberate action, many
social and consumption behaviors function rather spontaneous and automatic (Ajzen
& Fishbein, 2000; Jackson, 2005). In fact, it would be very dysfunctional for daily
living if people were to constantly rely on deliberate and reflective reasoning
processes to decide a behavioral course of action (Fazio, 1990). In the case of low-
involvement and -motivational decisions people rarely form behavioral intentions
toward performing the behavior and often rely on situational cues to guide behavior
instead (Ohtomo & Hirose, 2007). Therefore, one must also consider the direct
relationship between attitudes and behavior. The distinction between deliberate and
spontaneous processes will be further explored in the following sections.
According to Newholm and Shaw (2007), two contrasting research perspectives have
arisen within the environmental consumerism literature seeking to address the
attitude-behavior disparity. One research stream has directed its attention towards the
methodology regularly deployed to study consumers’ environmental attitudes,
intentions and subsequent behavior (Mainieri et al., 1997; Auger & Devinney, 2007).
These authors have sought to improve prediction and understanding of
methodological issues by identifying problems of measurement and developing and
applying improved methods (Ronis et al., 1989).
Often studied is the effects of ‘social desirability bias’, whereby people respond with
answers they perceive to be socially acceptable and thus have a tendency to overstate
the importance of environmental considerations in their purchasing behavior
(Carrington et al., 2010). Following, environmentally responsible consumption is
often lower in practice than what is otherwise expected from such survey-based
studies (Eckhardt et al., 2010; Bradu et al., 2013). Another area of focus is the lack of
measurement specificity between attitude and behavior, whereby researchers fail to

9.
8
measure behavior-specific attitudes rather than focusing on a generalized view of
environmental attitudes (Mainieri et al., 1997; Fazio & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005).
According to the principle of compatibility, attitudes are only able to predict behavior
when the two refer to the same underlying evaluative disposition (Ajzen & Fishbein,
1977). Therefore, the general attitude towards which the behavior is directed is not
very predictive of specific actions (Ölander & Thøgersen, 1995).
The second stream has taken a cognitive and/or modeling approach trying to identify
influencing factors that affect the translation of pro-environmental attitudes into actual
behavior. The following literature review will focus on this research stream, wherein
conceptual frameworks and influencing factors are outlined.
2.2 Dual-Process Models
Decision-making processes can vary significantly depending on the characteristics of
the behavior. Some behaviors are deliberately and systematically planned, whereas
others are spontaneously and automatically performed with limited cognitive effort.
To help explain this theoretical relationship a group of models have been formulated,
which collectively are known as dual-mode processing models (Chaiken & Trope,
1999). These theories generally distinguish between two modes of information
processing, a systematic or central mode and a heuristic or peripheral mode (e.g.
Chaiken, 1980; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Fazio, 1990). They assume that effortful and
systematic processing of information requires ability, opportunity, and motivation to
dedicate cognitive resources to the task. A way to circumvent the effortful
consideration of assessing an issue or relevant products is to rely on cognitive
heuristics to arrive at an evaluative judgment (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000). Despite some
apparent similarities between dual-process models, they vary in their area of focus.
For example, some theories focus on the domain of persuasion and informational
processing (e.g. Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) or impression formation (e.g. Fiske &
Neuberg, 1990). However, most relevant for present study is the question of how
attitudes guide and exert their influence on behavior. The MODE model of attitude-
behavior processes by Fazio (1990) conceptualizes this question. Evidence mainly
supports that attitudes have an effect upon behavior, but the process by which they do
so differs noticeably (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999; Fazio & Roskos-Ewoldsen,
2005). As a result, the MODE model distinguishes between two basic classes of

10.
9
attitude-behavior processes. The difference centers on the extent to which the
performance of a given action involves a spontaneous reaction to one's perception of
the immediate situation or a deliberation about the behavioral alternatives (Olson &
Fazio, 2009). Before discussing the model in further detail, the following sections will
outline the literature on deliberate and spontaneous processes, which are encapsulated
in the MODE model-framework. In order to avoid definitional confusion, an attitude
is throughout the present paper defined as an association in memory between an
object and one’s evaluation of it (Olson & Fazio, 2009).
2.3 Deliberate Processes
It is apparent that some environmental behaviors are planned and deliberate – for
example buying a new car or installing solar panels on the roof. Certainly, people
sometimes resonate on how they intend to behave and subsequently carry out the
intended behavior, when encountering the given situation (Fazio & Towles-Schwen,
1999). Well-considered and effortful decisions often involve a “bottom-up” process of
analysis and deliberation of available information, positive and negative features, and
behavioral alternatives, before a behavioral response is selected (Olson & Fazio,
2009). Therefore, behavior towards an object is less influenced by the evaluation it
may automatically evoke than by the deliberation process.
The most well-known and applied model of deliberative processes is the theory of
reasoned action by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and its successor the theory of planned
behavior (Ajzen, 1985, 1988, 1991). In addition to being well specified, the models
have often been applied to study environmental behaviors including travel mode
choice, energy consumption, water conservation, food choice, and ethical investment
(Jackson, 2005; Oreg & Katz-Gerro, 2006).
2.3.1 Theory of Reasoned Action
According to the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), the behavioral
intention to perform a certain behavior is the immediate antecedent to behavior, which
itself is the consequence of the individual’s attitude towards the behavior and
subjective norms. Behavioral intentions are assumed to encapsulate the motivational
factors that influence behavior. That is, behavioral intentions encompass the direction
(to do X or not to do X) and the intensity (e.g. how much time and effort they plan to

11.
10
exert in order to perform the behavior) of a decision (Ajzen, 1991; Sheeran, 2002).
Intentions can be viewed as instructions that people give to themselves to behave in
certain ways that together with appropriate opportunities and resources enable the
attainment of a behavioral goal (Triandis, 1980; Davies et al., 2002). Generally, the
stronger the behavioral intention to perform the behavior, the more likely is its
performance (Ajzen, 1991). The theory of reasoned action considers the attitude
component as a function of the person’s beliefs regarding the likely outcomes from
performing the behavior and the person’s evaluation of these outcomes (Fazio, 1990).
Thus, people construct their attitude towards the behavior by a thorough analysis of
available information. It is important to note that the model differentiates between
attitude towards the behavior and attitude towards the object. The reason is that a
person may have a positive attitude towards solar panels, but not toward purchasing
them due to the costs involved in the behavior (Fazio & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005).
Subjective norms represent normative behavioral beliefs and the motivation to comply
with these beliefs. The normative beliefs concern the likelihood that referent
individuals or groups approve or disapprove of performing a given behavior (Ajzen,
1991). In result, it measures the perceived social pressure about whether to perform
the behavior or not.
While the theory of reasoned action has been an effective predictor of certain
behaviors, it restricts itself by only dealing with behaviors under volitional control
(i.e. if the person can decide at will to perform or not perform the behavior). It implies
that the behavior is only dependent on personal agency (i.e. the formation of an
intention), and that control over behavior is rather unimportant (Ajzen, 1988;
Armitage & Christian, 2003).
2.3.2 Theory of Planned Behavior
To address the issue of volitional control, Ajzen (1988) proposed a revised
framework, which took into consideration that people may not always have volitional
control over the behavior. Similar to the earlier model, the theory of planned behavior
assumes that intentions are the direct antecedent and most important predictor of
behavior (Sheeran, 2002). However, in order to incorporate the issue of volitional
control the theory of reasoned action was extended by including perceived behavioral
control, which functions as a determinant of both intention and behavior. This
construct postulates that the performance of most behaviors depends to a certain

12.
11
degree on people’s beliefs concerning whether they possess (or lack) the requisite
resources and opportunities, such as time, money, and skills (Fazio, 1990; Ajzen,
1991). The rationale follows that when holding intention constant, greater perceived
control positively influences the likelihood that behavioral enactment is successful. In
so far as perceived control reflects actual control, perceived behavioral control will
influence behavior directly. Thus, it functions both as a measure of actual control and
a measure of confidence in one’s ability (Armitage & Christian, 2003). The more
favorable the attitude and subjective norm, and the greater the perceived control, the
stronger should be the behavioral intention. If a sufficient degree of actual control
over the behavior is present, people are expected to follow through on their intentions,
when the opportunity arises (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000).
It is widely contended that the behavioral process in the theory of planned behavior
requires much reflection and deliberation, especially in relation to behaviors that have
not been previously performed, whereby individuals need to assess their attitude
towards the behavior (Fazio, 1990). Through evaluating the likely outcomes of the
behavior and the appeal of these outcomes, individuals can reach their attitude
towards a given behavior in a deliberate and reasoned manner (Fazio, 1990). In
addition, the perceived normative pressures and perceived behavioral control are
considered and weighted before a behavioral intention can be constructed, which
together with actual control determines behavior. This progression is typically
considered thoughtful and effortful by researchers (e.g. Fazio, 1990; Fazio & Roskos-
Ewoldsen, 2005).
2.4 Spontaneous Processes
While some behaviors are the result of deliberation and conscious consideration, most
of our day-to-day behaviors are much more spontaneous in nature. This is evident in
the ease with which people engage in normal social discourse. It suggests that much
of our behavior reflect spontaneous processes rather than a planned outcome of some
reflective process (Fazio, 1990). Due to the cognitive limitations to people’s ability in
taking deliberate action, they employ different mental “short-cuts” (e.g. habits,
routines, cues, and heuristics) in order to reduce the degree of cognitive processing
necessary to perform a behavior (Jackson, 2005).

13.
12
Beneath, the attitude-to-behavior model by Fazio (1986) are outlined. The model is
well recognized and greatly depicts the spontaneous attitude-behavior processes
common in people’s everyday behaviors. In addition, the role of heuristics is
discussed.
2.4.1 Fazio’s Attitude-to-Behavior Model
In contrast to the theory of planned behavior, the attitude-behavior process model
(Fazio, 1986) proposes that attitudes can guide a person’s behavior without requiring
the person to actively reflect and deliberate about the attitude (Fazio & Roskos-
Ewoldsen, 2005). It focuses upon the accessibility of attitudes from memory and the
ability of attitudes to influence the perception of the object in the immediate situation
(Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999). According to the model, the predecessor to behavior
is a person’s definition of the occurring event, which is then said to be the primary
determinant of the behavioral response. Whether this definition is attitudinally
congruent or not determines the probability that the person will demonstrate attitude-
behavior consistency (Fazio, 1990). The more attitudinal coherent the definition of the
event is, the greater is the likelihood that the person’s behavior will reflect his or hers
attitudes. The definition of the event consists of two components: the person’s
perceptions of the attitude object in the situation and the person’s definition of the
immediate situation. The former involves the way in which attitudes can guide the
perception of an individual, thereby influencing how the individual defines an event.
For example, consider an individual holding a negative attitude toward a target
person. When the individual encounters the target person that attitude can affect how
the target person is perceived (Fazio, 1986). The negative attitude is likely to lead the
individual to pay closer attention to the negative features of the target person and
interpret ambiguous comments or behaviors negatively. Therefore, the attitude can
color the current perceptions of the target person through a process of selective
perception (Fazio, 1986). In result, attitudes can guide behavior through their
mediating influence on perceptions.
The person’s definition of the immediate situation refers to the warehouse of
knowledge that is possessed by the individual in regards to which behaviors are
normatively appropriate and to be expected in a given situation (Fazio, 1990; Fazio &
Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005). For example, when smoke enters a room during a fire, the
norm dictates that the individual ought to report the fire. According to the model, this

14.
13
illustrates how norms may be activated from memory and exerts its influence on the
individual’s definition of the event. In cases where norms are opposing the
individual’s attitudes, the definition of the event might not be attitudinal consistent
(Fazio, 1990). It becomes apparent that not only attitudes can influence the
individual’s definition of the event, but also norms. However, even in situations that
are normatively free, the attitude-behavior relation varies considerably. Besides the
fact that other factors can moderate this relationship, attitudes cannot exert its
influence on perception unless it is activated from memory when the attitude object is
encountered (Fazio, 1986). If the attitude is not activated from memory, the attitude
will not guide behavior. Rather, the immediate perceptions will most likely be the
result of momentarily noticeable, and potentially unrepresentative, features of the
attitude object, which are not necessarily consistent with the attitude (Fazio &
Towles-Schwen, 1999). For example, when encountering an item in the supermarket
where no attitude is accessible, other features such as packaging design, shelf
position, and whether the item is on sale can influence the immediate perception of
the item (Fazio & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005).
Given the importance of attitude activation, it naturally plays a crucial role in the
process model. Attitude activation could occur due to some situational cue, which
defines attitudes as relevant to the immediate situation (Fazio, 1986). Although, not
all situations provide attitude-relevant cues. This does not mean that attitudes cannot
exert their influence in cue-free situations. Instead, as an attitude is considered an
association, its strength can vary – meaning the association between an object and the
evaluation. The strength of the association may determine the accessibility of the
attitude from memory (Fazio, 1986; Fazio & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005). The attitude
strength is the result of several factors including the degree of consideration or
rehearsal of the attitude, experience with, knowledge about, and faith in one’s
knowledge about the attitude object, and the personal relevance of the attitude and
attitude object (Thøgersen, 2000). Characteristic of the activation of the attitude from
memory and the selective perception component are that they do not require
conscious effort, intent, or control by the individual (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999).
2.4.2 Heuristics
Within the field of spontaneous process theories is also the concept of heuristics and
their effect on decision-making. Given the complexity of everyday life, people are not

15.
14
capable of processing all the cognitive information necessary in order to make
“rational” choices (Jackson, 2005). Recognizing this fact, Herbert Simon (1957)
formulated a model of ‘bounded rationality’, wherein actors make decisions not by
‘optimizing’ through considering all relevant choices, but rather by ‘satisficing’ (i.e.
make decision that are good enough to satisfy them). In order to reduce the cognitive
effort, individuals employ a limited number of heuristic principles – rules of thumb –
against which they often make immediate and sometimes unconscious decisions
(Tversky & Kahneman, 1974; Jackson, 2005). For example, choosing the product
with the lowest price, or a familiar and trusted brand, or simply repeating a previous
satisfactory product selection (Thøgersen et al., 2012). According to Gigerenzer &
Gaissmaier (2011), a heuristic is defined as ‘a strategy that ignores part of the
information, with the goal of making decisions more quickly, frugally, and/or
accurately than more complex methods’. Tversky and Kahneman (1974) identified
three different heuristics that individuals employ to make judgments: availability,
representativeness, and anchoring and adjustment. Later studies also supported the
existence of an affect heuristic, where preferences and choices could be determined
by a feeling of “goodness” or “badness”, which is said to represent the positive or
negative quality of a stimulus (Hardman, 2009). The affect heuristic is recognized to
play a central role in dual-process theories especially in relation to the spontaneous
and automatic processes of decision-making. Here individuals tend to rely more on
affect and emotion, as it is quicker, easier, and more efficient (Slovic et al., 2007).
During the process of making a decision, individuals consult an “affect pool” that
have gathered all the positive and negative tags consciously or unconsciously
associated with the representation (Slovic et al., 2007). This is directly relatable to
Fazio’s process model, where an accessible attitude can become activated upon seeing
the attitude object, which occurs in a spontaneous and automated fashion. The attitude
component resembles an affect heuristic, as it also refers to a warehouse of
associations in memory linking an object and one’s evaluation of it. The normative
construct within the process model can likewise function as a heuristic once activated.
For example, purchasing the same brand as one’s mother or buying the same drinks as
the other people in the group (Hoyer, 1984).

16.
15
2.5 MODE Model
Above, two different behavioral processes have been discussed. One process
emphasized deliberate and effortful reasoning in order to plan and perform a given
behavior, while the other focused on a spontaneous and automatic process, where
little cognitive effort is involved in guiding behavior. Both processes are integrated in
the MODE (Motivation and Opportunity as DEterminants) model by Fazio (1990).
The MODE model postulates that motivation and opportunity determines which
process occurs (Fazio & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005).
According to the model, the deliberate and reflective process often requires a certain
degree of motivation from the individual before being employed. This typically exists
when a behavioral decision has important consequences and the perceived costs from
making a bad decision are high, thus prompting a carefully reasoned analysis
(Kruglanski & Freund, 1983; Fazio, 1990; Fazio & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005). With
only scarce motivation, the individual often sees little reason to undertake a deliberate
analysis and rather permit for behavior to be spontaneously driven through his/hers
definition of the event (Fazio, 1990). It allows for any accessible attitudinal evaluation
that becomes activated from memory to influence the individual’s definition of the
event and subsequently influence behavior. However, motivation is not enough to
allow for deliberate processing and must be supplemented with the opportunity to do
so (Olson & Fazio, 2009). According to the model, opportunity can be manifested in
different ways. Situations can deny one the opportunity to deliberate and reflect about
the desired behavioral response – for example, when under time pressure. Lack of
time means that reflective and careful consideration of information are impossible
(Jamieson & Zanna, 1989; Olson & Fazio, 2009). In such cases, the spontaneous
process is more likely (Fazio, 1990). The behavioral opportunity can also be
psychological. As human’s cognitive resources are limited, other factors can impede
individuals’ ability to process information (e.g. fatigue, distraction) (Olson & Fazio,
2009). Research on the model indicates that through spontaneous decision-making,
accessible attitudes are more able to exert their influence on behavior than when
making deliberate decisions, where they are not as predictive of behavior (Fazio,
1990; Fazio & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005). Another interesting finding is the fact that
accessible attitudes can induce people to increase deliberation in their decision-
making. Accordingly, the attitude-as-information hypothesis suggests that the

17.
16
perceived importance of a situation can be cued by accessible attitudes, whereby the
attitudes signals the individual that something important is in the environment
(Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2002). The cue then motivates people to more thoroughly
deliberate on obtainable information in the environment (Fazio & Roskos-Ewoldsen,
2005).
2.6 Other Variables
Although the literature suggests that attitudes can guide behavior, the attitude-
behavior relation is often found fairly unstable (Carrigan and Attala, 2001;
Chatzidakis et al., 2004). This suggests that other variables also can influence
behavior (e.g. social and personal norms, emotions, empathy). Of particular interest
when studying food consumption behaviors – usually characterized as a low-
motivational and –involvement behavior – is which variables influence the strength of
people’s environmental attitudes. Therefore, the following sections will discuss the
role of values and environmental knowledge, as they are considered predecessors to
the formation of environmental attitudes.
2.6.1 Values
Pro-environmental consumption often involves a conflict between individual and
long-term collective interests, since the problematic features of consumer goods often
are invisible and unrecorded at the time of purchase (Kaiser, 2006; Thøgersen, 2014).
Therefore, people are inclined to make unsustainable choices as the personal
consequences favoring them can be directly felt (Thøgersen, 2014). In spite of this,
some people continually favor environmentally friendly products and act pro-
environmentally. The reasons for the observed differences in behavior can often be
traced back to the individual’s value system. Human values are defined as ‘desirable
goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in the life of a person’
(Schwartz, 1992). Values reflect relatively stable and general goals that people strive
for in life, which direct attention and influence how they evaluate different
consequences of products, services and actions (Steg, 2014). Given the abstract
conceptualization of values, they can be viewed as likely determinants of attitudes
(Olson & Zanna, 1993; Schultz and Zelezny, 1999; de Groot and Steg, 2007). This
implies that values rarely guide behavior in particular situations. Rather, values can

18.
17
exert influence on behavior through their mediated relationship with attitudes.
Individuals tend to stress advantages and downplay disadvantages of behavioral
alternatives, which positively influence their important values, and vice versa (Steg,
2014). Therefore, individuals seem to promote and select behavioral alternatives that
are in accordance with the values they prioritize.
As people hold many different values, people rank their values in a system of
priorities. The more important values are, the more salient they are in memory. In
cases where values conflict, the most important value will exert its influence
(Thøgersen, 2014). The prioritization of values seemingly occurs during childhood
socialization after which they seldom change and if so, it happens slowly.
Engagement in environmentally friendly consumption largely depends on whether
people prioritize self-enhancement values (how behavior affects self) or self-
transcendence values (how behavior affects others or the environment) (Steg, 2014).
In particular, two types of self-enhancement values are considered relevant for
understanding environmental behavior and consumption: hedonic values where
people focus on ways to improve their feelings and reduce effort, and egoistic values
where people focus on ways to secure or improve their resources. Two types of self-
transcendence values are found relevant: altruistic values where people consider
perceived costs and benefits for other people, and biospheric values where people
consider the consequences of their behavior on nature and the environment (Steg,
2014). People strongly endorsing hedonic or egoistic values are less likely to engage
in environmentally friendly consumption, whereas people who strongly endorse
altruistic, and especially biospheric values are significantly more likely to engage in
environmentally friendly consumption (e.g. Stern et al., 1995; Nordlund & Garvill,
2002; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002).
2.6.2 Knowledge
Knowledge is another property of attitudes that can influence the consistency between
attitudes and behavior. Attitude-relevant knowledge is usually defined as ‘the number
of attitude-relevant beliefs and experiences that comes to mind when encountering an
attitude object’ (Wood et al., 1995). Following, knowledge is considered a structural
property of attitudes and a function of the number of beliefs and experiences
connected to the attitude in memory and the strength of the associations between the
beliefs or experiences and the attitude (Fabrigar et al., 2006). The influence of

19.
18
knowledge on attitude strength is particularly interesting as it is commonly assumed
that increases in knowledge is linked to a greater influence of attitudes on behavior
(Fabrigar et al., 2006). This is also true in relation to environmental behavior. For
example, a study assessing attitudes toward protecting the environment found that
attitudes based on high amounts of knowledge better predicted environmental
behavior than attitudes based on low amounts of knowledge (Kallgren & Wood,
1986). Tanner & Kast (2003) also found that some degree of action-related
knowledge is necessary in order for consumers to take appropriate environmental
action. However, most researchers support the notion that only a limited proportion of
pro-environmental behavior is directly linked to environmental knowledge (Kollmuss
& Agyeman, 2002). This suggests that the effects of knowledge on behavior are
predominantly mediated through attitudes.
According to Fabrigar et al. (2006), at least two explanations have been proposed to
describe the impact of knowledge on the attitude-behavior consistency. The first
explanation proposes that increases in knowledge most likely lead to attitudes, which
are more stable and resistant to change (e.g. Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). The second
explanation concerns the relation between knowledge and attitude accessibility.
Increasing the level of knowledge could enhance the likelihood of attitude activation
at the moment of behavioral performance as the result of a positive association
between knowledge and accessibility (Krosnick et al., 1992; Fabrigar et al., 2006).
While recognizing that the amount of knowledge can influence the attitude-behavior
consistency, one must also consider other features of attitude-relevant knowledge.
Especially, the complexity and specific context of knowledge could similarly impact
this consistency (Fabrigar et al., 2006). Before an attitude can translate into behavior,
the individual must find the activated attitude relevant for guiding the given behavior.
It depends on whether at least one dimension of the knowledge underpinning the
attitude is relevant to the goal of a behavior (Fabrigar et al., 2006). For example, a
person could form a positive attitude toward another person based on a previous
encounter at a social gathering. Although this attitude might serve as an appropriate
guide to determine whether or not to hang out with the individual again, it may not be
relevant for judging whether or not to hire that person as a lawyer.
In relation to environmental behavior, it is necessary to distinguish between
knowledge about facts and knowledge about actions (Schann & Holzer, 1990). The
former refers to broad knowledge about environmental problems (e.g. definitions,

20.
19
causes and consequences), whereas the latter concerns knowledge about possible
actions (e.g. knowledge about which behaviors cause environmental problems and
alternate behaviors). In contrast to broad factual knowledge, action-related knowledge
is more likely to be behaviorally relevant and therefore to influence behavior (Tanner
& Kast, 2003).
3. Eco-Labeling
During the last 30 years, the marketplace has seen a continuous rise in the number of
eco-labels (see Ecolabel Index)1
. These labels are most often developed by
companies, NGOs, national or international governmental organizations in order to
cue the consumer on the environmental characteristics and performance of a product
or service (Pedersen & Neergaard, 2006; Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014). An eco-label
is defined as ‘a label that identifies overall, proven environmental preference of a
product or service within a specific product/service category’ (Global Ecolabelling
Network, 2014). Eco-labels seek to inform consumers on the environmental
externalities of global production under the assumption that involved consumers
compare product alternatives and give preferences to less environmentally harmful
products or services (Gertz, 2004; Hornibrook et al., 2013). Thus, eco-labeling
schemes are a meaningful instrument to inform consumers about the environmental
impact of products, as these cannot be evaluated pre-purchase and are rarely
experienced post-purchase (Sammer & Wüstenhagen, 2006; Hornibrook et al., 2013).
The fact that eco-labels can have an effect on consumer behavior is also well-
established by studies (e.g. Teisl et al., 2002; Tang et al., 2004). For example, in a
Swedish study the noticeable reduction in the environmental impact of the Swedish
forest industry was attributed to environmental labeling, and the subsequent consumer
choice of the labeled products (Naturvårdsverket, 1997; Thøgersen, 2000).
Before an eco-label can lead a consumer towards more environmentally friendly
products, the mere exposure of the label in the shop is not enough. The consumer has
to perceive the label, attach a meaning and understanding to it, and make inferences
about what it mean. Furthermore, the label needs to enter decision-making, where it
competes with other product features, before it becomes effective (Grunert, 2011).
1
Ecolabelindex.com is an online catalogue of eco-labels made by Big Room Inc and the World
Resources Institute.

21.
20
This process is influenced by the consumer’s awareness of the label and whether (s)he
has a basic knowledge of its meaning, how the information is processed in the
situation, if the label is trusted and found credible, and their environmental attitudes
(Thøgersen, 2000; Grunert, 2011).
3.1 Perception and Informational Processing
An obvious prerequisite for using eco-labels in decision-making is that the labels are
perceived in the purchasing situation. Given that most grocery shopping occurs in an
information-overloaded environment, where many decisions and choices are taking
place within a short time span, suggests that much information is ignored (Grunert,
2011). The fact that other relevant information competes for the consumer’s attention
could cause the consumer to fail noticing relevant labels in the purchasing situation
(Thøgersen, 2002). This implies that an eco-label could be overlooked even though
the consumer knows and trusts the label due to selective attention (Thøgersen, 2000;
Grunert, 2011). In accordance with the MODE model, attitudes can guide behavior
through creating selective attention towards attitudinal congruent issues and objects in
our surroundings. Therefore, it has the ability to “color” our perception of the
situation (Fazio, 1990). Thus, individuals with pro-environmental attitudes are more
likely than one without to pay attention to environmental cues about the product, such
as eco-labels (Thøgersen, 2000). In order for an attitude to assert its influence on
perception, it has to be activated in the situation, which depends on its accessibility
and strength (Fazio, 1990). Although, an eco-label is perceived, it does not necessarily
imply that it will be carefully attended to. Research suggests that how and how much
information is processed in a purchasing situation depends on the consumer’s
involvement in the decision (Thøgersen, 2000). Dual process theories, as already
mentioned, distinguish between two modes of information processing. This involves
assessing the information in either a central or peripheral manner (e.g. Petty &
Capcioppo, 1986). When consumers are motivated and have the capacity to dedicate
cognitive effort to the decision, they are found to engage in careful deliberation of the
available information with the influence of the quality of arguments, which is either in
favor or against a given attitudinal position (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Ajzen &
Fishbein, 2000). In contrast, when motivation and/or ability are low, consumers are
said to employ a peripheral processing strategy, which requires only a minimum of

22.
21
cognitive effort (Chaiken, 1980; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Peripheral processing is a
more superficial processing method, where aspects of the form rather than the content
of the message is prioritized (Grunert, 2011).
An eco-label informing the consumer about the environmental consequences of a
product rarely produces high involvement or central processing by itself (Thøgersen,
2000). Instead, inducing high involvement is reliant on other factors such as
environmental concern and attitudes, importance of making the right decision, and
perceived personal relevance (e.g. Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Fazio, 1990). Consider an
individual that are inexperienced in purchasing a given kind of product, but values
and have favorable attitudes toward pro-environmental product attributes. In order to
select an environmentally friendly product, the individual needs to go through a fairly
elaborate process of consulting and evaluating attainable information – including eco-
labels – before the right product can be selected (Thøgersen, 2000). However, in cases
where the individual is already knowledgeable about the environmental information
and has repeatedly and recently made this purchase, the process is likely to be more or
less automatic (Thøgersen, 2000). This does not mean that the individual lacks
motivation or involvement, but rather that (s)he seeks to minimize time and effort in
the selection process (Thøgersen et al., 2012).
3.2 Knowledge and Understanding
Another prerequisite for using an eco-label in decision-making is the knowledge and
understanding of the label. In order to understand an eco-label, one must know it
exists, how it looks, and what it means (Thøgersen, 2000). Recognizing an eco-label
is not equivalent to understanding its exact meaning. However, precise and
comprehensive knowledge and understanding of an eco-label is often not required for
decision-making, especially in regards to low-risk decisions, where a less than
thorough understanding is sufficient (Thøgersen, 2002). Given the current market
conditions where an extensive amount of eco-labels are present, it also becomes
nearly impossible for consumers to be aware of and fully understand each label.
A study by MAPP (2001) focusing on the Nordic Swan label supports this conclusion.
It reported that more than 50 percent of the respondents – regardless of their
environmental consciousness – found it impossible for regular people to comprehend
the meaning and content of the different labels (Pedersen & Neergaard, 2006). The

23.
22
lack of understanding of eco-labels can have implications for its effectiveness and
widespread application. When consumers have insufficient knowledge and
understanding of the verification of different eco-labels, their choices will instead be
dependent on a subjective interpretation of the labels’ credibility (Pedersen &
Neergaard, 2006). The process of attaching meaning involves considering externally
acquired information (in this case the eco-label), which is interpreted based on
existing knowledge causing the individual to make inferences on how it influences the
goals (s)he is pursuing (Grunert, 2011). Making inferences about an eco-label might
lead the consumer to attach an incorrect meaning of its content, which could later be
disproved through consumption causing disappointment with the product and eco-
label (Grunert, 2011). The limited knowledge can in part be attributed to the restricted
attainable information about an eco-label in the purchasing situation, such as the
limited meaning of seals and certifications (Van Dam & Reuvekamp, 1995;
Thøgersen, 2000). Therefore, consumers need to seek out additional information
elsewhere suggesting that the adoption process initially demands deliberate decision-
making (Thøgersen et al., 2010). It does not imply that consumers must be experts
regarding each label, but rather have a basic understanding of how it looks and what it
means. In fact, studies suggest that some consumers are able to understand eco-labels,
while only being vaguely knowledgeable about the general concept of sustainability
(Grunert et al., 2014).
3.3 Consumer Trust
Before an eco-label is adopted and used by consumers, it is essential that they trust the
message it conveys (Hansen & Kull, 1994; Thøgersen, 2002). An important
determinant of consumer trust is the perceived credibility of the label. Commonly,
consumers perceive the main eco-labels as trustworthy, although they often lack
knowledge about the information source (Leire & Thidell, 2005). Some authors have
suggested that the sheer number of eco-labels have caused difficulties among
consumers in differentiating between certified labels and other types of labels. This
could lead to consumer confusion and in result reduce the credibility of all labels
(Leire & Thidell, 2005). Furthermore, frequently applied terms such as “recyclable”,
“eco-friendly”, and “environmentally safe” are vague and do not imply that the
product is adhering to any certification standards, which could create cynicism among

24.
23
consumers (Borin et al., 2011). If consumers do not trust environmental claims or
suspects them of being deceptive – normally referred to as “greenwashing” – it not
only increases consumer skepticism towards environmental product claims in general,
but also significantly reduces the likelihood of purchase (Thøgersen, 2002; Atkinson
& Rosenthal, 2014). Thus, misleading or even incorrect environmental claims by
companies or other parties are not only able to negatively influence their own sales or
image, but also parties with valid environmental claims (Borin et al., 2011). Unlike
other product attributes, which can be validated through personal experience or a
quick information search, most environmental claims are more difficult to verify and
therefore must be accepted at face value as truthful (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014).
For example, one can purchase a can of tuna and instantly verify claims about the cost
through checking the price at the supermarket or verify taste claims by consuming it.
In contrast, one cannot instantly verify a credence or environmental claim such as that
the method in which the tuna was caught is safe to dolphins (Bottega & De Freitas
2009; Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014). As a result, consumers can either trust the
legitimacy of the claim or reject it. If consumers trust the brand or labeling scheme,
they are generally more likely to accept the claims as sincere and credible (Atkinson
& Rosenthal, 2014).
3.4 Adoption Process
In the process of adopting an eco-label, the consumer usually progresses through
several stages: (1) exposure to the eco-label and/or information about it; (2) trying to
understand the meaning of the label; (3) evaluate its trustworthiness and credibility (4)
forming a positive attitude towards the label; and (5) purchasing a product carrying
the eco-label (Thøgersen et al., 2010; Grunert, 2011). Throughout the different stages,
the consumer can decide to stall or reject the eco-label, which could be either
temporarily or permanently. The finalization of the adoption process of an eco-label
involves the purchase of products carrying the label (Thøgersen, 2002).
It is necessary to distinguish between the adoption of an eco-label and the adoption of
an eco-labeled product, as the latter might occur without a preference for the eco-
label, but merely the product itself (Thøgersen, 2002). The adoption process does not
necessarily require the consumer to always purchasing an eco-labeled product. Rather,
since eco-labels function as guiding tools to help consumers in their decision-making,

25.
24
an eco-label is considered adopted once the consumer actively, repeatedly, and
consistently considers the label under product selection (Thøgersen et al., 2010). This
implies that it is possible for a consumer to purchase products, which do not carry the
eco-label, as other product features might be weighed more important. Given the
rather elaborate process, it suggests that the adoption of an eco-label requires a certain
degree of deliberation (Thøgersen et al., 2010).
The adoption of an eco-label has a notable resemblance to the process of adopting an
innovation (Thøgersen et al., 2010). Similar to the adoption of any other innovation,
individuals are expected to differ in their preparedness for adopting an (new) eco-
label scheme and the speed with which it occur (Rogers, 2003). Consumers with
extensive knowledge of, and past experience with eco-labels are usually faster in
adopting a new eco-label in comparison to less knowledgeable and experienced
consumers (Thøgersen et al., 2010). Experienced consumers often progress directly
from label-awareness to trial, as their previous experience reduces the perceived risk
and they have likely developed a mental script concerning how to proceed when
learning about a new label (Thøgersen et al., 2010). Less experienced and
knowledgeable consumers most likely need to obtain further information about the
eco-label, before its meaning can be interpreted and in result understand the label.
Furthermore, their environmental attitudes are often weaker than more experienced
consumers, which could affect whether the eco-label is even perceived in the first
place and/or if the eco-label is traded-off against other product features (Thøgersen,
2000; Olson, 2013).
Once an eco-label is adopted it can serve as a guiding tool, which in the case of low
involvement decisions can be in the form of a heuristic (e.g. select the product
alternative with the eco-label). For example, when consumers come upon an item,
they have not previously purchased and therefore have no accessible attitude towards,
other features can influence the immediate perception of the item (Fazio & Roskos-
Ewoldsen, 2005). The attitude towards the eco-label can become activated and
influence the perception of the item, making the labeled product alternative more
likely to be favored.

26.
25
4. Focus Groups
Before proposing a carbon label on food products, it was found appropriate to obtain
qualitative consumer data concerning eco-labels. Following, focus group discussions
were identified as the most suitable and accessible technique, as they allow for in-
depth discussion and nuanced insight from a consumer’s perspective (Atkinson &
Kim, 2014). Focus groups provide the researcher with the opportunity to gain insights
regarding consumers’ knowledge, attitudes and use of eco-labels and potential
barriers hindering its use and adoption.
A focus group can be defined as ‘a group interview – centered on a specific topic
(‘focus’) and facilitated and coordinated by a moderator or facilitator – which seeks to
generate primarily qualitative data, by capitalizing on the interaction that occurs
within the group setting’ (Sim & Snell, 1996). The generated discussion reveals both
the meanings people attach to the discussion topic and how they negotiate these
meanings (Lunt & Livingstone, 1996). Additionally, focus groups provide
information on the ‘dynamics’ of attitudes and opinions in the context of the
discussion occurring among participants, which differs from questionnaire surveys
(Morgan, 1988; Sim, 1998). The process of using focus groups can be divided into
four phases: planning and purpose, recruitment, moderation, and findings.
4.1 Planning
According to Krueger (2009), focus groups are a useful methodology, when the
purpose is uncovering factors that influence opinions, behavior or motivation. Given
that motivation and decision-involvement typically is relatively low when purchasing
food products and that the assessment of product characteristics often involves only
attending to a limited number of features, the question of why or why not eco-labels
are attended to and used becomes particularly interesting.
The purpose of present focus groups were to gain an understanding of how consumers
process on-package information, their awareness, knowledge and understanding of
eco-labels, the importance of consumer trust in labeling schemes, their attitudes
toward eco-labels, and their adoption and use of eco-labels. Additionally, gaining
insights into the purchasing process of coffee and which information and product
features are consulted during the process were sought after.

27.
26
4.2 Recruitment
In the recruitment process for the present focus group analyses, the method of non-
probability sampling was applied. It refers to the recruitment of participants, which
are not selected randomly. Non-probability sampling includes techniques such as
‘convenience sampling’ and ‘snowballing’. The application of these techniques
involves the inability to assess the bias present within the sample. However, the
advantages are an easier recruitment and saving time and money (Hart, 2007). Given
the limited scope of present thesis, the snowballing and convenience sampling
techniques were used. As a result, participants were recruited through the author’s
network and involved initially finding two willing participants for each focus group,
which then helped recruiting the remaining participants.
As the purpose of the focus groups were to gain a thorough understanding of the
participants’ experiences and attitudes, it was found that this was best accomplished
with small groups. Moreover, small focus groups with four to six participants are
easier to recruit and host, while being more comfortable for the participants (Krueger,
2009). By using a smaller group size it should reduce the potential for social
desirability bias (Bray et al., 2011).
Two focus group interviews were held – one in Aarhus and one in Copenhagen. They
were originally planned to involve six participants each, but due to a last minute
illness, the focus group in Copenhagen only involved five people. The participants
were aged between 21 and 56 years of mixed gender and were either well educated or
under education at university-level. The participants varied in their engagement and
interest in the environment, thus different attitudes toward and use of eco-labels were
expected. Before recruitment, the participants were only briefly introduced to the
topic and the dominating focus on eco-labels was excluded, thereby reducing the
likelihood that the participants would read up on eco-labels beforehand. In both focus
groups some participants knew each other, which were to be expected given the
recruitment method. However, neither of the focus groups consisted of people all
familiar with each other.
The reasoning behind conducting focus groups in two different cities was to reduce
the potential effect of metropolitan lifestyles, which sometimes involves a more
progressive approach to environmentally friendly consumption. Involving two cities
allowed for a more representative insight into the minds of consumers, though it

28.
27
should be noted that Aarhus is still Denmark’s second largest city and might therefore
not represent the opinions and attitudes of rural Denmark.
4.3 Moderation
To ensure that the structure and key objectives were followed and addressed in each
focus group, a structured discussion guide was prepared consisting of open-ended
questions. The questions were initially broad and general, but gradually became more
specific in accordance with the objectives of the study (see Appendix 1). Although the
area of focus were food products in general, it was occasionally found necessary to
concretize to a specific product type to ensure that the participants shared a similar
mental representation of the product. In keeping with qualitative research principles,
the moderator did not follow the discussion guide rigidly, which allowed for the
discussion to develop freely (Bray et al., 2011). The moderation was deliberately
relaxed in order to promote a free environment with only limited moderator
intervention. It was only when participants strayed too far off course that intervention
was found necessary. Both focus groups were audio-recorded, but one recording was
lost upon completion. As a result, only the focus group conducted in Aarhus was
transcribed, while a thorough summary was made for the other focus group based on
the moderator’s recollection the following day.
4.4 Findings
Through the data analysis different themes emerged. The key themes were
predominantly in accordance with the categorization made in the structured discussion
guide. This was to be expected given the degree of question specificity, especially in
regards to the questions concerning eco-labels. Below, the key themes are accounted
for in a manner that reflects the structure of present thesis and the discussion guide.
Discussions related to product characteristics and purchasing of coffee, and the design
of eco-labels will mainly be integrated in later sections, where they are found more
appropriate. The two focus groups differed in their engagements in environmentally
friendly behaviors, where there was a slight preponderance of environmentally
engaged participants in the focus group conducted in Copenhagen, whereas the
opposite was true for the group in Aarhus. Due to the loss of the audio recording, it

29.
28
was not possible to accurately quote participants from Copenhagen. Instead, their
opinions are presented as a reconstructed quote.
4.4.1 Decision-Involvement and Heuristics
The use of mental shortcuts (heuristics) in decision-making, particularly concerning
the purchase of food products including coffee, was a recurring theme throughout the
focus groups. These were applied in order to save time and cognitive resources, when
shopping for food products. Therefore, often only a limited number of product cues
determined their choice of product. This typically involved either purchasing the
product towards which they had a positive attitude, oftentimes due to previous
experiences with it, or by using simple heuristic cues (e.g. the lowest price or labeled
products) to arrive at a satisfactory product selection.
“I almost always choose products, which are labeled organic” – female, 49
years, Copenhagen.
Despite their shared use of heuristics in decision-making, they differed in terms of
which product cues were deemed the most important. In Copenhagen, the majority of
the participants selected food products based on their environmental performance,
which were identified by the presence of an organic label. While this was also partly
the case in Aarhus, there was a more dominating emphasis on price, taste, and quality.
Unsurprisingly, the emphasis on price was more pronounced among the younger
participants.
“Unless the quality is outright poor, I always choose the cheapest product no
matter what I buy” – male, 24 years, Aarhus.
The recognized use of heuristics was largely the result of low involvement in the
decision-making stemming from low motivation and low perceived personal
consequences. The low involvement was also attributed to the fact that food shopping
frequently occurred in a stressful environment. This meant that products were rarely
carefully examined. The participants similarly agreed that the information on the
backside of products was almost always overlooked.
“It is very rare that I look at my products. I rarely turn it around – very
rarely” – male, 21 years, Aarhus.
For instance, a female in Copenhagen stressed that by only purchasing organic labeled
products, the product selection were made simpler, as she rarely had to evaluate other
product features unlike with conventional products. Participants in Aarhus

30.
29
acknowledged that some people spend more time examining certain food products
and attributed this to their decision-involvement and their motivation for choosing the
right product – mostly due concerns for health or animal welfare.
Some people look thoroughly at their products, but they mainly do that in
relation to health – how much fat it contains etc.” – female, 50 years, Aarhus.
As suggested by Roskos-Ewoldsen et al. (2002), this could reflect the attitude-as-
information hypothesis, whereby attitudes can signal an individual that something
important is in the environment. The cue then motivates the individual to more
thoroughly deliberate on the obtainable information, such as information about
ingredients, nutrition, or environmental performance. Thus, individuals with strong
attitudes towards and engagement in an issue may sometimes use deliberate
processes, where others might use simple heuristics. Although, this is typically the
case with food products not previously purchased.
4.4.2 Environmental Concern
An important factor, when studying eco-labels, is whether or not consumers value
protecting the environment. If the environment is not valued, it is unlikely that the
consumer is aware of, knowledgeable about, or uses eco-labels. Following, the
participants were asked about their values and attitudes toward the environment. All
participants stated that they were concerned about the environment and considered it
in regards to most behaviors.
“The environment is something I think a lot about” – male, 26 years, Aarhus
“I am very concerned about the environment and I try to do as much for the
environment as possible in my daily life” – female, 23 years, Copenhagen.
The participants differed in their level of concern and willingness to avoid or reduce
environmentally harmful behaviors. Among participants in Copenhagen, the issue of
reducing consumption, using either public transport or bicycles, and waste separation
were widely agreed upon as environmentally significant behaviors, which they
employed or sought to employ. In Aarhus, the participants emphasized behaviors,
which were easily implementable and did not affect their quality of life. The possible
discrepancy between pro-environmental behaviors and quality of life were stressed
repeatedly as a likely barrier for acting in accordance with their environmental
concern. Therefore, they often altered behaviors, which were within their comfort
zone, thereby often neglecting behaviors with a greater positive environmental

31.
30
impact. Some participants also recognized the presence of an attitude-behavior gap, as
their behavior not always reflected their environmental concern and attitudes.
“In my head I am very concerned about the environment, but it is harder to
say if I act on these concerns. I could definitely do more” – female, 50 years,
Aarhus.
Participants in both focus groups referred to the free-rider problem, where certain
countries and people refuse or do little to alter their actions towards sustainability
causing some participants to question the effects of their individual actions. For
instance, one participant in Copenhagen had made the choice to live with blinders on,
despite his concern for the environment, believing that his actions had limited impact
in the overall accounting. Instead, he argued that the changes had to come from
somewhere else.
“The philosophy is that no man can save the world on his own” – male, 56
years, Aarhus.
4.4.3 Environmental Information
In order for consumers to purchase products, which are less harmful for the
environment, there is an eminent need for information to guide them toward these
alternatives. The focus group participants highlighted the need for guidance when
navigating in, what one participant called, ‘a jungle of consumers choices’. Without
information about the environmental performance of products, the participants found
that it would be impossible to distinguish between conventional and environmentally
friendly products.
“It is very complex as a consumer to navigate between and assess which
product is the most the environmentally friendly choice” – female, 49 years,
Copenhagen.
Besides the need for environmental information, the participants discussed what
information should be presented in the purchasing situation. Each focus group
emphasized the complexity of assessing which environmental factor was the most
important. For example, some participants argued that the organic product was not
necessarily the better choice, if the product had been produced on the opposite site of
the planet. Thus, it was necessary to weigh each environmental factor in order to
select the product, which they found the most environmentally friendly. Among the
factors mentioned were transport, greenhouse gas emissions, animal welfare, and

32.
31
production method. Especially, the issue of greenhouse gas emissions was debated in
the focus groups, where the ability to assess and compare the emissions of different
products were found to be absent, thereby complicating the purchasing process.
“It is hard to know your ecological footprint, because you cannot see how
much CO2 a product emits when you are in the supermarket” – male, 24
years, Aarhus.
Even though the participants found a lack of information, there was a consensus about
ensuring simplicity in the information stream. As one participant pointed out, she
merely wanted to know whether she could purchase the product with good or bad
conscious. This greatly reflects the common use of heuristics in decision-making, as
outlined above, whereby decisions are made with little deliberation.
4.4.4 Eco-Labels
The central purpose of the focus groups was eco-labels and in particular to explore the
participants’ knowledge about, attitudes toward, and use of eco-labels. Consequently,
one half of each focus group was spent on exploring the concept of eco-labels.
Both focus groups reported having positive attitudes toward eco-labels as a consumer
tool that helps consumers identify environmentally friendly products. Several
participants in Copenhagen stated that they could not imagine grocery shopping
without the use of eco-labels. They argued that consumers mainly are interested in the
solution, thereby allowing the consumers to choose the desired product without
having to spend time and resources on assessing the environmental friendliness of
each product.
“I think eco-labels is good in the sense that they help me as consumer to
navigate in jungle” – female, 49 years, Aarhus.
Despite the prevailing positive attitude towards eco-labels, the awareness and
knowledge of different labeling schemes were rather scarce with only a few
exceptions. The majority of the participants could only identify a small number of
labels aside from one participant that mentioned several, which likely reflects her
profound interest in the environmental field. In addition, their knowledge of the
identified labels’ area of focus and certification requirements was similarly cursory
except the Danish state-controlled organic label, which all participants were well
familiarized with. Some participants emphasized that although the opportunity to

33.
32
obtain information about the eco-labels was present, only few took advantage of it and
therefore explained their lack of knowledge.
The trustworthiness of eco-labels was also found an important factor in the adoption
process. The participants generally found state-run labeling schemes most
trustworthy, whereas private company schemes were deemed the least trustworthy.
This is also supported by many studies, which identify a similar pattern, where public
and other independent sources are trusted more than producers or retailers (e.g.
Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014).
“When I know the product is certified organic by the Danish state it is more
trustworthy than if it was an organic product from Spain” – male, 21 years,
Aarhus.
A frequently cited factor that influenced the perceived trustworthiness was how often
the eco-label had been noticed. The participants argued that frequent exposures to a
label positively affected its trustworthiness. This could reflect the eco-label adoption
process, as suggested by Thøgersen et al. (2010), where repeated exposure to the label
have led the participants to perceive the label, trying to understand its meaning, and
ultimately evaluating its trustworthiness and credibility. Several participants had
adopted the Danish state-controlled organic label, which meant that the label was
actively and consistently considered during product selection, thus having completed
the adoption process. For some participants this involved almost persistently
purchasing labeled products, whereas for others it was mainly considered within
certain food product categories such as diary products and/or vegetables.
“I always purchase organic meat and vegetables” – female, 49 years,
Copenhagen.
Within both focus groups, the participants mainly associated organic food products
with the Danish state-controlled organic label, although some of the mentioned
product examples typically only hold the EU organic label. For some this reflects the
additional adoption of the EU organic label, whereas for others it is likely the result of
on-package text and/or local shop-labels indicating that the product is organic. Thus,
it could act as a substitutional environmental cue, which then diverts attention away
from the eco-label.

34.
33
5. Carbon Label on Food Products
Approximately 30 percent of the environmental impacts attributed to consumption are
caused by food and drink (Tukker & Jansen, 2006). Arguably, the most serious
environmental threat is climate change, which is generated through the release of
greenhouse gas emission (King, 2004). Yet in Denmark, there is no eco-label on food
products that takes the emission of greenhouse gases into account, thereby suggesting
that current eco-labels are not providing complete environmental disclosure. For
example, the commonly applied organic labels (the Danish Organic label and the EU
Organic label) provide no information on products’ greenhouse gas emissions
throughout their life cycle (Fødevarestyrelsen, 2013). In recognition of this
informational deficiency, interest groups previously prompted a discussion on
alternative options, suggesting the expansion of the Nordic Swan label to food
products and the introduction of a carbon label, but without success.
In the following, a revised version of an existing carbon label is proposed in order to
accommodate the need for enhanced environmental disclosure and to assist Danish
consumers in selecting low-carbon food products. The proposed carbon label is
derived from the British carbon-labeling scheme, which is certified by the Carbon
Trust, but introduces a traffic light ranking as commonly discussed in relation to
nutritional labeling. Beneath, different aspects of the proposed and current carbon
labels are discussed.
5.1 Carbon-Labeling
Carbon-labeling schemes are the end result of a complex process seeking to increase
transparency of greenhouse gas emissions, which involves carbon measurement,
footprinting, and labeling of products along the supply chain (Hornibrook et al.,
2013). Carbon footprinting refers to the measurement of the total emission of carbon
dioxide (and other greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and methane) caused by a
particular product throughout its life cycle (Wiedmann & Minx, 2008). The resulting
carbon label communicates the amount of carbon dioxide emitted during the
manufacturing, distribution, use and disposal of a product to the consumers
(Hornibrook et al., 2013). The label information is expected to help consumers
become conscious about how their product selections affect greenhouse gas
emissions, thereby providing them with a tool to identify low-carbon products

35.
34
(Kimura et al., 2010). Several studies have indicated the presence of a substantial
consumer demand for information regarding the carbon emissions of consumer
products. A Eurobarometer study on sustainable consumption and production found
that 72 percent of the respondents believed that labeling a product’s carbon emissions
should be mandatory in the future (European Commission, 2009; Van Loo et al.,
2014). Additionally, 72 percent of the respondents in a study by Gadema &
Oglethorpe (2011) expressed a preference for carbon labels on food products.
The likely need for improved disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions was illustrated
in a study by Tobler et al. (2011), showing that consumers generally believed that
avoiding excessive packaging had the strongest impact on the environment, whereas
foregoing meat were deemed the least environmentally beneficial. This relationship
has been disproved by numerous studies, as meat consumption is one of the most
environmentally harmful food behaviors (e.g. Röös & Tjärnemo, 2011; European
Commission, 2013; Ekelund et al., 2014).
There currently exist several different carbon-labeling schemes around the world. In
the United Kingdom, Carbon Trust – a private company set up by the government of
United Kingdom – created the world’s first carbon label that displayed the carbon
footprint on individual products (Carbon Trust, 2012). Other labeling schemes have
since follow suit, as initiatives taken by private companies, NGOs, or governments.
For example, the British conglomerate Tesco pledged in 2007 to put carbon labels on
its products. Although numerous products were labeled, the project was abandoned in
2012 due to insufficient support from other retailers and the complexity of carbon
measurement.
Carbon labels traditionally take one of three forms. In its simplest form, carbon
labeling communicates the greenhouse gas emissions associated with a product
throughout its life cycle. In a second form, the label communicates a commitment to
emissions reduction (Upham et al., 2011). In a third form, the label communicates the
product as being carbon neutral, which is typically accomplished through the
retirement of carbon credits or carbon offsetting. Especially, the third method has
been subjected to some criticism, as it often can be awarded without requiring
reductions in carbon emissions and instead can be accomplished through monetary
transactions. A focus group participant also stressed this fact and viewed it as being
very untrustworthy.

36.
35
“It is well-known that large corporations can purchase CO2 certificates and
thereby claim to be carbon neutral (…) it is merely deception” – male, 56
years, Aarhus.
The two other methods are also accompanied with certain potentially problematic
features. Notably, in the case of the first form, consumers are left to judge for
themselves what the carbon footprint score means, and whether the product is more
environmentally-friendly than other products (Kimura et al., 2010). Despite, the term
carbon footprint is familiar to many consumers, it is rarely fully understood
(Boardman, 2008). Presenting consumers with emission measurements in grams of
carbon can be problematic, if not accompanied by other information, as consumers
often struggle with relating the number to something quantifiable that they understand
(Hornibrook et al., 2013). The study by Gadema & Oglethorpe (2011) found
supporting evidence with 81 percent of respondents either strongly agreeing or
agreeing that understanding and comparing carbon footprint information was difficult
and confusing. The second form has the conspicuous advantage of securing a reliable
reduction in emissions seeing that the label-awarded company commits to certain
reduction target (Upham et al., 2011). Yet, it does not allow consumers to make
product comparisons or assist consumers in selecting low-carbon products, as carbon
intensive products also can be awarded the label.
The carbon label proposed here will adhere to the first form, thereby implying that it
will communicate the carbon emission of a product indicated in grams of carbon
dioxide. In an effort to accommodate the inherent difficulties of understanding the
emissions measurement, the proposed carbon label will implement a ranking scale
based on a traffic light coloring scheme, which is discussed in the following.
5.2 Traffic Light Ranking
Eco-labels have commonly taken a binary communication approach where consumer
products either are awarded a label or not. Labels such as the Nordic Swan or the
Danish Organic label inform consumers that products awarded this label is to be
preferred over non-labeled products with regards to environmental qualities. Thus, the
information is of a positive nature (Grankvist et al., 2004). However, this system does
not allow for consumers to compare the environmental properties of non-labeled
products. As the current market share of organic products in Denmark is 8 percent, it

37.
36
suggests that conventional food products still are the most preferred option
(Danmarks Statistik, 2014). Importantly, this does not imply that the environmental
qualities of conventional products are identical and that the choice of a conventional
product is environmentally insignificant.
In order to provide consumers with the possibility of assessing the environmental
properties of food products, the proposed carbon label will integrate a three-level rank
order, where products are ranked based on their environmental performance. The
system is adopted from the design of a traffic light, which most consumers are
expected to be well accustomed to. Therefore, the carbon label will either take a red,
yellow or green color. The red color is defined as: “compared to other products of the
same product type, this product emits 30 percent or more CO2 than the average”. The
CO2-emission associated with the yellow color is described as “average”, whereas the
green color is described as: “emits 30 percent or less CO2 than the average”. It is
expected that the green color will function similar to existing eco-labeling schemes,
where consumers with some basic knowledge of eco-labels associate the labeled
product with the implicit message “this product is ‘better’ or less negative for the
environment than the average product” (Grankvist et al., 2004). The new development
in the proposed carbon label is the incorporation of neutral (yellow) and negative
(red) labeling. The purpose of negative labeling is to make consumers refrain from
purchasing environmentally harmful products. Consumers may not be willing to pay
premium prices for better-than-average sustainability, but instead be willing to pay
more to avoid less-than-average sustainability (Prakash, 2002; Van Dam & De Jonge,
2014). The effect of negative labeling on consumer preference can be explained in
terms of negativity bias and prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979, Van Dam
& De Jonge, 2014). Accordingly, information of a negative nature has a greater effect
than neutral or positive information. In addition, people attend to negative information
more often and for a longer period of time than with positive information (Fiske,
1980). Consistent with loss aversion, negative labeling is expected to influence
consumer preferences more than positive labeling, although this depends on the
reference point of the individual (Grankvist et al., 2004). Studies conducted by
Grankvist et al. (2004) and Van Dam & De Jonge (2014) found evidence supporting
the notion that labeling the least environmentally friendly alternatives is more
effective in changing consumer behavior than positive labeling of environmental
friendly products.

38.
37
Individuals with a strong preference for eco-labeled are expected to be less affected
by negative labeling than mainstream consumers where conventional products are the
reference point (Grankvist et al., 2004; Van Dam & De Jonge, 2014). However, as
environmentally unconcerned individuals assumedly will be unaffected by
environmentally relevant information, the greatest effect is expected to be observed
amongst individuals with an intermediate environmental concern (Borin et al., 2011).
5.3 Mandatory Certification
The vast majority of labeling schemes are done on a voluntary basis with only few
exceptions (e.g. the EU Energy label). Voluntary labeling schemes imply a financial
cost to the producer, which often result in price premiums for consumers (Grankvist et
al., 2004). With the introduction of a three-level carbon label system it is considered
unlikely that producers would voluntarily have their product labeled with a red label
indicating that it “emits 30 percent or more CO2 than the average”. Therefore, in
order to implement a carbon label that not only includes positive labeling, but also
neutral and negative labeling, either regulation or strong corporate commitment is
needed. Regulation would involve prescribing all products to be classified within one
of the three categories. For example, the EU Energy label prescribes companies to
disclose the energy consumption of a product, which is then classified within specific
categories (A+++ to D). Tesco was an example of corporate commitment, as they
sought to carbon footprint all products carring their brand. This resulted in over 1,100
products being labeled, although they were not classified into a three-level system.
However, given the immense scope of the classification and to ensure a widespread
and simultaneous uptake, it would most likely require governmental regulation
(Gadema & Oglethorpe, 2011). Whether this is politically feasible can be questioned
and is thus an inherent limitation of the proposed carbon label. It should be noted that
the mandatory labeling scheme of the EU Energy label indicates that legislation is not
impossible. A mandatory three-level scheme would allow for any company that is not
labeled red to differentiate and dissociate their products from the environmentally
harmful ones (Van Dam & De Jonge, 2014). Furthermore, if consumers avoid
negatively labeled products it could spur product innovation in a more
environmentally friendly direction and perhaps drive environmentally harmful
products out of the market (Grankvist et al., 2004). This development has been

39.
38
observed with the EU Energy label, where the ranking scale had to be revised, as too
many products were ranked in the better categories. The products should be ranked in
comparison to other products of the same product type – for example coffee or apples.
While this may not be effective in steering consumer choices away from carbon
intensive product types such as beef, although the carbon emissions are indicated and
comparable, it could help consumers to identify the worst and best alternative within
the given product type. Likewise, this is deemed less controversial and thus more
politically realistic.
5.4 Methodological Challenges
Introducing a carbon label is by no means a simple matter and as a result some
methodological challenges should be acknowledged. The first and most important
challenge is the implementation of a reliable carbon-labeling program, which includes
measuring and verifying the carbon emissions of a product’s lifecycle (Cohen &
Vandenbergh, 2012). The typically applied scientific method of Life Cycle Analysis
(LCA) implies adding up the carbon emissions of a product from the production of
inputs to final consumption and disposal of waste (Brenton et al., 2009). However,
this process involves numerous assumptions, compromises, and limitations, especially
in regards to post-purchase carbon footprinting. There are inherent difficulties in
measuring the post-purchase carbon emissions, as it is dependent on how the product
is handled by the consumer. For example, whether the consumer recycles a recyclable
or partly recyclable product can significantly impact its actual environmental
friendliness. Another notable challenge is the cost of implementation and measure of
the carbon emissions of individual products. This requires substantial commitment
and funding from governmental agencies. Furthermore, it forces companies to
disclose their supply chains, which involves considerable work, as these can be rather
complex and intricate.
6. Hypotheses
Based on the theoretical review, it is expected that the proposed carbon label will
influence consumers’ product selections and increasingly direct them towards low-
carbon products and away from carbon-intensive products. This is expected to be
greatest among consumers who attach greater importance of environmental protection

40.
39
and/or have positive attitudes toward reducing CO2-emissions. Hence, it is
hypothesized:
H1 The carbon label influences consumers’ decision-making concerning
choice of coffee product.
H2 The more the consumer is concerned about the environment, the more
important a new carbon label will be in the choice of coffee product.
H3 Positive attitudes toward reducing CO2-emissions will increase the
importance of the carbon label in the choice of coffee product.
Furthermore, consumers reporting an extensive knowledge and use of eco-labels are
expected to attach a greater importance to a carbon label than consumers with limited
knowledge and use of eco-labels. Hence, it is hypothesized:
H4 The more the consumer know about other eco-labels, the more
important a new carbon label will be in the choice of coffee product.
H5 The more the consumer uses other eco-labels, the more important a
new carbon label will be in the choice of coffee product.
In accordance with the findings of Grankvist et al. (2004) and the reasoning
previously outlined, the importance of the carbon label is expected higher with the
inclusion of a traffic light ranking system than without. This effect is expected to be
strongest among consumers with an intermediate environmental concern, as highly
concerned consumers are often better able to assess the carbon-friendliness without a
ranking system and already have a reference point surrounding environmentally-
friendly products, whereas unconcerned consumers are anticipated to be unaffected by
environmental information. Hence, it is hypothesized:
H6 The impact of a new a new carbon label on the choice of a coffee
product is higher if it includes a traffic light ranking to stress the
relative CO2-emission.
H7 The largest effect of introducing a traffic light ranking, measured in the
importance of the carbon label in the choice of coffee product, is
observed among intermediately environmentally concerned
individuals.

41.
40
The process of adopting an eco-label involves several stages, which includes
understanding the meaning of the label, trusting the message it conveys, and forming
a positive attitude towards the label (Thøgersen et al., 2010; Grunert, 2011).
Knowledge rarely influences behavior directly and is instead expected to moderate the
relationship between attitudes and purchasing behavior. Extensive knowledge can
positively affect the attitude strength, thereby increasing the likelihood that it will be
activated in a given situation. Hence, it is hypothesized:
H8 Attitudes toward eco-labels are positively related to eco-label usage,
but the effect of this variable is moderated through knowledge of eco-
labels.
7. Discrete-Choice Experiment
In order to test the hypotheses, a discrete choice experiment was employed. Discrete-
choice experiments are often used in outcomes research to identify and evaluate the
relative importance of aspects of decision-making (Reed Johnson et al., 2013). A
discrete-choice model simulates a realistic buying situation, where consumers choose
between different product alternatives from a restricted product set (Sammer &
Wüstenhagen, 2006). The products vary within their product attributes and as a result
forces respondents to make tradeoffs in their decision-making. This allows the
researcher to calculate the relative importance of the specific product attributes in the
consumer’s evaluation of the product and thereby provide valuable insights into their
utility structure (Pelsmacker et al., 2006). Discrete-choice experiments typically
involve the following steps: determination of product attributes, specification of
attribute levels, and visual presentation of choice alternatives to respondents (Verma
et al., 2004).
Coffee was identified as the appropriate product for the experiment. It was selected
due to its widespread use among consumers and its environmental properties. Coffee
is traditionally produced outside Europe and therefore has to be transported great
distances before reaching Danish consumers. However, the choice of transportation
mode and production method can have profound impact on the environmental
friendliness of the product. As the current market share for organic coffee is around 8
percent, it suggests that the environmental performance of a coffee product is
considered by a sizeable group of consumers (Økologisk Landsforening, 2012). Given
the limitations of organic labels such as taking carbon emissions into account, it also

42.
41
proposes the usefulness of a carbon label in order to provide better disclosure of a
product’s actual environmental performance.
7.1 Attributes and Levels
A central aspect of discrete-choice experiments is identifying the combination of
attributes used in the survey. All attributes that could characterize the product ought to
be considered, but must be weighed against the practical limitations of cognitive
feasibility and the experimental design (Marshall et al., 2010). It is important to
identify attributes and attribute levels, which are realistic and meaningful to the
respondents, while limiting the number of attributes (Sammer & Wüstenhagen, 2006).
The attributes identified for present experiment were derived from the conducted
focus groups and balanced to fit the desired scope of the experiment (see Table 1).
The ideal discrete-choice experiment is symmetrical, which involves having the same
number of levels across attributes in order to avoid the number of relevance effect,
where attributes defined on more levels receives more importance (Orme, 2003). In
present experiment, complete symmetry was not accomplished, but no attribute is
expected to be weighed more important due to its number of attribute levels.
Table 1. Discrete choice design for coffee: attributes and attribute levels
The attribute levels within the price attribute were determined based on a store check,
while being regulated to avoid unrealistic combinations of attribute levels.
In Denmark, organic coffee is either labeled with the EU Organic label, the Danish
Organic label, or both. The Danish Organic label was preferred, as it is better known
and more used amongst Danish consumers. The attribute levels in the carbon label
attribute were based on data from the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries of
Attribute Attribute Levels
Price (in DKK) 32,-
38,-
44,-
Danish Organic Label No
Yes
Carbon Label 210g
150g
90g
Certification Organization Coop
WWF
Miljømærkning Danmark